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 New York Times gives hints, but we're not children. The wording "administration official" is a deception. It implies a person close to Bush has, for some unexplained reason, chosen to be loyal to the New York Times rather than to the President. On the face of it, it's damning. If true. But it's probably not true. Keeping the source unnamed allows the NYT's to get away with it. And yeah, my guess is some democrat CIA turncoat.
Interesting bit of info, ain't it
Though I didn't catch it .. kcvl deserves the credit on researching it
Thanks for the link - nice summary.
Didn't know that...thanks. Arkansas Gazette = Clintonista. This incestuous mess just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, yet clearer and clearer as to motivation and intent, with each tidbit of info.
Wow, they done writ that in stone, did they? Astounding
Anonymous sources used to be for the rarest of cases, by presidents, generals in war time.
Til the press found it useful to say whatever they wished with impunity
The NY Times could clear all of this up by simply ordering *their* jailed reporter, Judith Miller, to *report* (Heaven forbid) to the Public the identity of her leaker and the crime that was committed in front of her (i.e. leaking classified information).
Who is the NY Times protecting, and *why* are they spiking this news?
As far as "administration official"...I'd say it means any "superior" working in any branch of the Fed government. It's a verrrrrry broad term.
You could say Joe Wilson was an adminstration official when hired by the rouge CIA outfit to go to Niger.
"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....
Well, someone is sure choosing to trash that request .. and I wonder if Fitzgerald is purposely letting it happen.
"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."
Good. Thing is, this Pincus stuff is old news. The MSM plagiarizing blogs and forums, concocting news as if it were news. New, that is.
Could be Tenet or an assistant. They thought Wilson was full of it.
Can we always assume that the "adminstration official" that the NY Times is writing about is a person in the current Presidential administration?
Thanks for adding Wilson's anecdote!
NYTimes has Dowdified the quote.
Here's it in full
I didnt write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip
I think this quiet warrior patriot is probably wearing out Playtex latex gloves at warp speed .. thank God, he answered duty's call to fumigate the nest.
He and Condi have herculean tasks before them .. but they're up to it.
It used to mean that Dan Rather typed it up using Word on his computer running Windows '73.
Yes, I remember that the Left hates Miller for pushing the WMD stuff. To me, it's more likely that Miller knew Plame from way back (Plame was working in the WMD branch of the CIA. Miller was the WMD expert for the Times.) Remember, somebody had to connect Wilson to the Times. They certainly wouldn't let me write an op-ed if I ask. To me, it's much more likely that Bush did the SOTU, Wilson shot his mouth off to his lefty friends about how he made this important trip and he didn't find anything, Miller or her colleagues lead him to Times and plenty of people knew who Miller and Plame were.
There are many possibilities who it was that set in motion the Wilson game. This thread has probably been posted and reposted, sorry in advance "if" I step on toes.
Kristoff led him to the Times, I think. About a month earlier he wrote a piece in which Wilson was his source.
He started off the segment of his speech aimed at the Department of State with this excellent line:
"This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off."
He is telling the Brent Scowcrofts and Colin Powells of the world that the stabilizing, Real politick ideas they learned from Henry Kissinger and others who postulated similar old style machinations of pre 1950s Europe are not going to be acceptable to Americans any more. I say hallelujah. That one line describes the principles free actions of the US State Department for the last 60 years. It is about time we stopped giving our enemies the ammunition to tear the USA down that the State Department has provided for so long with their many missteps, bad decisions and advice.
"The advance of hope in the Middle East requires new thinking in the region." Continued Bush with his admonition. Darn right. This is one of the reasons that Colin Powell leaving the State Dept. is 4 years late.
Bush then said, "By now it should be clear that authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future, it is the last gasp of a discredited past." Are you listening, gentlemen? Condi Rice should be given the free hand to whip her charge into shape to fall in line with Bush's more principled foreign policy line of thinking.
And if the State boys didn't get it by that point in the speech, Bush clarified it with, "The advance of hope in the Middle East also requires new thinking in the capitals of great democracies, including Washington, D.C."
Were you listening, State Department? Bush may as well have said, "Can you hear me now?" New thinking, boys. That means throw out the dog-eared playbook written by the moribund denizens of the Truman and Eisenhower State Departments and get with the new program.
Still not clear, Foggy Bottom? Well then, carefully listen to this from the President's address: "By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny in the pursuit of stability have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy."
And Bush nailed it with these last three segments:
"It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors.
It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies.
And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East."
Appeasement and accepting the rule of dictators in other countries to sponsor hoped for "stability" is the game of last century. No longer will America avert its eyes as despots murder, imprison and abuse their own peoples so that our nation's business interests can continue without molestation. We will do as we always SHOULD have done. Support democracy and freedom throughout the world. After all, that is the only avenue to REAL stability anyway.
