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

Skip to comments.

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name
New York Times ^ | April 2, 2004

Posted on 04/01/2004 9:26:46 PM PST by Shermy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Shermy
That was my understatement of the year... just seems like there are an awful lot of francophiles mucking about.
21 posted on 04/01/2004 10:15:05 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Mr Fitzgerald was appointed by Clinton on Senator Fitzgerald's (no relation) recommendation, and the Senator selected him specifically because he didn't have ties to Illinois machine politics.
22 posted on 04/01/2004 10:15:25 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
They want to charge someone in the White House. They will charge someone in the White House whether they find evidence or not. They want an anti-Bush scandal come hell or high water. They will create one if they have to, they do it all the time.

On Sunday, October 31st, "unnamed sources" (Clinton holdovers) in the Justice Dept. will announce that an indictment of George W. Bush is forthcoming on charges of "obstruction of justice" releated to the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA operative, in violation of Federal law. There will, of course, be absolutely no basis for this explosive charge, and it will be retraced 2 weeks later. But the New York Times and Washinton Post will carry the story on the Front Page, and the "Halloween Massacre" will cost Bush 8 points in the polls, and close margins in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico will cost him the election.

23 posted on 04/01/2004 10:16:09 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: beckett
There is no real news in the report, so one can only conclude that the NYT is firing a shot across Fitzgerald's bow, warning him about "intense criticism" of he doesn't make the Democrats happy.

Definitely that's part of the game in this article. Good eye.

And typical of these reports, they don't discuss the "intelligence officials" who leaked to Newsday in an article similar to Novak's. Maybe they aren't being investigated...they should be.

24 posted on 04/01/2004 10:18:18 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: montag813
that would cost him 80 points in the polls.
25 posted on 04/01/2004 10:19:46 PM PST by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: montag813
I would not doubt it at all.

'The Ghost & the Shadow', see my FR homepage

26 posted on 04/01/2004 10:21:31 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Peach
To: 1Old Pro
Today Rush said that he had inside information that he couldn't disclose right now, but when the truth comes out about the leaker, people are going to be very surprised. He then elaborated a little bit and said there were a lot of left-over CLintonistas at the State Department. Also, Rush reminded viewers that Wilson has been not only against the war in Iraq, but is/was against the no-fly zone. Wilson repeatedly claimed in recent months Iraq never had WMD. But Rush played audio of Wilson saying before the war that he (Wilson) was afraid Saddam would use WMD. LOL - the guy is a Flipper ala Howard Dean.
99 posted on 09/29/2003 12:34 PM PDT by Peach

Very interesting! Though i've never read Wilson saying there were no WMD, I think that's wrong. But otherwise, that fits our recent (for now) opinion that the first "senior administration official" who is "not a partisan gunslinger" and likes to have "long conversation(s)" with the likes of Novak could very well be Richard Clarke himself.

27 posted on 04/01/2004 10:22:51 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
You have seen this article, "Retraction Times," right?
28 posted on 04/01/2004 10:25:54 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Of course, if Rush was hinting about State Dept officials, then that wouldn't be Clarke. I didn't catch the details on what Rush said so I don't know for sure if he was really implying that it was a person at State or not.
29 posted on 04/01/2004 10:32:39 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Joe Wilson's book is due out any day now. He needs publicity.
30 posted on 04/01/2004 10:37:50 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
April 30.

Mark your calendar.
31 posted on 04/01/2004 10:39:25 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Here's another individual of interest. This guy, Ken Pollack, came out in the Plame case to crank up the hysteria :

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs. "Nocs are the holiest of holies," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. " This is real James Bond stuff. You're going overseas posing as a businessman, and if the other government finds out about you, they're probably going to shoot you. The United States has basically no way to protect you." - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/politics/05TENE.html?hp

And then he popped up to defend Clarke recently right when Clarke first came out.

