Wilson’s credibility debated as probe may be nearing end

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/9808374/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/9808374/[/url]

[quote][color="#FF0000"][size=3]Husband is conspicuous in leak case
Wilson’s credibility debated as probe may be nearing end[/size][/color]

Updated: 10:06 p.m. ET Oct. 24, 2005
To his backers, Joseph C. Wilson IV is a brave whistle-blower wronged by the Bush administration. To his critics, he is a partisan who spouts unreliable information.

But nobody disputes this: Possessed of a flamboyant style and a love for the camera lens, Wilson helped propel the unmasking of his wife's identity as a CIA operative into a sprawling, two-year legal probe that climaxes this week with the possible indictment of key White House officials. He also turned an arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq.


Also beyond dispute is the fact that the little-known diplomat took maximum advantage of his 15 minutes of fame. Wilson has been a fixture on the network and cable news circuit for two years -- from "Meet the Press" to "Imus in the Morning" to "The Daily Show." He traveled west and lunched with the likes of Norman Lear and Warren Beatty.

He published a book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity." He persuaded his wife, Valerie Plame, to appear with him in a January 2004 Vanity Fair photo spread, in which the two appeared in his Jaguar convertible.

Now, amid speculation that prosecutors could bring charges against White House officials this week, Republicans preparing a defense of the administration are reviving the debate about Wilson's credibility and integrity.

Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.

Vanity Fair photo shoot
At the same time, Wilson's publicity efforts -- and his work for Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign -- have complicated his efforts to portray himself as a whistle-blower and a husband angry about the treatment of his wife. The Vanity Fair photos, in particular, hurt Plame's reputation inside the CIA; both Wilson and Plame have said they now regret doing the photo shoot.

Wilson's critics in the administration said his 2002 trip to Niger for the CIA to probe reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there was a boondoggle arranged by his wife to help his consulting business.

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page, defending the administration, wrote yesterday that, "Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for president campaign." Discussing his trip to Niger, the Journal judged: "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited."

Wilson's defenders say he is a truth-teller who has been unfairly attacked. "(T)he White House responded to Ambassador Wilson in the worst possible way," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said at a Democratic gathering in July. "They did not present substantive evidence to justify the uranium claim. . . . Instead, it appears that the president's advisers launched a smear campaign, and Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, became collateral damage."

Before the Niger episode, Wilson was best known as the charg d'affaires in Baghdad, a diplomat commended by George H.W. Bush for protecting and securing the release of American "human shields" at the time of the Persian Gulf War. He was not known as a partisan figure -- he donated money to both Al Gore and George W. Bush in 1999 -- and says he was neither antiwar nor anti-Bush when he went to Niger in late February 2002.

But that changed when he went public with his criticism of the Niger affair in mid-2003. In August, he said at a forum that he would like to see Karl Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." In the fall, he endorsed Democrat Kerry. He had given money to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) political action committee in 2002 and gave to Kerry's presidential campaign in 2003.

Later, Wilson became prominent in the antiwar movement. In June 2005, he participated in a mock congressional hearing held by Democrats criticizing the war in Iraq. "We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," he said at the time. The next month, he joined Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) at a news conference on the two-year anniversary of the unmasking of Plame.

Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate Intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

‘A conduit’?
That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."

But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.

The CIA has always said, however, that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.

Wilson also mistakenly assumed that his report would get more widespread notice in the administration than it apparently did. He wrote that he believed "a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" had probably taken place, perhaps orally.

But this apparently never occurred. Former CIA director George J. Tenet has said that "we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials." Instead his report, without identifying Wilson as the source, was sent in a routine intelligence paper that had wide circulation in the White House and the rest of the intelligence community but had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.

Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter.

On another item of dispute -- whether Vice President Cheney's office inspired the Wilson trip to Niger -- Wilson had said the CIA told him he was being sent to Niger so they could "provide a response to the vice president's office," which wanted more information on the report that Iraq was seeking uranium there. Tenet said the CIA's counterproliferation experts sent Wilson "on their own initiative."

