Wilson/Plame/CIA: Something's Rotten

Something is very rotten, and mostly unreported in the Wilson/Plame leak case. Stephen Hayes has written three very fine articles about Joe Wilson, his lack of credibility and the CIA's hypocrisy and what would seem obvious role in the leak investigation. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/281pokap.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/266weygj.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/244chpdw.asp

Now, to what's rotten: Before we all move on or get too narrowly focused, and I know it's not part of the indictment, however, two aspects of the whole affair (which I think are critically important) that have gotten short shrift by all reporters are these:

1. Why was there no written report from Wilson upon his return from Niger, only an oral debriefing? Is this (can this be) standard operating procedure? Only the debriefers notes evidently were somewhat passed up the chain.

Reporters should have been asking or at least reporting: 1. Is this CIA standard practice on what was apparently a serious matter? 2. How often does the CIA send someone on a fact finding mission and not require written observations? This type of sloppy procedure should have set off alarm bells that something was afoot!

2. Why and how often does the CIA send anyone on a "fact-finding" mission and not require some sort of written non-disclosure agreement? Wouldn't this type of trip have been classified? Per the narrative in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, although the matters themselves were classified (the whole Iraq/Niger potential relationship), the CIA assured Wilson it would keep his role (working for it) secret, yet the CIA did not require that Wilson sign non-disclosure, confidentiality agreements. How does this make any sense!: The area of interest is classified, we will keep your involvement with us secret, but you are free, evidently, to talk and write about the classified issues and your involvement with us! And nobody in the oh so vaunted media picks up on this? In whose world does this make any sense!

Are we to assume that the lead foreign intelligence agency, the CIA, requires no written documentation of its agents and representatives, when dealing with foreign nations? In a town like DC where it appears every little meeting and phone conversation is written down, how is this possible? How can anyone else independently verify an oral report?

Or does that give the game away? A written report can't be used against someone, so his verbal statements can fluctuate depending on circumstances at his choosing.

These questions get to the heart of the Wilson trip and its intent and suggest that from the CIA's perspective the Wilson trip and his willingness to talk about it and lie about it fit the CIA's bill: point the fingers away from the CIA (where they most definitely were in 2001 and 2002) and at anyone else ... the WH was as good as anyone else.

This is the real story, because if this shoddiness and rogue behavior is the rule and not the exception for the CIA, it should be disbanded! Every thing else is a deliberate political misdirection!

Investigate the CIA - It was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling ^
	Posted by Jim Robinson On News/Activism ^ 11/03/2005 1:51:17 AM EST · 74 replies · 1,525+ views Wall Street Journal ^ \| November 3, 2005 \| By VICTORIA TOENSING <p>In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling.</p>

It is encouraging to see Victoria Toensing's article today, Zell Miller's yesterday, Powerline's blog today and the article today in American Thinker ("Wilson Gambit"). Proper attention is finally being paid to what are the core issues in this whoel affair. It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to dismiss the import of the indictments. The issues being raised over the last few days would be highly critical even if there had been no indictments.

What hopefully also gets flushed out as these lines of inquiry are pursued is the underlying (primary?)political motivation of the Wilsom disclosures. It seems telling that in May 2003 Wilson became an unpaid advisor to Kerry (per Boston Globe article) and speaks on background to Kristof of the NYT effectively starting this whole affair and laying the groundwork for the Democratic claim that Bush lied or twisted pre-war intelligence. This exchange from the Wash. Post 4/3/2003 is very revealing:
"Mr. Wilson
Thank you for taking our questions. What happens if we do not find weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq?
Joseph C. Wilson: Whether we find them or not is now immaterial. The
liberation is now the rationale. If we don't find them, discussion about
them will cease and we will focus on the other reasons the administration
has articulated. If we do find them, world public opinion will only change
on the margins."

Throw into the mix the Rockefeller memo about how to use the Senate's investigation for political advantage and more and more questions arise.

But what begs the question are these: (1) What happened between April 3, 2003 (Wilson's Wash Post interview) and May 6, 2003 (Kristof's NYT piece in which Wilson was an unidentified source); (2) How did Kristof and Wilson hookup? How did Kristof get wind of the fact that a former ambassador was sent to Niger? Did Wilson shop this info, did the CIA?

Remember what was happening back then. From day one of our move into Iraq, the press was singularly focused on "have we found the WMD yet". The war ultimately went so well and quickly that the media which had been shrieking about Quagmire, thousands of servicemen to be killed, etc. was again looking foolish. To dampen the public opinion which was solidly behind the troops and enthusiastic at how quickly Saddam's statue was toppled, the media looked for every opportunity to report negative stories: looting, possible Stalingrad like seige in Bahgdad, no smiles and flowers greetings, etc.

WMD then became the rallying point for anti-Bush forces, a way to blunt the clear victory. So here is where everything starts: Wilson's claims, Wilson working with Kerry, background sourcing, Bush lied and on and on.

Wilson and Kristof met at a Senate Democratic Policy Committee Conference in D.C. Wilson told Kristof about his trip and said that he could write about it, but not name him.

I think at that point he was trying to get the propaganda out without having his name attached. When Cheney denied ever seeing the report, Wilson came out with his op-ed.

Wilson really burned Kristof, who went on tv and radio stating he had confirmed with those directly involved that Cheney knew about the supposed debunking and still went ahead with the 16 words.

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.