But we've heard from Pollack before :

MARCH 17, 1999 : (IRAQ NEWS COMMENTS ON IRAQ, KEN POLLACK & NSC : POLLACK HAS DESCRIBED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN AS A 'FANTASY' - DOES THIS SIGNAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION CHANGE IN IRAQ POLICY?) Ken Pollack is going to be doing for the NSC? And given that he's described removing Saddam Hussein as a fantasy, does that signal the administration is no longer committed to a change in regime in Iraq? - Iraq News, 17 March 1999

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 17, 1999 PRESS BRIEFING BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECRETARY ADVISOR JIM STEINBERG The Briefing Room, 12:45 P.M. EST [Excerpt] Q: Jim, can you tell us -- an Iraq related question -- can you tell us what Ken Pollack is going to be doing for the NSC? And given that he's described removing Saddam Hussein as a fantasy, does that signal the administration is no longer committed to a change in regime in Iraq? STEINBERG: Let me say a couple of things. First, Ken Pollack will be coming as the Director in the -- I guess we call it the Near East and South Asia Directorate -- NESA. Ken is a very distinguished analyst of the region. He's worked the government before, he's worked in the NSC before. We're extremely excited to have him here. He's a powerful intellect and a guy who has tremendous knowledge of the region. I think, first, we very much encourage people, we bring people from both the inside and the outside to work at the NSC. We are not in a position of sort of censoring the writings that they do before or after they come in. The question is whether they have the kind of skills and background to help us do the work. The judgments about policy are the judgments that are ultimately made by the President and his foreign policy team. I also don't agree with your characterization of the particular article. I think the article analyzed some of the difficulties of the various strategies, but let me be perfectly clear that the policy that we have, which is that the only long-term solution to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is a change of regime, is very much a commitment of this administration. We've been moving forward very aggressively -- the appointment of Frank Ricciardone is just one of the important elements of what we've been doing. We've been working very closely with the groups that are outside of Iraq; we are working closely with the governments in the region and others. And I have absolutely no doubt that Ken will be a terrific asset in helping us pursue that agenda. - Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie via http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990317_in.htm.

Pollack is also on the Council on Foreign Relations:

According to Ken Pollack, deputy director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a 1998 attack called Operation Desert Fox that attacked such targets provoked Hussein to overreact and order arrests and assassinations that resulted in Shi'a uprisings.

32 posted on 04/01/2004 10:57:22 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thanks for the info.
33 posted on 04/01/2004 11:13:23 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: piasa
dIn light of this current discussion and the fact that a Clintonista leftover from the previous administration may be responsible for the leak, I really wonder if we wouldn't be better off with the old fashioned system where the new president just cleaned house, got rid of everybody, and hired his own people. Just toss civil service out the window! However, if, God forbid, the Democraps ever got back in the White House we'd have to put up with their bozo's again.
34 posted on 04/02/2004 12:31:26 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,...for without victory there is no survival. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Nothing makes the Democrats happy, EVER. They are a professional *itching committee.
35 posted on 04/02/2004 12:45:21 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: piasa
This whole thing is just blown way out of proportion! If this woman is a specialist in "nonconvention weapons" what the hell is she doing married to an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR?? Tell me, isn't the diplomatic corp the first place you would look for a spy?? I mean, if the CIA couldn't find anyone more "covert" worthy than the Ambassador's wife, we are, indeed, in deep trouble!

Usually, when changes occur in a "covert's" life, such as marrying a high profile person (i.e. Ambassador), that person is dropped from covert ops, or they should be anyway.
36 posted on 04/02/2004 12:45:27 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,...for without victory there is no survival. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
Usually, when changes occur in a "covert's" life, such as marrying a high profile person (i.e. Ambassador), that person is dropped from covert ops, or they should be anyway.

Which, as far as I can tell, was the case with Ms. Plame-Wilson. Indeed, it is open to question whether or not her employment with the CIA was truly a secret. However, it's doubtful that these issues will be contested prior to an indictment.

37 posted on 04/02/2004 1:01:08 AM PST by squidly (I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosity he excites among his opponents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I have never seen a case that is going nowhere as slowly as this one. And "nowhere" is exactly where it will end up.
38 posted on 04/02/2004 1:18:34 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
It's being blown out of proportion because it was about the only thing the Democrats and lefties had.

If anything critical was revealed, it wasn't her ID that was so secret. That's all small stuff. The problem may be that by bringing her into it, it exposed the front company for which she worked. That's bad because a lot of other people may have been using that front company too, and now anyone associated with the company will be seen as a spy.

39 posted on 04/02/2004 1:21:15 AM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
OHHHH They mean the Joe Wilson who works for a think tank funded by SAUDI ARABIA!!! Gotcha. ;)
40 posted on 04/02/2004 3:26:13 AM PST by adam_az (Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 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