|
|
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.
NO TO MRS. CLINTON AND MR. CLINTON!
THE CONFUSING WILSON STORY [Ramesh Ponnuru]Hmmm. This seems like Mr. Wilson was really got this ball rolling himself. In and of itself, we may be able to say that he wasn't thinking, misspoke, and this whole thing has been blown out of proportion (which, undoubtedly, it has).
I understood Novak not to be denying that Plame/Wilson is involved in covert ops but to be saying that a CIA source had given him to understand that she was merely an analyst--a very different thing. Did whatever administration official spoke to Novak realize what her job was? If not, does his ignorance save him from breaking the law? There is rather a lot that's murky in this story. The Washington Post reports 1) that Joseph Wilson says that Andrea Mitchell, among others, told him that the administration had told her about his wife's job and 2) that Mitchell had reported that Wilson was saying that the administration had told reporters about his wife's job. So Mitchell's source was Wilson, but Wilson's source was Mitchell?
Source: The Corner, 09/29/2003 05:53 PM
But, then you consider his positions, his politics, and the statements that he has made, as well as the now-denied but strategic name drop of "Karl Rove", it begins to appear that, indeed, maybe he was purposefully effort to get a ball rolling.
The truth of the matter is that Mr. Wilson has now admitted (but only when he was pressed on the issue) that he had absolutely no proof that Karl Rove was remotely involved. In fact, he claimed that he got carried away during a speech (which basically means he made it up). It becomes readily apparent that Mr. Wilson is a) an incompetent, b) a liar, c) an idiot, or d) an incompetent and idiotic liar. Take your pick.
He wrote the original story that has caused this whole dust up. People will (and have) malign(ed) his position as being in Bush's camp, but this is hardly the case. In fact, he opposed the war in Iraq, just as Mr. Wilson had, except for different (more legitimate) reasons.
The following notice was sent to all White House employees:
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
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
-----------------------------------
The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel to the President's office. The President has directed full cooperation with this investigation.
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant. Technically, the law does not apply. That's why the CIA wasn't very forceful when it told Novak "it wouldn't be a good idea" to publish.
Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact. Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked.
Clifford May has asked the question, "Who didn't know?" This was really the original reference to the cocktail party circuit. Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Analysts aren't operatives and, thus, don't have the same legal implications.
The investigation has been launched to determine if there was a violation of Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421 which EXPLICITLY notes that the violation of law only applies to "covert agent".
As noted in several posts on this thread, the demoCREEPs are calling her an "undercover agent" or "operative" (which has a covert connotation), as opposed to CIA employee or her acknowledged, current position of "analyst". That is the language game they are playing. They are going to call her an "operative" or "undercover agent", then they will finally point to the law (section 421 cited above) and say, "See, it's illegal." Their cohorts in the media are going right along (see the Gergen/Van Sustern comment in post #3 by .cnI redruM).
The presence of an investigation means nothing. The investigation should reveal that 1) she is a covert agent, 2) she is NOT a covert agent, or 3) she was a covert agent at one time, but isn't anymore.
The law would only be violated if they find #1 to be true. If the investigation reveals #2 or #3 to be true, then no law was broken and the reporting of Mr. Wilson's wife, considering that she talk to him about going to Niger about the Yellowcake, is entirely appropriate.
|
|
It does? How? All this says is, "don't stonewall and cooperate".
I agree with your comments about the application of this law...it only applies if she was a covert operative. There is no way that the CIA would have even acknowledge her existence if she was a covert or undercover agent. I don't even think that they would acknowledge it if she was, at one time, an undercover agent.
The tacit admission that she worked for the CIA is quite telling as to the status of her employment. The known social circles are just an additional reason to (rightly) believe that she was nothing more than an analyst.
Ockham's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". Translation, "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". In other words, the idea that the simplest or most obvious explanation of several competing ones is the one that should be preferred until it is proven wrong.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
The president could be in trouble. Getting some Nixon deja vu.
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.