Wilson said in a recent interview: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

I hope foks are reading everything else Pincus has written about this case...

[Guest bengalrick]

the funny thing is, wilson wrote an article saying that there was "no evidence of wmd's anywhere", yet his reporting lead to an investigation of the yellowcake in niger and we find out later that they WERE TRUE!!! it was earlier in like 98 i think, but it did happen...

theres no question taht hard ball politics were played here... but is this illegal? seriously?

if anyone intentially outed a CIA agent, they should be indited... if someone lied or misled the investigation, they should be indited... if none of these happened and only hardball politics, nothing should happen...

but wilson used privvy information and published it... he should also be investigated along w/ his appointment by his wife...

but no, as long as rove is in the sites, this isn't a story we hear about much

read this [url="http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp"]click here[/url]

may be biased, but it raises MANY questions...

[Jamie_B]

Rick, the people who had her name to give it away had to have some sort of clearance to even know it. When I got my Secret clearance I had to go through a half day of training of what I could and couldn’t discuss, documents and how to treat them, ect.. I'd be willing to bet with about 99% surety that whoever had her name had at least a top secret clearance, which requires a somewhat deep background check in which they interview several people who have worked with you or know you and will vouch for you in terms of not being the type of person who will [b]give away the country's secrets.[/b] Anyone with any level of IQ should have known better. Even if it turns out nothing illegal was done, it sure as hell was unethical.

I’m sure there probably is a level of politics being played here, however this doesn’t excuse what happened.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176289' date='Oct 25 2005, 10:37 AM']Rick, the people who had her name to give it away had to have some sort of clearance to even know it. When I got my Secret clearance I had to go through a half day of training of what I could and couldn’t discuss, documents and how to treat them, ect.. I'd be willing to bet with about 99% surety that whoever had her name had at least a top secret clearance, which requires a somewhat deep background check in which they interview several people who have worked with you or know you and will vouch for you in terms of not being the type of person who will [b]give away the country's secrets.[/b] Anyone with any level of IQ should have known better. Even if it turns out nothing illegal was done, it sure as hell was unethical.

I’m sure there probably is a level of politics being played here, however this doesn’t excuse what happened.[/quote]

novak is the only one that knows the truth... some notes on novak: he said that he was told by someone that isn't a political hack.. that excludes rove, libby, and cheney in my eyes...

also, it is being said and i'll try to find the links, that wilson could have been the one that outed his wife... i'll look for the link now... he mentioned his wife somewhere a few years ago... then rove (or whoever) could have said that wilsons wife was the one that appointed him... she isn't a covert operative now, so rove and/or libby could have not known that she was back in the day... they played "hardball" w/out knowing they were outing a former covert agent... it is a big mess, but this is all speculation... but it could very well have happened that way... for instance, for rove to say "wilson was sent by his wife" is different than saying "wilson was sent by his wife, who was once a covert agent"... they didn't need to know she was a spy to do what they did... that was extra information that came from somewhere...

look at it this way, libby and rove are very smart dudes and libby is a promenant lawyer... first of all, the actually "outting of a covert agent" is almost impossible to prove... that is on purpose and one of the people that helped write the original bill said that that law wasn't broken... wouldn't rove and libby be smart enough to not lie to a grand jury or screw w/ an investigation? i don't know that answer but i'm inclined to think they would know better... we'll find out soon enough though...

it just pisses me off that wilson is getting a good name, while he lied about ALMOST EVERYTHING!!!

