Posted on 07/19/2005 4:59:17 AM PDT by NathanBookman
What is known thus far suggests that:1) Mr. Wilson has misrepresented his wife's role in getting him the assignment and his own findings of his investigation in Niger; 2) In July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak first mentioned in passing that Mrs. Plame worked for the CIA, she was not functioning as a covert agent and her work for the CIA was common knowledge; and 3) That if there were-- against the public record -- a covert status to be exposed, it was possibly Mr. Wilson, with a speculative assist from David Corn, who writes for the Nation magazine. (snip)
Ironically, Mr. Rove says he learned of Mrs. Plame's identity from a reporter. How did a journalist get that information? Very possibly, Mr. Wilson himself was the original source of the leak of his wife's identity as a secret agent. The first person to speculatively write on the assertion was Mr. Corn of the Nation, who wrote two days after Mr. Novak's original article was published that Mrs. Plame may have been a secret agent. Clifford May, writing last week in National Review Online, noted that Mr. Novak did not reveal that she was a secret agent. But Mr. Corn, who talked with Mr. Wilson, did raise the possibility of Mrs. Plame's "undercover" status. The bottom line is that based on what is currently known about the Plame case thus far, there is absolutely no legitimate reason to believe that Mr. Rove is the original source of the leak about Mrs. Plame's identity.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Is it too tacky to point out Plame's department was at the head of the class on "We were all wrong"? Her department was telling the President, and his predecessor, that Saddam had WMD. It was their job to evaluate that and they blew it. They, Plame's group, are responsible for the biggest intelligence failure outside of 9/11. She should have been fired.
It's not so much Ms. Plame who's in danger - as she's in the USA, probably far from reach of would-be retalitory attacks.
It's her foreign contacts, those foreigners who were known to have met with her, possibly given her information, those only privy to information which she acquired, to which the most serious risks exist. If that compromise - regardless of who did it - causes those contacts to lose their lives, the CIA itself loses tremendously because no person on the earth will trust operatives of the agency again.
Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter, and now Joseph Wilson have all received unjust ostracism and discrediting because they wouldn't corroberate the Administration's "evidence" of WMD against Iraq when the only justification the Administration needed for action was Iraq's disregard of the original surrender treaty. That discrediting tactic is the pattern of Karl Marx Rove's employ and Conservatives can defend him in it if they wish. I won't - and personally, I'll be glad if and/or when the White House is rid of him. I would hope President Bush would then find a more honest advisor.
I don't like Washington's Plame Game one bit. IMO, all involved - Rove included - bear equal responsibility.
Oh, please......
I agree. You make a good point regarding Wilson's part in this controversy. But, I believe that the WT editorial closes the book quite effectively on the Rove matter in way that everyone can understand... even the nitwits commenting on my blog that desperately want to keep focus on Rove. It is clear why they need to keep the focus on Rove. But, the limb they are on with Wilson is long, quite thin, has no leaves, and extends over a cliff.
Wilson IS Miller's source...
I think SHE(Valerie) is the source. Rove has been the red herring all along....the real breach of national security began when Valerie suggested her hubby for this trip. He went. He returned. And then everything he did or said in public regarding the trip/findings was a gross breach of national security.
I think the CIA got more than a handful when they hired Mr. Wilson and he was out and writing articles/books and leaking before they knew it.
Also see this Slate article by Hitchens.
http://www.slate.com/id/2122963/
Sorry, but those folks injected themselves in a partisan manner into the debate - which makes them partisan targets in return.
If Joe Wilson was so concerned about protecting his wife's identity, he shouldn't have lied that Cheney wanted him to go on the trip. That IMO is what led to this episode - and the irony is, it had nothing to do with Wilson's core assertion - that Iraq did not try to get uranium from Niger (since proven wrong) - and EVERYTHING to do with Wilson's real agenda - paint the Bush Admin as ignoring intel countering their WMD claims.
Come to think of it, the Left has become the Coyote, haven't they?
'meep-meep!"
"Does anyone have the definitive date Wilson signed on as an advisor to the Kerry campaign?"
I don't, but it had to be between the end of February and the beginning of May.
Check out this thread:
Wilson Didn't Complain About "The 16 Words" Until He Was Working On Kerry Campaign
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445574/posts
So Wilson joined up with Kerry in May, 2003? That makes it easy. Wilson wrote his NYT article on his Niger junket to spear Bush's WMD policy and consequently assist Kerry. But when his wife's CIA job was revealed, he switched targets and went after Rove - which would also be a big assist to Kerry.
I'm going to need a little assistance to read between that line. How could Miller's source be or not be herself?
National Review seriously floated the theory that Judith Miller was protecting herself. The New York Times responded in a manner I thought rather shrill, actually calling the accusation "mean-spirited".
I don't categorically reject all such theories - I think they fit the facts as well as any, if you discount what the Times itself says.
But at the end of the day anything is a long shot other than Judith Miller has information that is relevant to possible criminal act by a member of the Administration.
Can anyone please tell me who requested the special prosecutor and investigation into this whole thing? I just can't recall...or maybe never knew in the first place.
Thanks,
MS
I read some article/blog yesterday that when the CIA commissioned Wilson for the Niger mission on Plames suggestion they waived the confidentiality requirement. The article speculated that the reason they did this was so Wilson could discredit the administration on the yellow cake story.
Sorry I can't find the link.
AG Ashcroft appointed Fitzgerald, after the CIA asked the Department of Justice to investigate. Ashcroft wanted to avoid any appearance on conflict or coverup. He did not have to appoint a SP, but did. Of course, if no indictments are returned the moonbats will howl that it is a whitewash by an Aschroft-appointed prosecutor, and by the way Karl Rove must be fired anyway.
Another crap push poll:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/18/234226/572
The first question they should have asked is: Please tell me about the Novak/Plame leak? 99% of respondents would have said "huh?" ABC first question was a joke. But it was entertaining.
Fitzgerald stated earlier today that Rove is no longer a subject of the investigation.
meant "not a target", not "not a subject"
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.