Posted on 09/30/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by mattdono
Fine. I have a brother who was in military intelligence, and he's always said the same. Nor was he supposed to admit to anyone what his job was (not that he was anything more than a desk jockey).
But again, that was not my point. My point was that if one reads, comprehends, and believes Novak's story, there was NO "LEAK." To acquiesce to Wilson's and the media's terminology is to fall into their trap.
I have read *both* of Novak's articles, and his explanations doesn't really hold water.
First of all, he regrets 'lavishing' the term 'operative' on Plame, but offers no credible reasons as to why he would use that exact, specific term. He could have easily obfuscated Plame's identify by describing her simply as 'someone with close ties to Wilson'.
It was, in the context of the article, completely unnecessary to use Valerie Plame's name at all. And there was NO reason whatsoever to describe her as an agency operative. Novak's been around long enough to know exactly what the words 'operative' and 'CIA' mean together in the same sentence.
In fact, her involvement was the only reason that sending Mr. Wilson to Niger made any sense, because he was anti-war and anti-Bush.
No, her involvement could only explain why Wilson himself was sent, not why someone was being sent in the first place.
During Mr. Novak's fact gathering phase, prior to the release of his column, the CIA did not make it clear that Mrs. Wilson was a covert operative/agent/spy/whatever.
This is what Novak actually said.
...the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad.
Bottom line is, Novak was SPECIFICALLY asked NOT to use her name, and he did so anyway despite pretty broad hints that Plame was indeed an agent. Regardless of this, he was certainly wasn't authorized by the CIA to identify her as a CIA operative.
The CIA could have, without revealing any specific details, nipped this in the bud by explaining to Mr. Novak that her position at the agency is a sensitive and/or a covert position. Period.
You don't think that telling Novak that she'd had 'foreign assignments' in the past, and that public disclosure of her name and relationship to the CIA would cause 'travel difficulties' for her wasn't a broad enough hint that she was a covered agent?
And no, actually they couldn't have 'nipped this in the bud' by explaining that Plame's position at the CIA was covert because that would be tantamount to disclosing classified material to someone who certainly wasn't authorized to receive it: Robert Novak.
Of course, anyone could have deduced who Mr. Wilson's wife was by looking on his own web site biography... The fact is, this women's identity was going to be known at some point.
???? Plame's maritial status and identity weren't the issues at stake here. The issue that was at stake was Plame's work status at the CIA, something that Novak publically confirmed for the whole world to see.
By Mr. Wilson's own choice, his wife's name was already public.
???? Of course his wife's name is already public!!! It's probably in the local marriage register. Again, that's totally irrelevant: what is relevant is openly revealing in a newspaper the full name of a CIA operative, regardless of whether or not she was married, divorced or single!!!!
It's simple. Politics. Pure and unadulterated politics.
No, it has gone way beyond simple politics. Some senior level administration officials AND someone in the CIA have inadvertently blown the cover of one of their agents and any projects that they might have been involved in.
This goes completely against the first rule of any intelligence gathering organisation: protect your agents. Because if you don't, if your agents believe that you're incompetent enough to accidentally allow their cover to be blown, they aren't going to trust you, and they certainly will not work for you either.
Yes, the Democrats are going to have a field day with this one. Even worse, they're completely justified in running with it.
While each of you make some good points, you are still jumping the gun on guilt.
I concede she is covered.
However, it still doesn't mean a law is broken.
1. The disclosure must have been made by a government employee with access to classified information. TRUE
2. The disclosure must have been intentional. TRUE
3. The person accused must have known the person identified was a covert agent. NOT TRUE/NOT FALSE...MAYBE, it is unclear.
4. The person accused must have known "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." NOT TRUE from current accounts.
The investigation needs to determine #3 and #4.
The democrat response is out of proportion. If their motives where to preserve the agent's identity and integrity, I could buy (even join in) some of the outrage. The bottom line is that there is more going on than just the outing of an agent. The democrats are trying to make this into the worst thing that has ever happened on the planet and it is likely to turn out that no actual law was broken.
We'll see how things turn out. Later on, we will be able to return to this thread and wipe each others nose in it. Until then...
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.