Leak of CIA name being investigated - Agent’s identity was disclosed to journalists

Washington Post ^ | 09-28-03 | Mike Alan and Dana Priest

[Phsstpok]

(cough) carville talking points spin (cough)

This is their latest attack on our President. Don't fall for it. Don't encourage it.

[visualops]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 22, 2003

Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Q So you're saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that that is not the way that this President or this White House operates, and I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it.

Q Are you saying Novak was wrong in saying that it was two administration sources who were the source for --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea who "anonymous" is. I often wish --

Q It's not anonymous. He says senior administration officials.

MR. McCLELLAN: That would be anonymous.

Q Well, that would be senior administration --

Q Like the guy who briefed us last week?

MR. McCLELLAN: Whether it's anonymous senior administration officials or just anonymous sources, it's still anonymous.

Q Is Novak lying? Do you think he's making it up?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you our position. I'll let the columnist speak for himself.

Q You're saying, flatly, it did not happen, nobody --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you, flatly, that that is not the way this White House operates. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to that.

Q That's different from saying it didn't happen. Are you saying, absolutely, it did not happen?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature. And I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it. I want to make it very clear, that is simply not the way this White House operates.

Q If it turns out that somebody in the administration did do that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not even going to speculate about it, because I have no knowledge of any truth to that report.

Q What's the extent of your knowledge? Don't you want to get some more facts? I mean, how do you know that no one in the administration -- Robert Novak has been around for a long --

MR. McCLELLAN: If I could go find "anonymous," Terry, I would.

[snip]

Q Can you come back to the Ambassador Wilson issue for a second. As Ken suggested, it appears as though a federal crime may have been committed. Would the President support an investigation into the blowing of the cover of an undercover CIA operative?

MR. MCCLELLAN: John, I think that's suggesting that there might be some truth to the matter you're bringing up. I have seen nothing -- I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any truth to it. And certainly I want to make very clear --

Q Somebody told --

MR. MCCLELLAN: -- that no one, no one in this White House would be authorized to take such a step.

Q Right. But somebody blew her cover. And would the White House support an investigation into that?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I'd have to look into the specifics about whether or not that characterization is accurate when you're talking about someone's cover. But let me make it very clear, that's just not the way this White House operates.

Q Could you look into it?

MR. MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry. I'll be available later.

END 1:35 P.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-5.html

[visualops]

Q On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year -- quoting -- "anonymous government sources" telling him that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense, to burn the cover a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Q But did Karl Rove do it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030916-6.html

Q Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates. And certainly, I first became aware of those news reports when we were contacted by reporters and the questions were raised. It's the first I had heard of those. No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.

Q In all of those cases?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?

Q Joe Wilson and his wife?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q And Jeffrey Kofman from ABC.

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, if there's any truth to it, it's totally inappropriate. Second of all, I just made very clear, that's simply not the way we operate.

Q So that's a little bit of a change. You said if there's any truth to it, it's inappropriate, whereas just a moment ago --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, you were talking about the first one on I guess, the ABC reporter. And I had previously said that if that were true, it would be totally inappropriate. I'm not suggesting it is. I have no knowledge of anything to suggest that it is. Obviously, sometimes there are anonymous reports out there. I always wish I knew -- I could find out who anonymous was.

Q Are you trying to do an internal investigation to find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no reason to believe that there is any truth that that has happened. So if I thought that there was any reason to believe that something like that had happened, I would --

Q So you're saying that reporters just made it up?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- try to get to the bottom. Campbell, I just said that anonymous is someone I would like to know who that is, but it's usually a fruitless search.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030723-6.html


Plus see my other post with the press briefing excerpt.
The whole thing is bogus, and Novak was a pawn.

[J_Bravo]

YUCK. I hate McClellan. Can't we get Ari back? Ari would have these reporters crying in their boots.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Bingo!

[visualops]

True, but the point is, he's saying there is no story. First mention is in briefing in July, then again this month. All that time, and nothing has turned up. Magical, isn't it, how these "anonymous" sources come up with stuff that cannot be substantiated.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ari's comments sense living the White House haven't always been that filled with praise for the president. I think he plans on selling his book, in the future.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I thought Cheney's office chose Wilson. But, I may be wrong.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

sense= since OOPS!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The media and the democrats are truly beating a dead horse. At this point the poor horse needs to be exhumed, and trotted out once again to spin the yellowcake story.

[Rebelbase]

Did Bush purge the W.H. of all X42 appointees, staff, etc.? If not, then he deserves whatever happens by these people acting badly.

[visualops]

Since Sep 28, 2003


I smell troll.

[Phsstpok]

Q Right. But somebody blew her cover. And would the White House support an investigation into that?

for me this is the crux of the democrat lie being used to spin this. She was NOT an undercover field operative. She was/is an analyst working Washington, married to a frigging ambassador from the Clinton admin. She ain't an undercover anything. She wasn't working undercover anywhere, not even within the US, and no one has said the she has ever worked undercover anywhere at anytime. That's what the law being dragged about by the dems is about.

Funny. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law. Not a question. The folks that gave him the so called "Pentagon Papers" not only broke a law, but could be said to have committed treason. I never heard the dims shouting for their heads. This is a put up story. The premise is a lie.

[Rebelbase]

"I saw somewhere that some people did get killed."

You're confusing this with the trail of murders and suicide that permetated the Clinton administration.

[mass55th]

"I thought Cheney's office chose Wilson. But, I may be wrong."

I don't believe it says that in the article. According to the article: "Wilson said he believes an inquiry from Cheney’s office launched his eight-day mission to Niger in February 2002 to check the uranium claim..."

It says nothing about Cheney's office choosing Wilson or asking for him, only that there was an inquiry from Cheney's office, and I'm assuming that the inquiry was made through the CIA...not to Wilson directly.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Welcome to Freerepublic.

Freerepublic's atmosphere is generally enhanced when people have thoughtful, intelligent, and insightful things to say.

[visualops]

janek is a troll, who signed up to make a post to spread a lie.

[visualops]

Moral relativity is very convenient.