Aaron "The Clown" Brown Responds to My email

CNN's Aaron Brown | 9-30-03 | Lance Romance

[Lance Romance]

My Email to Aaron Brown:

Another poor job of reporting last night regarding the supposed leaking of a CIA "operative" and Joe Wilson's wife. First, you barely covered the fact that Joe's wife is really an "analyst" and not undercover, Robert Novak's admission that the Admin. official didn't call him, Joe's wife's name is on his bio website and the fact that Wilson blamed Karl Rove and then had to retract it. In fact, you seemed more than delighted to perpetuate the scandal than actually cover the facts. Once again, Fox news kicks your ass.

Aaron's Response

Gee, I had no idea. I thought we reported all this stuff( except for the bio which makes no sense at all since the question isn't her name but her job) I guess what this really must be is that the Director of the CIA who asked for the investigation is out to get the President.

I have no idea what Fox did or didn't do. I don't even care. I know what we did and we did just fine. Nice to hear from you.

A

[Lance Romance]

I can almost hear his nasally tone. He seems a little irked about the Fox News comment. F--- CNN.

[Symblized]

The White House confirmed this morning that she was undercover. Text of an e-mail to White House staff Tuesday from counsel Alberto R. Gonzales 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.

[Lazamataz]

He's definitely holding back his anger. But I commend him for not snapping. After all, Fox *IS* kicking their ass. :o)

[Dolphy]

except for the bio which makes no sense at all since the question isn't her name but her job)

Brown should look at the Newsday article that says Wilson felt using her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate him and others.

[mattdono]

The White House confirmed this morning that she was undercover.

You are simply incorrect. I don't know why you and several other insist on not reading the note from the White House Counsel in its entirety.

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 concluded facts of the situation. The DOJ has opened an investigation. The investigation is to look into IF there was a possible unauthorized disclosure of an undercover CIA employee's identity.

In fact, 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 (which doesn't mean anyone in the White House) 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, ""ccording 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."

[txrangerette]

The WH did not confirm she was
undercover. That is nothing more
than a stated allegation they will
investigate as part of the case.
Novak says he was told just the
opposite by CIA sources, and they
only suggested he not name her but
were okay with it anyway.

[John Valentine]

On the contrary, Aaron.

The issue IS her name.

Who cares how many poeple know that Wilson is married to a CIA opertive - IF her identity could be kept secret.

By putting her name on his website, Wilson had already blown her cover big time.

I wouldn't even be surprised - in fact I expect - Wilson himself to be found out as the ultimate source of the "leak".

[mattdono]

Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421

Read the law. Get a clue.

[sam_paine]

Wonder why he would respond? Seems like their first rule would be to not respond to anyone who's obviously pro-Fox...I mean they're not going to convert them, and they're leaving a paper (email) trail of their bias....

Actually, I got into it once with Jamie McIntyre about missile defense, and he defended himself admirably. He was wrong, but at least he responded. I give the CNN folks credit for that, at least. I've never heard back from Brit Hume.

[The_Pickle]

The text of the letter did not, in fact, comfirm that the Mrs Wilson was an undercover operative, only that the Justice Dept. was launching an investigation into the possible unauthorized release of the name of an undercover operative.

I know that the distinction is a bit fine and that I might be picking nits, so to speak, but accuarecy must be observed when posting information about such a touchy subject.

[prairiebreeze]

I guess what this really must be is that the Director of the CIA who asked for the investigation is out to get the President.

Brown is demonstrating once again that he's just a pansy if this is the strongest comeback he can make.

Prairie

[Lance Romance]

I did thank Aaron for responding, but I had to point out that I was mad about anything they didn't cover, but instead how they covered it.

They did two segments in which only the Novak statement on his sources and the Wilson retraction were allowed to stand alone. They were just played and he went back to sliming Bush. The transcript bares this out.

[Lance Romance]

I also posted an earlier email exchange between Aaron and myself about Al Franken. It's much more pathetic than this one.

[mattdono]

You are right on. In fact, last night Ramesh Ponnuru was alluding to how Wilson seems to be referring back to stories that he, himself, may have started to begin with.

THE CONFUSING WILSON STORY [Ramesh Ponnuru]
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

I have been battling this issue (as many have) on another thread. I have amassed a ton of links that might be of interest to you.

[NotQuiteCricket]

In the e-mail, it is reiterating the charges made. And who is to say that she is the person in question? Maybe there is a parallel investigation that is going on? It was vaguely worded in that there isn't any specifics. The whole issue is all vaguely worded with out specifics.

[solzhenitsyn]

Thank you for writing Mr. Brown. You did great.

[DLfromthedesert]

I can't believe you actually have the stomach to watch and listen to that weasel.

[BunnySlippers]

As Roger Ailes says, "He looks like my dentist".

[Lance Romance]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971597/posts


<> Al Franken Email Exchange

[Palladin]

Thanks for the links.

To me, this is just the opening shot to Campaign 2004.

The Dems know they have a bunch of losers running against the President. They are desperately trying to organize another "Watergate".

This time around, their operatives are a bunch of zonked-out cokeheads, and it shows.