[Jamie_B]

I don’t care who did the outing, even if it was Wilson himself, anyone with the knowledge about her being an agent had to have some sort of clearance to even be allowed to know about it. Everyone goes through training about what you can and can’t give out. My concern here isn’t about the politics being played or the lies being told. My concern is about the issue of protecting that kind of knowledge. I just have a very hard time buying that the person who let it slip didn’t realize what they were doing, especially when your giving the name to a reporter. This isn’t excusable.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176323' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:40 AM']I don’t care who did the outing, even if it was Wilson himself, anyone with the knowledge about her being an agent had to have some sort of clearance to even be allowed to know about it. Everyone goes through training about what you can and can’t give out. My concern here isn’t about the politics being played or the lies being told. My concern is about the issue of protecting that kind of knowledge. I just have a very hard time buying that the person who let it slip didn’t realize what they were doing, especially when your giving the name to a reporter. This isn’t excusable.[/quote]

i think that you are misunderstanding my jamie... here was a comment of mine, in my first post: [i]if anyone intentially outed a CIA agent, they should be indited... if someone lied or misled the investigation, they should be indited... if none of these happened and only hardball politics, nothing should happen... [/i]

but if it wasn't done intentially, and rove and/or libby simply said "wilson was sent by his wife, not dick cheney" then there is nothing done wrong... i highly doubt they intentially tried to out a cia agent... but it is very fact they were trying to discredit someone spreading lies...

<edit> after rereading your post, i think you are trying to make the point that someone outed her and someone needs to pay... IF someone outted her, damn right they should indited and hung... but what if it happened sort of on accident... what if wilson mentioned his wife was a former cia covert agent, and novak found out that wilson's wife was teh one that sent him... then novak put the puzzle together and found out that way... whos fault would that be, hypothitically of course??

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='176328' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:51 AM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='176323' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:40 AM']
I don’t care who did the outing, even if it was Wilson himself, anyone with the knowledge about her being an agent had to have some sort of clearance to even be allowed to know about it. Everyone goes through training about what you can and can’t give out. My concern here isn’t about the politics being played or the lies being told. My concern is about the issue of protecting that kind of knowledge. I just have a very hard time buying that the person who let it slip didn’t realize what they were doing, especially when your giving the name to a reporter. This isn’t excusable.[/quote]

i think that you are misunderstanding my jamie... here was a comment of mine, in my first post: [i]if anyone intentially outed a CIA agent, they should be indited... if someone lied or misled the investigation, they should be indited... if none of these happened and only hardball politics, nothing should happen... [/i]

but if it wasn't done intentially, and rove and/or libby simply said "wilson was sent by his wife, not dick cheney" then there is nothing done wrong... i highly doubt they intentially tried to out a cia agent... but it is very fact they were trying to discredit someone spreading lies...
[/quote]


No I understood you fine, however Im not sure your getting what Im saying.

No way in hell do you "accedently" release info like that.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176334' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:58 AM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='176328' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:51 AM']
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176323' date='Oct 25 2005, 11:40 AM']
I don’t care who did the outing, even if it was Wilson himself, anyone with the knowledge about her being an agent had to have some sort of clearance to even be allowed to know about it. Everyone goes through training about what you can and can’t give out. My concern here isn’t about the politics being played or the lies being told. My concern is about the issue of protecting that kind of knowledge. I just have a very hard time buying that the person who let it slip didn’t realize what they were doing, especially when your giving the name to a reporter. This isn’t excusable.[/quote]

i think that you are misunderstanding my jamie... here was a comment of mine, in my first post: [i]if anyone intentially outed a CIA agent, they should be indited... if someone lied or misled the investigation, they should be indited... if none of these happened and only hardball politics, nothing should happen... [/i]

but if it wasn't done intentially, and rove and/or libby simply said "wilson was sent by his wife, not dick cheney" then there is nothing done wrong... i highly doubt they intentially tried to out a cia agent... but it is very fact they were trying to discredit someone spreading lies...
[/quote]


No I understood you fine, however Im not sure your getting what Im saying.

No way in hell do you "accedently" release info like that.
[/quote]

i just edited my other post...

wilson COULD have mentioned it before any of this was a story, right? considering she wasn't a covert agent for about 7-10 years before taht...

