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

Skip to comments.

'Hard Evidence' Shows Cheney's Staff Outed CIA Operative
Cap Hill Blue ^ | Feb. 6, 04 | RICHARD SALE

Posted on 02/06/2004 5:59:25 AM PST by churchillbuff

From UPI: 'Hard Evidence' Shows Cheney's Staff Outed CIA Operative By RICHARD SALE Feb 6, 2004, 08:22

Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.

The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah "that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time" as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal law-enforcement official said.

The case centers on Valerie Plame, a CIA operative then working for the weapons of mass destruction division, and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who served as ambassador to Gabon and as a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad in the early 1990s. Under President Bill Clinton, he was head of African affairs until he retired in 1998, according to press accounts.

Wilson was sent by the Bush administration in March 2002 to check on an allegation made by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address the previous winter that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from the nation of Niger. Wilson returned with a report that said the claim was "highly doubtful."

On June 12, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus revealed that an unnamed diplomat had "given a negative report" on the claim and then, on July 6, as the Bush administration was widely accused of manipulating intelligence to get American public opinion behind a war with Iraq, Wilson published an op-ed piece in the Post in which he accused the Bush administration of "misrepresenting the facts." His piece also asked, "What else are they lying about?"

According to one administration official, "The White House was really pissed, and began to contact six journalists in order to plant stories to discredit Wilson," according to the New York Times and other accounts.

As Pincus said in a Sept. 29 radio broadcast, "The reason for putting out the story about Wilson's wife working for the CIA was to undermine the credibility of [Wilson's] mission for the agency in Niger. Wilson, as the last top diplomat in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, had credibility beyond his knowledge of Africa, which was his specialty. So his going to Niger to check the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium there and returning to say he had no confirmation was considered very credible."

Eight days later, columnist Robert Novak wrote a column in which he named Wilson's wife and revealed she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Since Plame was working undercover, it exposed her and, in the opinion of some, ruined her usefulness and her career. It also violated a 1982 law that prohibits revealing the identity of U.S. intelligence agents.

On Oct. 7, Bush said that unauthorized disclosure of an undercover CIA officer's identity was "a criminal matter" and the Justice Department had begun its investigation into the source of the leak.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cheney; cialeak; intelligence; iraq; johnhannah; josephwilson; scooterlibby; valerieplame

1 posted on 02/06/2004 5:59:26 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Imagine that- a Capital Hill Blue piece that is a hit on the administration and relies on anonymous sources. We've never seen that before!
2 posted on 02/06/2004 6:03:37 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If it's in Capitol Hill Blue,it's a fact/sarcasm.Getting after Cheney pretty hard this morning I notice.
3 posted on 02/06/2004 6:05:07 AM PST by MEG33 (BUSH/CHENEY '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Hard evidence?

We're waiting.........

4 posted on 02/06/2004 6:06:29 AM PST by G.Mason (The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
this is a fishing expedition by Bush 41 people who are trying to fry the "neo-cons". If they had "hard evidence" then they'd have an indictment. They would not need to be peddling this story through old intelligence hacks to the gutter press
5 posted on 02/06/2004 6:06:52 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Was it a source they've known for 20 yrs?
6 posted on 02/06/2004 6:08:30 AM PST by Mo1 (Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
CHB might be consistantly wrong (not to mention biased), but that doesn't stop the mainstream media from picking up these stories and running with them.
7 posted on 02/06/2004 6:09:09 AM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Is someone giving lessons on CHP????
8 posted on 02/06/2004 6:09:49 AM PST by Neets (I always feel like somebody's watching me.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
A source they have known for 20 years AND RECENTLY HAD lunch/dinner/brunch/snacks/cocktails/tail-gate/fishfry with.
9 posted on 02/06/2004 6:10:40 AM PST by Neets (I always feel like somebody's watching me.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"...a Justice Department official said." "According to these sources..." "...one federal law-enforcement officer said." "According to one administration official..." (and so on.)

Once again, no named sources. Everyone is anonymous.

10 posted on 02/06/2004 6:13:03 AM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If true (probably not)they should be given a medal. Who needs an anaylst that practices nepotism and then has the same hubbie write a hit piece on Bush. Good riddance to an inept operative.
11 posted on 02/06/2004 6:25:00 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
I agree...

According to unamed sources at the State Department, the fiasco at the Superbowl halftime was caused by aliens. According to an anonymous source in the Bush/Cheney White House, Republicans will try to starve your kids this year.

