Wilson: Bush Not Party to Leak

The Washington Post ^ | 10/6/2003 | Walter Pincus

[Utah Girl]

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV said yesterday that the leak of his wife's name as a covert CIA official by Bush administration officials last July could have been for revenge or to undercut his criticisms of the Iraq war or to intimidate other government insiders from talking to journalists.

"I do believe, however, that the president would never have condoned or been party to anything like this," he said yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Justice Department has begun an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who served in the CIA's operations division and acted clandestinely under what is called non-official cover. That means she worked in a position not associated with the U.S. government and when overseas on a spy mission was not protected by diplomatic immunity.

Asked whether he thought the leak had endangered his wife, Wilson said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that since the publicity of the Justice Department investigation, "other people" have suggested "perhaps this does make her a target." As a result, he said he and his wife were taking unspecified security precautions.

[olliemb]

DUHHHHH!!! You cannot fire the civil servants who have been there --the law won't allow firing just because.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[Grampa Dave]

You third party losers keep on this same lying track about GW not cleaning house.

All of you, who post this BS, are third party losers who hate GW. You know that 99% of the scumbag left over rats are life time rats who are civil service and can't be touched by law! What part of that don't you understand? Of course you understand that, but your hatred of GW will not allow facts to get in the way.

Speaking of losers, how much money has your third party losers raised for 2004. I understand that your party can't afford a day rate at a Motel 6 room for your convention.

We win elections and change things. You third party losers lose in life and whine.

Do third party losers get paid per mantra re "Bush didn't clean house!" reply or by the day. Regardless, of how, you are over paid.

[Grampa Dave]

Amen, Brother Bob: Pssst! The secret ingredient is CHARACTER and INTEGRITY!

[Miss Marple]

I have been trying to explain this every time that charge is made. Your response was much more effective and eloquent! LOL!

[carton253]

There are some limits to the housecleaning. A new Administration just can't go in and sweep any department clean. It's called the Pendleton Act. It was enacted to stop such a thing from happening.

[Grampa Dave]

You have my permission to copy my reply and use it whenever you see one of these inane replies that GW didn't clean the house.

Well, neither did Reagan in DC or Sacramento. We have to get some new laws in re civil service after the the 2004 elections.

As you know I would to see whenever a president is elected that every civil servant from GS7 up has to submit his/her/its resignation that can be acted on as long as that president is president.

That would immediately stop these life long rats in EPA to the CIA from being rogues and claiming to be part of the administration in attacks against whoever the president is.

[Grampa Dave]

Thank you for posting the legal reality about government workers:

A new Administration just can't go in and sweep any department clean. It's called the Pendleton Act. It was enacted to stop such a thing from happening.

[Grampa Dave]

Well, we have another hate GWer, who has outed himself/herself/itself over the Yellowcake Scam I and II!

Bravo Sierra!

[michaelt]

I don't think any of the stuff you assume in your post - that Plume was undercover, and the White House was involved in this "leak" - is known for an absolute fact. The people making accusations and stating "facts" have their own agendas, and generally don't like Pres. Bush.

[lysie]

You do not atack him by wrecking his wife's career at the CIA.

And you have proof, not hearsay, that happened?

[RinaseaofDs]

Since August 20, 2003?

Well, welcome to FreeRepublic! This is a conservative forum.

There is a forum for people that believe everything that ABC and Reuters manufactures for the sheeple at DU. that's www.democratunderground.com. I apologize to those who are offended by the publishing of that link, but clearly this man has misplaced his google.

Nobody attacked his wife. No national security damage was done here. Plame can still ANALYZE whatever she wants, because she's just an employee, not an operative, and not NOC.

My question to you is, if her identity were so super secret, then why did Wilson himself have her listed on his bio page on his website, by maiden name?

You can't see liberal desperation in the press when you see it? Pretty soon they are going to say that Arnold met secretly with Bin Laden in a cave in Austria, with Rush Limbaugh and Donovan McNabb.

I smell ozone.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You and the other dumbass need to get a few facts straight.
This woman is nothing but a bureaucRAT at CIA not a secret agent. What kind of idiot would use their own name while undercover anyway. And she was not "outed" since she was never undercover. Any info that was leaked was leaked by the RATS as seems clear by now. Do you fall for every single RATmedia lie or just these?

And BTW, horse's@$$, Clinton fired the federal district attorney's, not the civil service attorneys in the Justice Department. Not that we expect any accuracy in your ravings in any case.

[Chants]

TO: laffercurve
RE: Plame leak as petty, juvenile pay back

It is unclear to me that this "leak" was intended to be an attack, where the leak came from, or what damage has been done.

If it is clear to you, then by all means contact the Justice Department so that we can get this whole thing cleared up. They appear to be investigating issues which, to you, require no investigation.

As for the damage done to Plame, I can say this. I have learned more about Plame from those denouncing the leak, including her covert status at the CIA, her years of employment, the area of her expertise, her cover as an "energy industry" specialist, and the fact that she engaged in overseas NOC service.

Obviously, there have been more leaks after the one to Novak. They do not appear to be coming from the white house. I hope these latter leaks are investigated as well.

[Miss Marple]

It would have been very easy for the administration to wreck her career without anyone ever knowing. A simple call to George Tenet would have had her reassigned to an obscure, dead-end position.

Furthermore, if she were so concerned about keeping her identity secret, she should have reigned in her flamboyant hubby, who himself made the claim that the CIA had sent him to Niger in an op-ed piece in the New York Times.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, WHAT a good point! To that I will add that they have three-year-old twins, she told him about her position when she first started dating him, and her picture hangs on his office wall.

I got this information from liberal media types who thought NOTHING about putting this information in their papers.

[Chants]

In fairness, the "burst ballon" argument should be made here:

Secrets are like a balloon. They are delicate and must be protected diligently. The more valuable the secret, the more important it is to take care to protect it.

Once pierced, however, they are close to worthless.

Those denouncing the leak may argue that once the leak was made to Novak, there was nothing left to the secret. It was worthless. Plames cover was blown. Further disclosures about her could not actually do damage because "the balloon" had already burst.

That's a pretty neat argument, and one which is fairly persuasive.

But something bothers me about it. Remember, a secret must be protected dilligently, and the dilligence must be commensuate witht he value of the secret. If indeed Plame's status was extremely valuable, why was her name and realationship to Wilson not protected? Why did she operate under her own name?

A legitimate question as to whether Plame's status was blown prior to Novak's column remains.

[MizSterious]

Please read Chants' comments in #35. If the original "leaker" (whoever it might be) should be punished, what about all those who filled in all the blanks in articles that followed the original?

[MizSterious]

But Miss Marple, that's--gasp--common sense! Is that allowed in these discussions?