[Guest bengalrick]

check this out: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html"]foxnews.com[/url]

[i]Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (search), but that [b]he originally learned about her from the news media and not government sources,[/b] a person briefed on the testimony told The Associated Press.[/i]

what media source are they talking about, exactly?

i'm still looking for what i was looking for...

[Jamie_B]

[quote]after rereading your post, i think you are trying to make the point that someone outed her and someone needs to pay... IF someone outted her, damn right they should indited and hung... but what if it happened sort of on accident... what if wilson mentioned his wife was a former cia covert agent, and novak found out that wilson's wife was teh one that sent him... then novak put the puzzle together and found out that way... whos fault would that be, hypothitically of course??[/quote]

Ill throw you a bone. There are some possibilites in reference to how her name could have gotten out of there, however all are highly unlikly and would go the course of conspicery theory imho.

Perhaps her name was on some documents that somehow got into Novacks hands, maybee a Janitor decided they wanted to make some money off of it. Plauseable, but the thing is that when you have docments that are "secure" they have markings on them saying so and are supposed to be "secured" or destroyed when your finished using them.

Perhaps a her name got transmitted over a insecure fax machine or email, and those who like to play poltics in this city did some computer hacking, or even got it by way of someone hacking around and selling it.

Both of those are plauseable, just not very likely.

[Homer_Rice]

From Nostragodamus:

Cheney will be forced to resign; face-saving excuse will be probably based on his bad "ticker". Bush will distance himself in an attempt to save what's left of his lame-duck Presidency. Some of 41's foreign policy crew will become more influential. Syria, Iran and North Korea go to the back-burner, but more US soldiers will die needlessly in the Middle East anyway. Dems will still be twiddling their thumbs, instead of using this as a opportunity to present a coherent set of alternative policies on both the foreign and domestic fronts. Middle class continues to shrink as hundreds of thousands find themselves "upside-down" on their mortgages when the housing bubble bursts. Trent Lott's house will get rebuilt though. Bingo parlors in Kentucky spend their 36,000 dollar Homeland Security appropriation wisely, but cannot prevent riots of crazed gray-haired old ladies who are counting on winning in order to pay their medical expenses.

Bengals do get onto playoffs. ESPN hires Benglas as a correspondent. He wins a Pulitizer for incisive reporting. HockkkK!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='176340' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:07 PM']check this out: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html"]foxnews.com[/url]

[i]Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (search), but that [b]he originally learned about her from the news media and not government sources,[/b] a person briefed on the testimony told The Associated Press.[/i]

what media source are they talking about, exactly?

i'm still looking for what i was looking for...[/quote]


Ok, but who gave those media types the name to begin with? Thats who needs to be answering for this.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='176342' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:13 PM']From Nostragodamus:

Cheney will be forced to resign; face-saving excuse will be probably based on his bad "ticker". Bush will distance himself in an attempt to save what's left of his lame-duck Presidency. Some of 41's foreign policy crew will become more influential. Syria, Iran and North Korea go to the back-burner, but more US soldiers will die needlessly in the Middle East anyway. Dems will still be twiddling their thumbs, instead of using this as a opportunity to present a coherent set of alternative policies on both the foreign and domestic fronts. Middle class continues to shrink as hundreds of thousands find themselves "upside-down" on their mortgages when the housing bubble bursts. Trent Lott's house will get rebuilt though. Bingo parlors in Kentucky spend their 36,000 dollar Homeland Security appropriation wisely, but cannot prevent riots of crazed gray-haired old ladies who are counting on winning in order to pay their medical expenses.

Bengals do get onto playoffs. ESPN hires Benglas as a correspondent. He wins a Pulitizer for incisive reporting. HockkkK![/quote]


Didn't Nostragodamus predict the world would end a few years ago as well? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176344' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:16 PM']Didn't Nostragodamus predict the world would end a few years ago as well? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img] [/quote]

He did, and it did, but it won't take effect until the MSM reports on it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='176347' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:20 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='176344' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:16 PM']
Didn't Nostragodamus predict the world would end a few years ago as well? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img] [/quote]

He did, and it did, but it won't take effect until the MSM reports on it.
[/quote]


HA!

