Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Wilson War Continues [CIA/FBI investigate White House]
Time Magazine ^ | September 27, 2003 | Timothy J. Burger

Posted on 09/27/2003 4:07:19 PM PDT by AntiGuv

The DOJ opens a preliminary probe into whether the White House illegally unmasked a CIA operative

The Justice Department has opened a preliminary inquiry into whether a Bush Administration official illegally revealed the identity of a CIA employee whose husband criticized the Administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq, TIME has learned. The probe will determine whether to order a full-fledged FBI investigation.

The CIA triggered the Justice inquiry with a memo saying that there may have been an unauthorized disclosure about the wife of Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador. Columnist Robert Novak wrote in July that Wilson's wife was a CIA "operative" who suggested that he be sent to Niger to investigate intelligence that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy a large volume of Niger's yellowcake uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

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. After Wilson wrote an op-ed over the summer criticizing the Administration's handling of the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction progam, Novak wrote that "two administration officials" told him Wilson's wife had suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.

The CIA is required to notify Justice if it believes there may have been an unauthorized disclosure. The notification was first reported Friday by MSNBC. The White House has denied being a source of any story about Wilson's wife.

CIA and Justice spokespersons declined comment, but an Administration official told TIME that the Justice is conducting a preliminary inquiry to "determine whether or not there should be an investigation" by the FBI.

Wilson would not discuss his wife and said he knew nothing about any investigation. But, he said, "It was clear to me from the beginning that this was really done as a signal to others who might step forward,” to criticize the Administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cia; fbi; josephwilson; plamegate; robertnovak; valerieplame; whitehouse; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: 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.
101 posted on 09/28/2003 8:51:15 AM PDT by Asclepius (karma vigilante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
The White House should apologize, boot the guilty person, and move on.

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.

102 posted on 09/28/2003 10:17:51 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: seamole
proof?
103 posted on 09/28/2003 10:44:56 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Joe Wilson will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Live tomorrow morning at 0745 Eastern for 45 minutes.

Iraq Reconstruction

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.

104 posted on 09/28/2003 10:48:42 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Joe Wilson will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Live tomorrow morning at 0745 Eastern for 45 minutes.

Iraq Reconstruction

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.

105 posted on 09/28/2003 10:49:16 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo speculates that George Tenet is the one leaking to the Washington Post and elaborates on the bases of this speculation.
106 posted on 09/28/2003 10:51:22 AM PDT by DoktorLaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Actually should be ruh roh Karl. The CIA is pissed. They will want a scapegoat.

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.

107 posted on 09/28/2003 11:02:49 AM PDT by Phsstpok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Truly amazing ~ you missed my take on this case completely. My original response was way back on July 22, 2003, at 2:40 PM. It was #8 out of 25 posts.

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!

108 posted on 09/28/2003 2:25:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Here we go again. Time magazine is incapable of keeping their facts straight. What a shock!

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?

109 posted on 09/28/2003 3:44:47 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
I make no apologies for anyone but what evidence to you have to name Karl Rove as the culprit?
110 posted on 09/28/2003 4:05:04 PM PDT by JonH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JonH
Wilson has stated that he wants to see Karl Rove led out by handcuffs from the White House. Why Karl Rove? Those 6 reporters who turned down the leak before Novak took it, might have had a little talk with Joseph Wilson. They probably turned down Rove because it was sleazy, and fed it to Wilson. That is why he is so sure it's a Rove operation.

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.

111 posted on 09/28/2003 4:14:04 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
A lot of people dislike Karl Rove and would like to see him busted or disgraced. He is not the media's friend but he does know how to use them. Regardless, I would think he is too smart for direct involvement in such leaks. I would guess some lower level person(s) will "take the fall".
112 posted on 09/28/2003 4:22:11 PM PDT by JonH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Wilson would not discuss his wife and said he knew nothing about any investigation. But, he said, "It was clear to me from the beginning that this was really done as a signal to others who might step forward,” to criticize the Administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.

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.

113 posted on 09/28/2003 4:36:18 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
not leak their assets

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.

114 posted on 09/28/2003 4:38:34 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seamole
May the Wilsons fry like the Rosenbergs.

Bless you. Someone who sees the bad guys!

115 posted on 09/28/2003 4:39:21 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
The names of 4 of the reporters are:

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?

116 posted on 09/28/2003 4:41:46 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
And the White House has a right to expect that the CIA will not to undermine its policies.

Exactly.

117 posted on 09/28/2003 4:43:24 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Oh you mean undermining by saying that the WMD threat was overstated?

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.

118 posted on 09/28/2003 4:52:00 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
When Hillary is accused it will be more likely she did something wrong.

Isn't it amazing that Wilson is tight with the clintons, btw?

I go by the individual adminstrations. Leveling the same accusation at both does not make both guilty. The Bush administration's track record is a law abiding one. If someone did break a law I expect them to be prosecuted, but I just don't think that will be the finding in this case.
119 posted on 09/28/2003 4:56:01 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Wilson said he suspects it was Rove, based on info from other journalists other than Novak who were peddled the story.

Which is more evidence of what Wilson is trying to do here.

You'll see.

120 posted on 09/28/2003 5:00:34 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson