Posted on 09/27/2003 4:07:19 PM PDT by AntiGuv
Their very lives depend on it and if you think this is just gonna go away, you are wrong.Then they should be more careful with their lives. Undermining the policies of a sitting president is dangerous business if you are a CIA op. You play the game, you take the risks.
That's fine, if there is a guilty person in the WH. The WH has denied that Novak's source is a WH staffer. Novak isn't saying who his source is. It is only Wilson who has implicated Rove, saying his goal is to see Rove "duck-walked off the WH grounds."
Be sensitive to the possibility that a dicey game of disinformation is in play here. Wilson named Rove, possibly only to elevate the profile of the case. Novak only named "senior administration officials," not "senior WH officials."
I find it hard to believe that Rove, who along with Andrew Card has overseen a basically scandal free operation in the WH, would stumble over a Federal law just to get Wilson. We need to wait and see if anyone has independent proof that an actual WH staffer leaked this info.
Wilson, Joseph, Ambassador (Fmr.), Iraq, United States
Mr. Wilson will talk about reconstruction efforts in Iraq. He is critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the situation.
Wilson, Joseph, Ambassador (Fmr.), Iraq, United States
Mr. Wilson will talk about reconstruction efforts in Iraq. He is critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the situation.
I believe that the CIA is, right now, the most dangerous of the institutions still controlled by the Clintonistas. The Clintons systematically set about putting their people in charge of most of the organs of governement during their 8 years and the Dems, particularly in the Senate, have spent much of their effort the last 3 years in trying to slow down or defeat the Bush administration from replacing them.
The federal courts are the most glaring example of this tactic, but it applies to all the organ of the goverment. Remember the line about "that's our military now"? That's why the election of 2004 is so important. This is a strategy that can be maintained for only a short term. If Bush wins re-election then he really has a chance to change the whole infrastructure.
As with the war on terrorism it's all about infrastructure. Hence Irag. We've got to destroy their power base.
This might have been the original article titled "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover" by Robert Novak
My post was: Posted by muawiyah to princess leah On News/Activism 07/22/2003 2:40 PM EDT #8 of 25" What I said in response to a claim very similar to yours was:
"Nonsense, her life is no more at risk today than it was last week when she was telling her husband, retired career ambassador Wilson, about discussions she knew about between Mr. Foley (her boss) and Mr. Joseph, the gentleman on Condoleeza Rice' staff concerning the suspect "16 words". The Wilson's actions here might well be construed as espionage conducted against the NSC, and that might well put her life at some risk if W decides to prosecute."
So far no one has come up with anything that says that Mrs. Wilson was NOT the source of the information concerning highly confidental discussions between Mr. Foley and Mr. Joseph.
However, Mr. Wilson came up with this stuff at the time, so he must have gotten it from Mrs. Wilson.
Although he appeared on a Sunday morning talking head show and repeated the story given to him by his wife, Mr. Wilson simply was not privileged to receive the information nor to publish it. You and I shouldn't even know about it!
There was a crime here but I don't think it had much to do with blowing Mrs. Wilson's cover.
BTW, they only give you 10 years for this ~ they give you much more for revealing information provided to the IRS. It's not like this is a major crime, and it's probably not the case that anyone has ever gotten the 10 year penalty, if any!
Wilson found no evidence that Saddam was seeking yellowcake — the International Atomic Energy Agency later determined this was probably untrue — but the CIA and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice failed to fully vet the intelligence and President Bush used it in his State of the Union Address this year.
First, Wilson's "report" said he did not think a transaction had been done. Second, President Bush did not "use it" in his SOTU speech. He referenced "British Intelligence".
And notice how Time ignores Wilson's column in the far left publication "The Nation". Written in February, 2003. That would be AFTER the SOTU speech. In that piece Wilson says not one word about any contradiction between his "report" and the president's speech. Interesting, no?
The media know who it is. If you read the Washington Post story carefully, the person who leaked to them, told them who the 2 leakers were, but refused to allow them to print the names. There are 2 journalists right there who know. The 6 including Novak who were originally peddled the story. At least several people at the White House including the W.P. leaker know. There must be several, otherwise, he couldn't leak anonymously, because the 2 on the CIA story would know right away who did it.
Many many people know who did it. They are hinting at Rove, without saying Rove because they can't do so.
All the stories you see filed by Washington Journalists, you have no idea which of them were part of the 6.
Sooooo. Why didn't Wilson raise the alarm on the Administration's "handling of intelligence" when he wrote his screed in The Nation?
Here is the sequence of events:
Wilson goes to Niger in 2002 and reports he does not believe a sale could have taken place due to safeguards in place.
Britain notes that Wilson had an earlier encounter two years before where he was alerted Iraq was seeking to open trade with Niger. Since Niger's main exports are chickens and uranium, Wilson thought at the time Iraq was in fact seeking to purchase uranium from Niger at that time. Wilson omits this information from his famous editorial penned in June.
The State of the Union speech is end of January 2003.
Wilson writes an anti-war column for "The Nation" two weeks later. He does not raise any questions about his "findings" (or lack thereof) in Niger and the president's representations in his speech.
Think about that! Wilson wants to head off war. Why not, if his charges are true, does he not reveal it then?
The fact of the matter is he is spinning his role and findings and he wrote an op-ed to do it after major combat was already over.
When he revealed he was sent by the CIA somebody did indeed find out his wife was a CIA operative. I contend the WH would not do anything illegal or unethical. I base this on their history of behavior. But the information came out and contrary to the new spin, it has a great deal to do with his credibility and desire to find out the truth of the matter.
And, as I just posted on another thread, I have to question the loyalty of a CIA operative whose spouse is penning anti-war columns on the eve of war to be published in "The Nation". It does not seem right and is very troubling.
They didn't.
But before you call her an "asset", consider her husband was working against this administration writing anti-war columns for The Nation, for God's sake.
How much of an "asset" was she?
I wonder how her identity did come to be known, but I do know who is appearing ethical and who is not, and to me it is the Wilsons (Plame-Wilson if you prefer) who look hinky.
Bless you. Someone who sees the bad guys!
Dean, Jehl, Krugman, Novak
Here's Valerie's email address from back when she was still "covert" (and having twin daughters, and home on maternity leave ~ hardly doing the work of an undercover WMD operative) ~ jvwilsoniv@cs.com
There is no "secret" stuff in this and no one's life was at risk. Rather, my surmise, that it involved the Wilson's conducting espionage against the NSC is more likely the case! Let's add John Dean to the mix and there can be no doubt what's really going on ~ hey, I already did that ~ John Dean is ON THE LIST.
Is it possible a couple of the other names are ~ dare I say it ~ Woodward and Bernstein.
John, do I get the prize, eh?
Exactly.
Please read what Joseph Wilson was saying to Bill Moyers in February 2003.
Again, after the SOTU speech, before the war.
Wilson agrees there are WMD in this interview, as he does in his column he writes in "The Nation". His only disagreement in February 2003 is going to war when he is urging "containment".
In Depth — Transcript, February 28, 2003, Bill Moyers talks with Joseph C. Wilson, IV
EXCERPT:
MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I...
MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?
WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.
Which is more evidence of what Wilson is trying to do here.
You'll see.
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.