My saying this does not make it true. And, of course, since I am a journalist, you cannot ask me about my sources.
12 posted on 02/06/2004 6:26:10 AM PST by Ingtar (Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Aw Jeez, not this stuff again...
13 posted on 02/06/2004 6:30:01 AM PST by Born Conservative ("Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names" - John F. Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Hannah and Libby are the targets? That's amusing.

CHB needs to take a rest... he's getting beaten to a pulp, as of late.
14 posted on 02/06/2004 6:30:28 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife (Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'--- Kahlil Gibran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Wilson was sent by the Bush administration in March 2002 to check on an allegation made by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address the previous winter that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from the nation of Niger. Wilson returned with a report that said the claim was "highly doubtful."

There are more lies in this statement than I can count. Who wrote this, Jon Lovitz?

15 posted on 02/06/2004 6:38:14 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60
also Richard Sale lies outright in this piece claiming that Plame was "working undercover" at the time the stories were out.
16 posted on 02/06/2004 6:39:37 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
They forgot to change the name to "Capital Hill Red" a couple of years ago when they changed sides...
17 posted on 02/06/2004 6:43:00 AM PST by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Is there anyone on earth who doesn't believe for a single second that every foreign intelligence network doesn't know who works at Langley. Hell just sit outside the gates and take down license plates, follow people home, moles, intercepts, photographs, bribes and stoolies. Sure, no one ever knew this broad was an analyst until Novak's column. Please give me a break. Deep Cover maybe, but not some 9-5 clock puncher at Langley.
18 posted on 02/06/2004 6:48:29 AM PST by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60
Exactly.

I'll bet when Wilson came back and wrote that lie in the NYT, the went on MTP to lie again a say Cheney sent him, Cheney's people, or whoever, simply said, "we didn't send him, she did".

Wow, sounds criminal to me.

19 posted on 02/06/2004 6:49:50 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Imagine that- a Capital Hill Blue piece that is a hit on the administration and relies on anonymous sources. We've never seen that before!

I got to the second paragraph, and had to look up to make sure the author wasn't (cough) someone else...

20 posted on 02/06/2004 6:53:03 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Sale, the UPI's so-called "Terrorism Correspondent" is a past-master at using the unattributable quote. His most notorious pieces include: "U.S. Syria Raid Killed Eighty" (7-17-03), "Mossad Gives Orders to Kill Terrorists in USA", and "Saddam Key in Early US Plot".
21 posted on 02/06/2004 7:30:18 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
of possible criminal misconduct

related to the unlawful exposure

could lead to indictments

And it has yet to be determined if there is even a crime.

22 posted on 02/06/2004 8:48:07 AM PST by StriperSniper (Manuel Miranda - Whistleblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Hard evidence? We're waiting.........

LOL! "Hard Evidence" to the media is when their anonymous gooney-bird repeats the claims . . . thereby allowing them to say they had two witnesses.

23 posted on 02/06/2004 8:52:01 AM PST by geedee (They who give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Exactly! The Bush administration did NOT send Wilson.
In fact, the reasons why he was sent and by whom is still a mystery.
24 posted on 02/06/2004 8:56:36 AM PST by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: geedee
Actually, Richard Sales is a reporter for UPI (there's a UPI copyright at the bottom of the CHB Story). The Washington Times owns UPI and ran the same story (and the last time I looked the Times was considered pro-administration.
25 posted on 02/06/2004 8:58:59 AM PST by arj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
And if Sale isn't lying through his teeth, proverbially speaking, about the leak to him about this investigation, who in the FBI or Justice leaked the info to Sale? And wouldn't that definitely be a violation?
26 posted on 02/06/2004 9:00:43 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
We are really getting somewhere now. The part I like the best is that the "Bush administration sent -WILSON-".

That being the case then why did WILSON not submit a report to the "Bush administration", but rather to the NYTimes, and join the JFKerry campaign?

So they got an independent INQUISITION, two days later "federal law enforcement is leaking". Who would have thought.

27 posted on 02/06/2004 9:06:33 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Changed sides? Really?

I notice these two stories on Capitol Hill Blue's home page this morning:

"Federal Nominees Bought Kerry's Support"

"Kerry Took Payoffs From Firm He Helped As Senator"

Seems to be they are on the same side they have always been on: Nobody's.

