Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wilson: Bush Not Party to Leak
The Washington Post ^ | 10/6/2003 | Walter Pincus

Posted on 10/05/2003 10:49:40 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; josephwilson; leak; plamenameblamegame
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Howlin
So how did Wilson, a self professed left winger, end up in such a sensitive assigment where he could, and did, undermine our efforts?
61 posted on 10/06/2003 8:50:33 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: okie01
Thanks for pinging me to this, Okie01. Most interesting that Wilson now seems to be hedging his bets. One wonders if the reason is because his ticket to fame and fortune is spinning out of his control, or if he's just trying to burnish his self-made image as the reasonable, non-partisan injured party and outraged husband.

There are others who are still trying to flog this phony scandal for all its worth. The disgraceful Michael Weiskopf of TIME was on MSNBC this morning speaking in the most somber tones about the leak investigation. I paid no attention to the details of what he was saying and flipped the channel. Would like to have flipped him something else, but I had to get to work. ;-)

64 posted on 10/06/2003 10:44:57 AM PDT by Wolfstar (NO SECURITY = NO ECONOMY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: laffercurve
Do you comprehend English?

Did you not hear/read Robert Novak's column where he said it wasn't anybody at the White House -- that it was a "senior administration official who was NON-PARTISAN???"
65 posted on 10/06/2003 10:50:12 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: laffercurve
Just as long as you remember that this 'silly affair' was created out of whole cloth by Wilson and CNN.
66 posted on 10/06/2003 10:58:02 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
I don't think he's backpedaling. He said he didn't think Bush condoned or was a party to the leak. He also said he would work to defeat Bush in '04. Where's the backpedaling in those two statements?
67 posted on 10/06/2003 11:07:49 AM PDT by halfdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Plame's identity was not a secret? Many, many people knew her. Many people who knew her also knew she was married. Many people who know Joe Wilson know he is married and who his wife is. I don't get these protestations about her being named on his bio. The fact that she existed wasn't a secret. It was the fact that she was working undercover that was a secret. The whole point is to appear to lead a normal life.
68 posted on 10/06/2003 11:13:53 AM PDT by halfdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Plame Name Blame Game

Try uttering THAT phrase quickly after downing two pints of Newcastle Dark Ale...

69 posted on 10/06/2003 11:15:29 AM PDT by Poohbah ("[Expletive deleted] 'em if they can't take a joke!" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
and then makes a statement on Buchanan & Press, quote, "I am a disinterested spectator in this matter."
70 posted on 10/06/2003 11:18:22 AM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Who is Walter Pincus?
71 posted on 10/06/2003 11:23:37 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: halfdome
You don't understand what undercover work is. You assume a new identity.

Read Baer's book about the CIA that came out last year. First thing they did was take everything away from him that bore his old name. They gave him a new job, new name, new everything. He was not allowed contact with his family.

Plame can't be Plame and work undercover for the CIA at the same time.
72 posted on 10/06/2003 11:31:25 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: laffercurve
Hope you will apologize when the TRUTH comes out...will you?
73 posted on 10/06/2003 11:35:50 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
You have little imagination. Just because they did something with one agent does not mean they do it with all undercover agents.
74 posted on 10/06/2003 12:10:46 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
I have friends that do this sort of thing. Undercover means something very specific to operatives.

Undercover means 'under an identity other than your own' or 'under another cover'. It has nothing to do with my imagination. This means you can't call the CIA and ask if this person works there and have them say, "Yep." We're she undercover, the CIA would have said, "Who?"

This person, Plame, analyzes stuff.
75 posted on 10/06/2003 1:02:43 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: laffercurve
An administration is a big place, and their not all loyal to the President per se.

The leak is a problem if confidential information or sources are compromised. They haven't been.

So now, the leak story is important, simply because there are leakers. If you know anything about finding leakers in politics, it is nearly impossible to do, so you will continue to be annoyed I'm afraid.

Bush, for the record, HATES leakers. He probably wants to know for his own reasons, but this leak story having the ability to damage Bush and his Admin, I don't think its possible at this point.
78 posted on 10/06/2003 1:12:09 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
I have friends that do this sort of thing. Undercover means something very specific to operatives.

Why would your friends tell you that they are operatives? And why would you post it on the internet?

79 posted on 10/06/2003 1:14:47 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
As a Fed employee with over 20 years in HR work, it is true you can't just fire career civil servants without cause. BUT there are many many appointees that Bush failed to change. Executive Level employees may be easily moved to other assignments at the pleasure of the Agency Head.

What do you thing the Clinton-Gore Reinventing Government was all about? They abolished jobs and got folks to take early retirement or just quit rather than move. They created new offices and new jobs and filled the highest positions with their own cronies. These Clintonistas are still in place, just like all the US Attorneys who Clinton hired to replace the whole kit n kaboodle he fired upon taking office.

Bush could be doing a WHOLE LOT MORE than he has been to clean house in the Executive Branch. Those of us who suffered 8 years under Clinton know the damage that rascal did. Even if Bush WERE doing all he could do, it would take at least a generation of good conservative appointments and house cleanings to undo the damage.
80 posted on 10/06/2003 1:15:05 PM PDT by Help!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson