Out of his element, eh?
FGS
Posted on 09/30/2003 9:24:15 PM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.
This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At 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. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Laurence O'Donnell, who is a liberal, said that he studied the statute in question, and it would be almost impossible to get a conviction based on the information public right now. He said a key element is the leaker has to *KNOW* that it would endanger the life of the CIA operative.
This smells really shiTTi
Daddy bush won an overwhelming landslide EXCEPT the media pumped an irrelevant 3rd party dork (perot) into the minds of the uneducated. There is no 3rd party candidate this time. W will win a huge landslide.
Yet. Don't discount the possibility of someone pumped-up by the media. Though I think the Dems have much more to worry about in this department.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've referenced the Doug Thompson screed in CHB several times in connection with this story, along with the subsequent retraction. But the name of the persona in absentio, the fictitious or figmentary Terrance J. Wilkerson, escaped me.
That is indeed a name to remember!
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/index.asp?L1=40&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0&State
He's a primary source for the stories on GWB's Harken Energy deals, and is widely admired by TomPaine.com...here...
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6012
Perhaps not. After all, with the last few presidential scandals, the harder one side hit on the president, the better his poll numbers got. It drove us nuts during impeachment, but Clinton was loved more by the libs for weathering the storm.
Bush may benefit in the polls if:
That isn't going to happen. Bet the rent.
Out of his element, eh?
FGS
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.