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176343' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:14 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='176340' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:07 PM']
check this out: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html"]foxnews.com[/url]

[i]Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (search), but that [b]he originally learned about her from the news media and not government sources,[/b] a person briefed on the testimony told The Associated Press.[/i]

what media source are they talking about, exactly?

i'm still looking for what i was looking for...[/quote]


Ok, but who gave those media types the name to begin with? Thats who needs to be answering for this.
[/quote]

after investigating a little more, here you go... novaks original article:



[url="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html"]townhall.com[/url]

[i]Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.[/i]

now read this article: [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp"]nationalreview.com[/url]

[i][b][size=4]Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?[/size][/b]
How about the least likely suspect?



This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.




Read — or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”

[b]Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was — or had ever been — a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her.[/b]

[b]As for Novak’s use of the word “operative,” he might as easily have called her an “official,” an “analyst, or an “employee.” But, as a longtime newsman, he instinctively chose the sexiest term (one he routinely applies to political figures, too, i.e. “a party operative”).[/b]

Reread Novak’s article, and you’ll also see that Novak in no way denigrates Wilson. On the contrary, he talks of Wilson’s “heroism” in Iraq in 1991. And nowhere in his column does he say — or even imply — that Wilson was unqualified to conduct the Niger investigation or that Plame was responsible for getting him the assignment — merely that she “suggested sending him.”

Even so, it is unclear whether Novak’s sources may have committed a crime by talking to Novak about Plame. That would depend on a number of variables involving what they knew about Plame and how they came to know it. A prosecutor would have the power to compel Novak to testify regarding what was said to him and by whom.

Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. [b]In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover.[/b] For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency’s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.

[b]So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.[/b]

[b]The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”[/b]

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

[b]Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.[/b]

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:

1) Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.

2) Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson’s wife, a CIA employee, helped get him the assignment. (And that is indeed the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.)

Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her “dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.” But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?

Corn concludes that Plame’s career “has been destroyed by the Bush administration.” And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to “acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee.” But he is willing to say on the record that “naming her this way” was an act of treachery? That’s not talking about his wife? That’s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don’t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.

Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA “deep-cover” operative “tracking parties trying to buy or sell” WMDs, surely that’s news.

And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak’s story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame — presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country — had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn’t work where she said she worked.

But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a “top-secret operative,” and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean — and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers — anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.

But they would not have been tipped by Novak — nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation’s David Corn.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.[/i]


so i was somewhat wrong... it seems that novak didn't say she was a covert agent, but that is how wilson took it, and exposed her... operative doesn't mean covert spy...

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:13 PM' post='176342']
From Nostragodamus:

[u]Dems will still be twiddling their thumbs, instead of using this as a opportunity to present a coherent set of alternative policies on both the foreign and domestic fronts. [/u]

But Homer, that's what they do best

Not all of the article fits, but still good reading from the Post

Washington Post
October 25, 2005
Pg. 21
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
By Robert Kagan
The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one.
Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be "capable within months -- and possibly just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons." He reported that Iraq was thought to be "still hiding tons of nerve gas" and was "seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads." Tim Weiner and Steven Erlanger reported that Hussein was closer than ever "to what he wants most: keeping a secret cache of biological and chemical weapons." "To maintain his chemical and biological weapons -- and the ability to build more," they reported, Hussein had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenue and "devoted his intelligence service to an endless game of cat and mouse to hide his suspected weapons caches from United Nations inspections."
In 1999 Weiner reported that "Iraq's chances of rebuilding a secret arsenal look good." Hussein was "scouring the world for tools to build new weapons." He might "be as close to building a nuclear weapon -- perhaps closer -- than he was in 1991." In 2000 Myers reported that Iraq had rebuilt 12 "missile factories or industrial sites" thought to be "involved in Iraq's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction" and had "continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons."
The Times's sources were "administration officials," "intelligence officials," "U.N. weapons inspectors" and "international analysts." The "administration officials" were, of course, Clinton officials. A number of stories were based not on off-the-record conversations but on public statements and documentation by U.N. inspectors.
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."
This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:13 PM' post='176342']
From Nostragodamus:

