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 ...
"The quote from Robert Novak about his other source was that the source was not a "partisan gunslinger.""
Hint that it was someone who worked in both the Bush AND the Cliton Admin.?
So why does Pincus continue to muddy the waters with his own reporting? If he knows the source, and it isn't Libby and Rove, why doesn't he just say so in the pages of the Washington Post?
I would assume that Pincus has been telling his Dem friends that someone in the Administration is going down. The Dems appear awfully cheerful lately.
Dem cheerful? That's not exactly the term I'd use. I think they're dour. What makes you say "cheerful"?
"recommended her husband be sent on the ultra secret fact finding mission to deepest, darkest Niger Africa."
Yes, the CIA sends a former State Department official and ambassador to Iraq to Niger to talk to the President of Niger about yellowcake uranium. And every intelligence service in the World finds out about the visit in about an hour.
"Seymour Hersh: "Who lied to whom?" 03/31/2003
"The chance for American intelligence to challenge the documents came as the Administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei...A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded."
" 'Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,' the former high-level intelligence official added. 'It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.'
The question is - "Who is that somebody?"
Seems to me the Dems, by which I mean the professional politicians, are pursuing the Rove story with some energy. If they thought that pursuing the story was a loser, they'd quit.
I know it's the dailykos but it looks like the libs are starting to point fingers at Miller herself.
I wonder who the source was at the CIA that Miller spoke to?
They are trying to implicate Rove but knowing what we know about Larry Johnson and his VIPS people, this could be where the real leak happened.
Howlin, if you think it's worthy... ping your list.
But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. . . So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.
You ask teh right question. Since Miller was not a government employee, she doesn't have access to classified information. She can't be the original source. Someone told her.
I, too, am getting convinced that there is a serious problem at the CIA.
The libs are trying to suggest that Miller was "mad" at Wilson. As if she were not a lib herself.
But knowing what we know, the is probably somewhere in between...
I'm still convinced Plame and Wilson outed themselves to anyone who would listen.
It's "Ms" for Val now? LOL
Based on the thread title, I was hoping it was revealed that Bill or Hillary were the leakers. Of course, then the MSM would headline, "Rove illegally confirmed a possible leak from an unnamed source.".
Pinging others to look (and I note the Times correctly uses the phrase that Miller's testimony is wanted regarding a "government" official. In a different article recently they tried to subsitute a phrase meant to imply direct WH affiliation):
Ms. Miller never wrote a story about the matter. She has refused to testify in response to a court order directing her to testify in response to a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald seeking her testimony about a conversation with a specified government official between June 6, 2003, and June 13, 2003.
During that period, Ms. Miller was working primarily from the Washington bureau of The Times, reporting to Jill Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, and was assigned to report for an article published July 20, 2003, about Iraq and the hunt for unconventional weapons, according to Ms. Abramson, who is now managing editor of The Times.
Interesting---remember I've pointed out her subpoena wants to know about information gleaned from this official about Iraq trying to obtain uranium.
In his article in the Summer 2005 issue of Nieman Reports, Mr. Pincus wrote that he did not write about Ms. Wilson when he first heard the account "because I did not believe it true that she had arranged" Mr. Wilson's trip.
I guess that would be because his good friend Joe Wilson assured him it was not. Boy that Pincus sure has a nose for the news...not. (yes, I know he's more likely being deliberately deceitful---or he's dumb as a box of rocks---either way is unacceptable)
Because he and his wife are very good friends with the Wilsons.
It's like the old "Chinese torture"--coming out a drop at a time. Yup, not a WH official--and they're good at parsing so I believe this to be true--but a "government" official.
Um, the dems (and their handmaidens in the media) pursued the GWB TANG non-story with gusto, too, and there was nothing there.
The fact is, those who have lost credibility don't deserve to be taken seriously and those that have behaved honorably deserve to be believed.
The fact is that Wilson is lying, the administration officials who told reporters they should not report Wilson's lies were correct to do so and Rove did nothing wrong.
I personally do not believe that Joe Wilson's woman originated the idea to send Joe to Niger. This trip was 02/02, four months after 9/11/01, somebody is worried about protecting old Saddam and possibly the French, that goes higher up the food chain than Joe Wilson and his woman.
I seem to remember the same "cast of characters" pursuing the Texas Air National Gurad memo story with the same fervor.
You need to rethink your conclusion.
re: Miller and the NY Times
There's a crucial media angle that I haven't seen discussed in detail anywhere (though we all know the MSM has been eager to manipulate this story) - the extent to which the NY Times and all of the MSM were desperate, absolutely desperate, for this story to be true.
There's a very telling passage in Joe Wilson's book, in which he describes going to meet a NY Times editor for lunch in the days right after his July 6, 2003 op-ed had appeared, and got a hero's welcome - they absolutely loved him for helping to slay the Bush/Rove dragon, as they thought..... when the editor introduces him to some reporter the guy says to Wilson "So you're the guy who saved this paper!" or words to that effect. Of course, nothing Wilson says is trustworthy, but the point of his little anecdote was that it was right after the Jayson Blair fiasco and the Times people were looking at Wilson as their salvation, as a key story that would blow the Bush administration out of the water and restore the luster of the NY Times. This helps to explain why they are so desperate to prevent Miller from showing that the whole Rove scandal is a set up.... I'm sure there was a similar attitude at WaPo and other outlets....
The MSM, most of all the NY Times, were/are desperate to pump up Wilson - it's a parallel to the Rathergate/Burkett scandal. I know this won't surprise anyone here, but from Wilson's first-hand account of his visit to the NY Times in early July 2003 we have to consider the vast extent to which the MSM, and especially the NY Times, have been willing to subvert all journalistic and political ethics to protect this story.
Jayson Blair is a piker compared to the editors of the NY Times....
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.