28 posted on 02/06/2004 9:08:58 AM PST by arj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
you are right, of course. this leak is a felony, but only if it turns out to be true. My guess is that it is a fishing expedition to 1. smear the subjects of it to make them questionable even if innocent 2. try to put pressure on someone, anyone, to cough up needed evidence which they obviously do not have. If you have enough for an indictment, where is the indictment. Also, the enemy here is probably not the left. This is a "get the neo-cons" effort coming from the right and the intelligence community, i'd bet. Not that I know anything, just a guess.
29 posted on 02/06/2004 9:13:02 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
Who would commit a definite violation in order to screw with the investigation of a possible violation?
30 posted on 02/06/2004 9:15:22 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
you want to make these guys too hot to handle in the public mind. If you can't get an indictment, then leak that they are "under suspicion" and "might be indicted". That way you totally smear their reputations and undermine their work even though they are innocent. My guess is that the Bush 41 people want to come back in and seize the foreign policy reins back from the neo-cons. In this they would have a welcome ally in the intelligence community, including FBI. QED. just a theory of course, but I like it.
31 posted on 02/06/2004 9:19:24 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
Works for me :) Sounds like they're getting pretty desperate, though, if this is the worst they can do.
32 posted on 02/06/2004 9:20:36 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
If it's in Capitol Hill Blue,it's a fact/sarcasm

All the same, I'd like to see what Debka thinks before I make up my mind

33 posted on 02/06/2004 9:23:31 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Wise,very wise,indeed!
34 posted on 02/06/2004 9:24:53 AM PST by MEG33 (BUSH/CHENEY '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
internecine warfare is the nastiest kind. The Baker people are already back though. There's Bob Blackwell back at NSC running the Iraq portfolio. Tutwiler is back at State. Revenge of the Turds.
35 posted on 02/06/2004 9:25:10 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
read later
36 posted on 02/06/2004 9:25:46 AM PST by nutmeg (Tick off a terrorist - Vote for George W. Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
Well, if someone at the FBI did leak this, I can see why the USSS might have waited to turn over the info about that Ricin letter to the WH. Sounds like Mueller has some more housecleaning to do...
37 posted on 02/06/2004 9:27:16 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
I'm just assuming that "Federal Law Enforcement Officials" means FBI.
38 posted on 02/06/2004 9:31:29 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: arj
Actually, Richard Sales is a reporter for UPI (there's a UPI copyright at the bottom of the CHB Story). The Washington Times owns UPI and ran the same story (and the last time I looked the Times was considered pro-administration.

What about the Washington Post, The New Yawk Times, and Walter Pincus . . . which are all quoted as fact-purveyors in this article?

I give you a quote about Pincus . . .

"Pincus was uniquely positioned to delve into the intricacies of the weapons question. At 70, he had been reporting on national security for 25 years at the Post. Along the way he had cultivated sources in Congress, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the scientific community. For decades, he has been close to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix."

Pincus had an agenda before the war started. Whether his agenda proves to be accurate or not doesn't matter . . . he formed his opinions before the facts, ANY FACTS, were in and he's been running with his "pre-ordained" conclusion ever since. He's won all kinds of awards over his long career . . . but so have the owner of the New Yawk Times and it's editorial staff.

Jeanne Dixon used to be a sooth-sayer widely quoted in newspapers and magazines and on TV . . . about her phenomenally predicting the future. No one brought up the thousands and thousands of predictions that were wrong . . . just the miniscule amount that had come close to being right.

I give you Walter Pincus. If he was so concerned about us "lying" about WMD's in 2002 . . . why didn't his righteous indignation rear it's ugly head in . . . oh say 1998? Which, I think, is the year Congress declared our Iraqi policy was one of "regime change." Or any other period between 1992 and 2000? We bombed Iraq because of WMD's. We threatened much more. Where were Mr. Pincus and all the other "righteous" protestors then?

Feeding at Pee Wee and Hitlery Clinton's trough . . . that's where.

Also, him being good friends with Inspector Blix should make most rational folks question anything he quotes as fact.

My point is this about the WMD subject . . . What in the hell's the hurry? Why can't everyone in the media just wait for the facts to come out? They will . . . they always do. Answer . . . there's a conservative in the White House and this is an election year.

I know this thread isn't about WMD's but you say because the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone and it's connected to the leg bone . . . then the entire body is conservative. I say when the parts making up the hip bone quote liberal sources who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the teeter, then I'll go with my gut feeling and question all the conclusions reached by this body.

39 posted on 02/06/2004 9:36:01 AM PST by geedee (They who give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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