Let us hope that Bush uses one of the largest brooms ever wielded in Washington to sweep Foggy Bottom clear of the dregs of old European foreign policy lovers and the failed policies, both morally and in outcome, of the last 60 years.
Baring one of Washington's worst-kept secret, Secretary of State Colin Powell's deputy said he and Powell sometimes went public with their dissenting views to try to influence Bush administration policy.
Richard Armitage, who leaves along with Powell at the end of President Bush's first term, described the process as using the "bully pulpit.''
"Differences of opinion are something you as a citizen and I as a citizen should value in your government,'' Armitage said in an interview with National Public Radio's "Morning Edition'' on Thursday. "You really want it.''
Powell and Armitage, whose friendship was forged decades ago, share foreign policy views that are distinctly more moderate than those of Bush and other key presidential advisers. They also made far more use of media interviews and speeches to promote U.S. foreign policy than their predecessors.
Armitage made clear in the interview that the public appearances had another design, as well -- to reflect and register the views of the State Department as well as influence the shaping of policy.
"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.''
"And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
Armitage offered no examples of specific areas or issues of disagreement, although his response was to a question that suggested that Powell and he had been at odds with other top administration officials on policies involving North Korea and the Middle East.
Powell is known to have pushed for negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons programs, a strategy Bush adopted after months of review at the beginning of his first term. On the Middle East, Powell sometimes sought more flexibility from Israel, than did the White House, in dealing with the Palestinians.
"You don't want a government that sees everything the same way,'' Armitage said. "That would be bad -- it would lead to bad government, in my view.''
Maybe he should've asked his President if this course was acceptable FIRST!
Nightmare at Foggy Bottom: Arabists panicked at prospect of Rice's appointments
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns stands in front of a picture of late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in the West Bank city of Ramallah, on Nov. 21.
Colin Powell has long operated on the principle, "Don't rock the boat."
It was his credo at the State Department where he usually sidestepped appointments and diplomacy.
But Powell is gone, to be replaced by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Foggy Bottom is scared. Nowhere is the fear more palpable than in the department's Near East Bureau. There, the fear is that Rice will bring in her own Middle East team and sideline the naysayers who opposed the war in Iraq, a vigorous campaign against Iranian nuclear weapons and the boycott of the late Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.
Powell spent much of his time protecting the Near East Bureau, particularly Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, from the rest of the administration. But Rice wants a new policy based on a bold approach to peace and democracy. She doesn't want any more winks to the Saudis or Syrians. When Bush talks about a new Middle East, Rice wants both U.S. allies and adversaries to know that he means it.
Rice has been considering appointing Daniella Pletka, a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, to be the new assistant secretary of state.
Pletka is different from Burns as night is to day. A scholar on the Middle East and former congressional aide, Pletka does not share Foggy Bottom's approach of holding U.S. foreign policy captive to pleasing Saudi Arabia and its allies. Indeed, Pletka believes that the Arab kingdom is desperate for U.S. help and is even willing, if pressed, to make meaningful democratic reforms.
The prospect of Burns being replaced by a conservative scholar as Near East bureau chief is a nightmare for many career diplomats. Department sources said many diplomats are discussing a mass resignation if Pletka is appointed. Some have been urging their Arab counterparts to express concern over Pletka's candidacy. Yes, Pletka makes no secret of being pro-Israel.
Rice has been urged to choose a compromise candidate, such as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt David Welch. The argument is that Welch is highly regarded by the rank-and-file and would win the respect of Arab diplomats.
A bigger fear to Foggy Bottom is Rice's intention to recommend Undersecretary of State John Bolton to become deputy secretary of state. Bolton, the administration's point man on nonproliferation, is the bane of every career diplomat: he speaks plainly and speaks his mind. Stay tuned.
By my calculations, the fumigation plan started at State, since Goss didn't go to the CIA until April 2005 .. indicating that's probably where the gangrene was the most putrid and infectious ... pretty obvious prioritizing.
It could all be about the "Oil for Spies" program .. Poofi could be in here somewhere ... what country is he from in Africa ... LOL
Did you know Wilson had gone on another "fact finding" mission to Africa back in 1999?
I wonder why no one talks about that trip.
"Did you know Wilson had gone on another "fact finding" mission to Africa back in 1999?"
I've seen that mentioned before--maybe around here--maybe by you.
Do you have a link for that somewhere?
"Did you know Wilson had gone on another "fact finding" mission to Africa back in 1999?"
I knew he knew the continent well but have not looked specifically at his other trips that are known about.
"I wonder why no one talks about that trip."
Maybe somebody will.
1999 Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate uranium-related matters separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004).
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.