Posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA (Harlow) says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.
So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.' " According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.
The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact."
The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.
Novak is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington.
Yes there is. Ex-smokers and ex-whores.
The CIA assassinated JFK? Sounds like Oliver Stone.
Judith Miller is protecting someone....perhaps Joe Wilson himself?
Who peed in your cheerios?
So much for compassionate Conservatism. Quite frankly I don't care if someone like's Rush or not or what side of the argument you might be on, but that is just wrong.
ping
Wilson should be indicted for perjury IMHO.
MEMO TO JUDITH MILLER:
Journalists are NOT above the law and all of you snotty twits are NOT superior to the rest of us. You can testify under oath or you can stay in jail for awhile longer. If it were up to me you would never emerge from that jail until you testify. Unfortunately, I fear the law will only allow you to be kept there until the Grand Jury is finished its work, so you are hoping to outlast it..... THAT is a travesty of justice which should not be allowed. Why don't you just tell us all which 'Rat(s) you are protecting??? Is it Joe Wilson and/or Valerie Plame? Is it some other lib mole in the CIA or State Dept.??? Some leftist pal in the MSM? Tell us, Judith, inquiring minds demand to know and the Grand Jury needs to complete its work properly and accurately.
According to her boss at the CIA she was NOT covert at the time, but let's not confuse them with the facts.
Yes, the Wilson wealth (pre-book) is very fishy! I raise some related questions in a post I wrote before I got to yours:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1454575/posts?q=1&&page=251
"According to her boss at the CIA she was NOT covert at the time, but let's not confuse them with the facts."
True. That being the case why did the CIA demand an investigation for somebody outing her????
Read an article recently that the referring letter asking the DOJ to investigate did not cite the covert agent law.
I'll see if I can find it.
Leak Investigation: The Russert Deal—What It Reveals
excerpt:
Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.
~snip~
I would just add that Newsweek is being narrow-minded by just considering that the only people who have testified that might have made false statements and/or obstructed justice come from the WH.
My only point is IF Newsweek's source is correct that the CIA request for an investigation did not cite the covert agent law, then perhaps my initial thoughts on why the CIA wanted the investigation was broader from the start (perhaps leaks emanating from their agency), nevermind Newsweek's lame attempt to interpret facts as always weighing against an honest WH.
That's why I posted it! Compassionate conservatism? I guess that is the kind that says that Rush is fine with his drug use, but don't you even think about toking that joint! You'll go to jail...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.