[u]Dems will still be twiddling their thumbs, instead of using this as a opportunity to present a coherent set of alternative policies on both the foreign and domestic fronts. [/u]

But Homer, that's what they do best

Not all of the article fits, but still good reading from the Post

Washington Post
October 25, 2005
Pg. 21
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
By Robert Kagan
The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one.
Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be "capable within months -- and possibly just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons." He reported that Iraq was thought to be "still hiding tons of nerve gas" and was "seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads." Tim Weiner and Steven Erlanger reported that Hussein was closer than ever "to what he wants most: keeping a secret cache of biological and chemical weapons." "To maintain his chemical and biological weapons -- and the ability to build more," they reported, Hussein had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenue and "devoted his intelligence service to an endless game of cat and mouse to hide his suspected weapons caches from United Nations inspections."
In 1999 Weiner reported that "Iraq's chances of rebuilding a secret arsenal look good." Hussein was "scouring the world for tools to build new weapons." He might "be as close to building a nuclear weapon -- perhaps closer -- than he was in 1991." In 2000 Myers reported that Iraq had rebuilt 12 "missile factories or industrial sites" thought to be "involved in Iraq's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction" and had "continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons."
The Times's sources were "administration officials," "intelligence officials," "U.N. weapons inspectors" and "international analysts." The "administration officials" were, of course, Clinton officials. A number of stories were based not on off-the-record conversations but on public statements and documentation by U.N. inspectors.
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."
This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.

[Jamie_B]

Here is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it appears that its going to have to do with whether or not she was covert. As to the legality of it. I’m still looking into that, but would be very surprised given the nature of her work if she wasn’t. Post 9/11 [b]A LOT of work[/b] that wasn’t “classified” as become such since, so it would surprise the hell out of me if she wasn’t covert. And if it was her husband that revealed it, then he should be hung out to dry. My point was whoever, political leanings not withstanding, did it should.

[url="http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html"]http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html[/url]


[quote]Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency’s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.[/quote]

I seriously disagree with this, it is splitting hairs, between legality and ethics.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='176365' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:49 PM']Here is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it appears that its going to have to do with whether or not she was covert. As to the legality of it. I’m still looking into that, but would be very surprised given the nature of her work if she wasn’t. Post 9/11 [b]A LOT of work[/b] that wasn’t “classified” as become such since, so it would surprise the hell out of me if she wasn’t covert. And if it was her husband that revealed it, then he should be hung out to dry. My point was whoever, political leanings not withstanding, did it should.

[url="http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html"]http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html[/url]


[quote]Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency’s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.[/quote]

[b]I seriously disagree with this, it is splitting hairs, between legality and ethics.[/b]
[/quote]

i'm somewhat confussed on what you mean jamie...

if someone is a cia operative, it doesn't mean that they are a cia agent... as the article says, they could be an analyst, official, or employee...

am i (the article and novak) wrong about that or does saying someone is an operative, imply they are a covert agent?

[Homer_Rice]

A coupla extraneous points:

1) A lot of this outing business goes back to the Agee (sorry, can't remember his first name) case. He blew the cover of CIA folks in Greece, one of whom ended up dead.

2) The scuttlebutt I hear about the front that Plame worked for, is that it was involved in black-market deals around Russian nuclear materials. I'm told that some folks died too when this Plame thing blew into the public. (I have no way of verifying that, except to say that the person who told me is generally a stick in the mud and not prone to being excitable.)

