URGENT: '02 Wilson bio gives wife's maiden name; '03 he claims revealing maiden name compromises her

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board ^ | 9/30/03 (orig. 8/10/03)

[q_an_a]

While Rush may not have been aware, I think it is interesting that any Freeper knew this yesterday.

Yesterday, as I watched the opening of all three major network news programs the lead was about the CIA and the White HOuse. Yet Drudge and Novak had been on the web for 3 hours ahead of the eastern time news telling the truth about this story.

ABC had Wilson on this morning and no news organization is reporting his retractions. Is it any wonder the folks no not trust the media?

[LayoutGuru2]

The Blogs continue...

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004454.html

[Ben Hecks]

"Wasn't Wilson violating the law when he wrote his NYT Op-Ed piece and disclosed the substance of his classified report?"

Excellent point. Most of what I have read suggests that Wilson never submitted a trip report. Regardless, he is not the person that makes the call as to what is classified and what is not; therefore, he could be guilty of disclosing classified material.

If his mission was classifed, I would assume that the CIA re-issued his security clearance and briefed him prior to his departure (I understand that Mr. Wilson is a private citizen so any prior security clearances would have been terminated). Knowing the organizations that Mr. Wilson is associated with, I would question the judgement of those who granted his security clearance.

[LayoutGuru2]

I went to cs.com (Compuserve) to try and verify the 'jvwilsoniv' screen-name/e-mail and when I requested a password reminder I was informed that the function had been temporarily disabled for the account due to too many requests. Gee, I guess a few folks have tried this already.

[MizSterious]

Here's another interesting article, with some equally interesting questions raised by Freepers: In July Time Magazine Interview, Joe Wilson Said His Wife Had Nothing To Do With Niger Trip. For instance, this was published very close to the same date that Novak's column came out. Who published first, some wonder--Time or Novak? The mystery deepens...

[MizSterious]

That's because you're not thinking like Wilson, who is whining that "they" dug up his wife's maiden name and made it public. Since he, himself, had done so in 2002, that takes the wind out of that particular balloon.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks to you both. I will copy all of the critical articles to my own PC at home. As already indicated, I believe this was a set up from the start, and I am trying to follow the thread all the way back to the very beginning. I wish I had a Lexis-Nexis subscription. Sigh.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks, Cyncooper. Will add the info you provided to my stack.

[Wolfstar]

Yours is an excellent question. I don't have the answer, but maybe some of the attorneys who frequent FR might tell us the answer.

[aristeides]

Earliest story on Lexis naming Valerie Plame is Novak's column dated July 14, 2003.

[Wolfstar]

Will do. Thanks for asking.

[Wolfstar]

Sockeye7, please revisit the Post-Intelligencer exerpt at the top of this thread. THIS YEAR, as part of his phony outrage over his wife's supposed outing, Wilson said that revealing her maiden name would damage all the work she had done in the five years prior to when they got married. (Note that he didn't say revealing her line of work, but just her maiden name.) Yet in 2002, his own official copyrighted biography published her maiden name.

That demonstrates about as clearly as can be that the man is a liar who's interest is in being the central figure in a trumped up "scandal" designed to tarnish the Bush Administration in the run-up to the 2004 election season. If the Dems and their media shills can manage to panic the Republicans into agreeing to a special counsel, so much the better from the Dems' point of view.

[aristeides]

Since it has been as much against the law for Wilson as it is for anyone else to reveal or confirm that Plame was an undercover operative, hasn't he been limited in how he could explain his outrage, real or feigned?

[cyncooper]

The problem isn't that the leak identified her maiden name, which would have been very easy to find out, it was that it identified her as a CIA agent, using both her maiden name and her husband's name. What is the harm in saying what your wife's maiden name is if her cover as a CIA agent is concealed?

You need to address your question to Joseph Wilson. It is HE who makes the absurd contention, even though he lists her maiden name on his own bio. From the article this very thread is based on:

"In carefully discussing what he called the hypothetical possibility his wife is a CIA employee, Wilson noted that the use of her maiden name would compromise work done before their marriage five years ago."

So please don't pretend it is Freepers making a mountain out of Wilson's molehill.

[cyncooper]

But this thread seems like people are trying to change the subject.

No, this thread has been keeping the facts straight and not falling for this silly spin that "revealing his wife's maiden name" was some sort of Republican plot when it was he who lists it for all the world to see.

[Chi-townChief]

bttt

[sport]

Someone thaat knows how should start cataloging the Wilson stories.

[StriperSniper]

Do you know 'fisherman7'?