Posted on 09/30/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by mattdono
I need to see more than what's out there to think this is anything like the big deal the press and the Democrats are making it out to be. I'm all in favor of having the Justice Department investigate. I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression. Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already.
It seems to me that the energy driving this is A) Obvious Democratic opportunism and scandal-hunger B) Media opportunism as this is the first Bush "scandal" that isn't manufactured outside the White House (could someone explain what Bush did wrong on Enron again?) C) A burning desire to flesh out a fleshless storyline that the Bush White House clamps down on "dissenters" D) An even more burning desire to make Karl Rove into the Sid Blumenthal of this administration.
Which brings us to another issue: comparisons between this administration and the last. First of all, Rove is not Blumenthal for several reasons but the most important is that Rove's got real power. Blumenthal was a Tolkieneque Wormtongue at best and more likely a slipper-carrier. On the larger front, I will be able to take only so much sermonizing from liberals over this scandal considering the fact that the last White House knowingly filed false criminal charges against inconvenient employees (the Travel Office), invented new privileges and abused old ones to stonewall at ever turn (Bush is commanding full cooperating), and generally accused critics of every form of bad faith imaginable.
So yes, by all means investigate what I predict will be a very minor story. But let's not pretend the Republic is in danger.
Then why does anybody ever have any credibility talking about anonymous sources?
The fact is that people at the CIA asked Mrs. Wilson to talk to Mr. Wilson about going to Niger to investigate the Yellowcake claims is a part of the story that seems to be getting no play.
The reason why Novak wrote about this was because Wilson rebuked the Yellowcake evidence put forward by British intelligence and repeated in the now-famous "16 words" in the SOTU address.
She is a crux of why he went their to begin with and his . She is an integral part of the story. So, when Novak revealed that she was a CIA employee (including her name), it was part of the story.
Releasing her name, in light of the fact that so many people in Washington D.C. (and even Mr. Wilson's own biography) knew her name and what she did might not have been the best journalistic decision, but it was hardly "do not publish" information. Even the CIA said that they would prefer that he didn't release the name, but didn't insist on it.
Novak, while maintaining his journalistic intregrity, would have likely excluded the name if the CIA explained the potential national security issue. He would have likely said, "Wilson, whose wife works with CIA..." The fact (indisputable fact) is that the CIA didn't do so...they merely preferred that he not mention it.
It's disgusting.
They also have said, "a criminal investigation to see if the White House blew an operatives cover". There is a necessary implication that this woman was an undercover operative, when, in fact, all evidence shows her as an analyst, not an operative.
The normal rules of credibility shift when a reporter's story becomes a political issue. Novak triggered this investigation by his column. He cannot take his match back and undo the fire he started. The only think he can do is tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He is not doing that so he has no credibility to limit the damage in the fire he started.
I'm not forgetting anything. I know that the CIA knows her work status. That's part of the point. THEY (the CIA) was the first group that acknowledge her employment. They would NEVER have acknowledged her employment if she was a covert agent. Period.
Since that's the case, one has to wonder why they've asked for an investigation if Plame is nothing more than an analyst. If no laws have been broken, why waste the DOJ's time?
Why?
Because the democrats have made it a national security issue.
The CIA is (rightly) punting to the DOJ since its own people gave out the information. They can't conduct an investigation becase 1) it is a domestic issue and 2) it would be imprudent, because they are a party involved in the situation.
And if there's nothing to the case, why has the DOJ turned it over to the FBI for investigation? Why is the DOJ wasting the FBI's time, if there's nothing to the case?
As far as the investigation itself, this is the normal course of action with this type of accusation (especially considering the "hot" political nature of the accusation).
Also, the CIA refers matters like this to the DOJ over 50 times PER YEAR. The DOJ investigates each referral with whatever means is appropriate, with the FBI conducting many of these investigations.
Your implication that an investigation is smoke, so there must be some fire is simply too presumptuous.
By the way, the investigation only needs to determine if Mrs. Wilson is an undercover/covert agent. If she isn't, then the accusations are moot (see the actual law in question Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421).
Please read the actual law in question before you respond.
NOVAK RESPONDS: 'NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED ME TO LEAK THIS'
Mon Sep 29 2003 16:44:51 ET
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
"Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
That would be sweet, and if so don't just fire them. Prosecute them for whatever is possible, charge them for the cost of the investigation, and make them work it off by breaking big rocks into little rocks on opposite ends of Alaska(and from what I hear it wouldn't be needed, but make sure they have lots of mosquito and black fly attractant during that season ;-).
You said, "His "denial" is simply that they didn't contact him to give him the info - they volunteered it in conversation about the Wilson matter".
Novak's statement says:
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."
It doesn't say that the administration official gave them the name, rather, that Mr. Wilson's wife was the inspiration for his trip to Niger. This is absolutely true. Senior CIA officials asked her to discuss it with them. It is also known, through Mr. Wilson's own biography, that his wife's name is Valarie Plame, not to mention to the Washington D.C. cocktail circuit.
In a few posts, I had the order wrong. The administration official indicated that the wife was the inspiration for Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. That's it. Novak could have already known or found Wilson's wife's name (by a simple Google search). Then he confirmed that detail with the CIA, with the CIA only preferring him not publishing the name, not insisting that it not be published due to national security concerns. "Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
Unless they are going after the missing WMDs, I think Iran is next on the plate(unless Lil' Kim throws a tantrum).
You are taking Novak at his word. But this is a bit inconsistent with the CIA requesting the investigation.
The whole statement says, "We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee."
That statement is reiterating what the accusation is, not that these are the facts of the situation. The DOJ has opened an investigation. The investigation is to look into IF there was an unauthorized disclosure of an undercover CIA employee's identity.
The investigation is likely to conclude that NO unathorized disclosure occurred, because the law pertains to "covert agents", not analysts and Mrs. Wilson was/is an analyst.
Hence, even if an administration official had named Mrs. Wilson, it wouldn't matter because she was an analyst and the law (Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421) doesn't apply to analysts.
Please read Novak's most recent statement to see that he said, ""According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
Not at all. The CIA requests investigations like this 50 times per year. Considering the high-profile aspects of this situation, regardless of its veracity, it has to be investigated.
As I have noted, the CIA is not only following the typical and established protocol, they also will be investigated. The CIA itself confirmed the involvement of Mrs. Wilson in the trip to Niger and when doing so didn't insist on NOT publishing the name. So, they may be responsible as well.
I would add that the media will typical censor itself, if they understand there to be a legitimate and expressed concern over national security. They aren't likely to squash the story, rather they will usually allude to "a government official" or "a CIA operative".
What's telling is that they didn't insist on this with Mr. Novak. As noted on this thread (though with misdirected use), the CIA surely knew her employment status and the fact that they didn't assert the national security concern to Mr. Novak is a near tacit admission that national security was NOT a concern. Period.
Has Novak's story changed? Well, I guess. However, his statement from this morning seems very clear about his understanding of Mrs. Wilson's position and responsibility:
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
Everyone seems to be having trouble with this, so let me do this...
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
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.