3) This is a wedge into the run up to the war and should be seen as such. There is a lot of unsavory business and a number of unsavory characters wrapped up in this. It's going to be another blemish on folks perceptions of how the US handles itself.

4) I really dislike Michael Ledeen for what he helped to do to the brother of a friend of mine during Iran-Contra. Wish I could say more, but I can't. When I heard Cannistraro mention his name last year re the Italian forgeries, I knew then that this was a real mudpit.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='176369' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:57 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='176365' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:49 PM']
Here is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it appears that its going to have to do with whether or not she was covert. As to the legality of it. I’m still looking into that, but would be very surprised given the nature of her work if she wasn’t. Post 9/11 [b]A LOT of work[/b] that wasn’t “classified” as become such since, so it would surprise the hell out of me if she wasn’t covert. And if it was her husband that revealed it, then he should be hung out to dry. My point was whoever, political leanings not withstanding, did it should.

[url="http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html"]http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html[/url]


[quote]Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency’s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.[/quote]

[b]I seriously disagree with this, it is splitting hairs, between legality and ethics.[/b]
[/quote]

i'm somewhat confussed on what you mean jamie...

if someone is a cia operative, it doesn't mean that they are a cia agent... as the article says, they could be an analyst, official, or employee...

am i (the article and novak) wrong about that or does saying someone is an operative, imply they are a covert agent?
[/quote]


Operative/Agent are indeed different, however what I’m getting at is her work was classified. Name dropping or not what she was working on got out as well.

For instance, lets say you and I knew each other, more so than just on the internet. Now I have a secret clearance and do work on Mobilization Systems for the Army. Let say I talked to you about the system, not the classified data in it, but just what it does ect. I have broken no law because I didn’t tell you specific data, but I don’t want you going around telling reporters about it either. And if it was her husband he absolutely would know that. This is what I mean by unethical.

Now if I told you Solider names, their medical data, their family data ect. Here I would have been breaking the law as that is classified info that I have access to. If you took that to a reporter, I should be hung out to dry for a long time.

One is illegal, the other is unethical.

Make sense?

Believe me there are alot of people in DC that when you say ethics you get this face....

[Guest bengalrick]

if this is solely about "name dropping" then i just don't understand... joesph wilson dropped the anvil on the bush administration by writing what he did... most of which is now proven false:

1. he was not sent by dick cheney personally... cheney knew nothing of the sort... his wife arranged him to go... [i]In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. [/i]

2. there was proof that saddam was was trying to get nuclear weapons, as cited by the senate intellegence committee... he title was this: [i]What I Didn't Find in Africa[/i]...

3. he said [i](As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)[/i] but that memorandum was 8 months after wilson was in niger...

4. in his book, he said his wife had nothing to do w/ sending him there: [i]"Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter.,,,,,,,She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."[/i] that is a lie... [i][url="http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf"]SICR - Page 38 -[/url]. "...interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'[/i]

i'm sure there were other lies, but this is what i am going to post here... the white houses JOB was to debunk these allegations, b/c they WEREN'T true...

BUT, if in the process, rove and/or libby knowlingly still outted her, knowing her previous job credentials, they should be in alot of trouble.. but if they didn't know, then they did exactly what they should have done... just b/c someone has all the information, doesn't mean they know it all... i'm sure there are covert operatives right now, that rove and libby have no clue about, though they could find out if they wanted... it seems to me, that they weren't trying to out someone, but to debunk someone, and was justified in doing so... and that is not breaking the law...

[Jamie_B]

I dont think its JUST about name dropping, its also about the work she was doing. That info was classified. Whoever let the name and info slip in relation to each other needs to be put in the noose.

Let me ask you somthing Rick, if the shoe were on the other foot, and this was going on during the Clinton admin, would you be more upset? We need to hold the people who do these things responsible no matter who they are. And I say that as someone who identifys himself as more Republican than Democrat.