Skip to comments.Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
Posted on 07/27/2005 9:26:15 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.
[ . . . ]
Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm betting it came from the Colin Powell Foggy Bottom brigades.
Yes. For example, George Tenet was then an "administration offical." Consider that a hint.
About as specific, meaningful, and descriptive as "sources say"........... it means nearly nothing.
THere is a nice little press war going on between the NYTIMES and Washington Post, they have been picking apart each others stories for weeks.
I can't rule this out. But according to the Vanity Fair article, Novak apparently told Wilson that his original source was in the CIA.
"[Pincus] wrote in Nieman Reports that he did not believe the person who spoke to him was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get him to write about Mr. Wilson."
Of course, Pink-us did not reveal to the reading public that he and his wife are in bed with the Wilsons and the whole campaign to damage the Bush administration, either. He claims he did not believe Valerie Plame had any role in sending her husband on the bogus trip to Niger, but did Pink-us ever show any minimal journalistic integrity and competence in revealing his own personal biases and relationships which color his reporting with the sewage of Democratic Party talking points???
Good call. "Administration official" could certainly include the State Dept. Specifically, Colin Powell would certainly qualify as an "administration official". So, likely, would other State Department officials. And the State Department could use a good housecleaning just like the CIA. Too many Foggy Bottom residents are willing to put US interests behind State Department interests.
But it is interesting that the NY Times admits that Fitzerald is looking at someone other than Rove or Libby. This is the first time the MSM has admitted this.
I also like how the NY Times is doing investigative reporting on the Washington Post. We've seen fissures in Big Labor. Now we see fissures in Big Media. That Karl Rove is a genious. :)
The suspense is killing me. This just has to be worse than all of the other Bush Administration non-scandals put together.
Richard Armitage may be a good candidate - he is known to have circulated the State Dept. memo about the Niger uranium matter that had the press all atwitter recently because it was said to have been seen on Air Force One. Powell, Armitage, and Tenet seem to be the best candidates, although there might be others we don't even know about. If the key source were Rove then Novack couldn't possibly have said it was "no partisan gunslinger" - I think that phrase was a clear indication that someone who was NOT a political adviser to Bush or Cheney was involved........
Fair enough. Pincus is certainly conflicted due to his dual roles as reporter and witness in this case. But I've got to assume that anything he said before the grand jury is truthful. His reporting may be suspect, but if we get information about his grand jury testimony, that may be a little more credible.
From Macsmind blog (note: "office" = CIA) -
"I was on the phone to the "office" today, thankfullly, there are still good people there who are willing to speak about this issue (Not everyone at the office was against the war). Suffice to say that there is more to come, and if I were Joe and Valerie, I'd put the champaign away for now."
"I've always wondered does "administration official" conclusively mean someone who works in the White House?"
I always thought it meant anyone in the current Admin. Lately, especially knowing how the MSM spins things and doesn't always tell the full truth, I've been wondering if it could mean a previous Admin official - - if that's the case, there's a whole barrel-full that could have leaked.
The scumbag NY Times has ordered an employee to jail rather than let her exonerate Rove by revealing her source ("someone other than Rove or Libby") to the grand jury. I would say there was really nothing for the scumbag NY Times to admit except reality itself.
That was the point I was trying to make. "Administrative" could mean "Executive". Broadly defined, "administrative" could include anyone in the executive branch of government. Therefore, in the broadest sense, your National Park Ranger and IRS window clerk could be "administrative officials" since they work in the executive branch.
"Congressional officials" or "Judicial officials" would not be "Administration officials" since they are not in the executive branch and have different roles from "administering" or "executing" or "enforcing" the laws.
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.