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.
I don't think there is a single rational soul alive who think the president was in any way involved with this, so he does not need protection here. Somebody on staff was a loose cannon. It is better to remove said person, then to stonewall the CIA, FBI, and now DOJ.
Situational ethics are Clintonian. We really need to expect better behaviour. The CIA tried to undercut the president, because they felt the WMD case was weak. That pissed off the white house. The White House (agents with in it), reacted illegally with the leak to Novak. Period. The White House should apologize, boot the guilty person, and move on. Those asking for a stonewall, should recall that the coverup is almost always worse than the crime. The person who did this getting booted now will be forgotten by November 2004. If this is stonewalled, and an investigation stretches all througout next summer, it will be a campaign issue.
I don't, the CIA doesn't, and it looks like the justice department and the FBI agree.An investigation about whether to investigate hardly constitutes "agreement". Besides, as the investigation becomes more and more embarrassing for our highly politicized CIA, it will simply vanish, vanish as easily as a corrupt CIA ops' so-called cover.
I always use the Hillary factor on these stories. That is what pisses so many bots off. If Hillary did something like this, what would my reaction be. Would I defend it, deny it, ignore it, or what?
It should be investigated, prosecuted, punished.
On the other hand, if the CIA, knowing full well that the information came from Wilson or his wife, launches an investigation, they will be able to discredit Wilson and Plame, his wife. Perhaps they will also nab other operatives who are working to undermine the war on terror.
You need to think things through carefully when dealing with the CIA. I tend to think Tenet is PO'd at Wilson and is using a PR friendly method of launching an investigation.
Obstruction of justice. He knows that the crime was committed and who committed it. The only thing standing between the perps' and arrest is Novak's willful contemptible obstruction of justice.
That is the meat of what I am asking. Say like I said earlier, that the CIA sent a man to Sudan, and he reported that it wasn't a weapons plant. George Stephanopholus retaliated by leaking to David Broder, that the agent's wife was a CIA employee. It wasn't proven, but everybody was pretty sure he did it, and it is against the law to reveal an agent, be they an analyst, undercover agent, or what have you.
What would your reaction be? The same as now? No big deal, let's forget about it? It is either right or wrong to do this. Not right for the (R) wrong for the (D). I just want to be clear on this when the rats do this.
Two administration officials could be CIA administration officials. Why assume White house?
And therein lies the rub. If it was the Clintons, it would never be investigated, prosecuted, or punished. My question: why would the CIA send an former "acting" ambassbor to do CIA field work anyway? I think the Wilsons are scum.
That is because she, and he, did it for personal gain, albeit mostly political, but gain in favor of the Democratic party.
They will probably take a trip on a gurney in Terre Haute before this is all over.
Why are you defending these two Clintonistas anyway?
However, I don't believe that Karl Rove, or anyone else involved with the White House, did any such thing.
I believe Novak got the information from Wilson himself, who was trying to ratchet up his credibility.
I am quite content for the DOJ to investigate. I remain confident that the truth will show who was the culprit, and I don't believe it was the White House.
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.