Rice Knew 'Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

Reuters ^ | 09-28-03

[UncleJeff]

If your scenario is correct (and I am not doubting it) then the "enforcers" were stupid enough to be baited into committing one or more felonies and potentially endangering intelligence assets during war for petty political gain, and richly deserve to go to jail, and since Ashcroft is against anybody getting anything less than the max that means 10 years.

[aristeides]

Whoever it was didn't just expose individuals, he revealed a source and/or method.

[UncleJeff]

IF it is as it is being portrayed, they came awful close to treason.

[Lancey Howard]

I would argue only that Bush doesn't own all of the CIA. There is a sizable contingent there too who have it in for Bush.

If so, then you can bet that Daddy knows exactly who they are. And they should watch their backs.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

[tsomer]

self-generated by Wilson and his wife, both who would qualify as "senior administration officials."

Wouldn't Bush & co. have undermined their claim about the uranium by exposing the wife?

Consider: who's side would that knowledge tend to support, the administration, or the Wilson, who would be regarded as someone "in the know."

Also, Novak is a hack.

[Phsstpok]

hit piece number 51 using the carville talking points.

I think with this much effort on their part that the "vicims" involved might need to be careful of impending Arkencide. The dims (and their allies, including some posting these articles here) are setting them up for the same fate as the English "arms expert" who's suicide sparked such a damaging row surrounding Tony Blair. This won't get legs until someone dies.

[tsomer]

Let me clarify the above:

The question is, who profits from the revelation that Wilson is married to a CIA agent directly involved with the report?

I would think that Wilson would gain greater credibility as someone in a position to know what he claimed to know. What would the administration have gained? It seems that this would have undermined its claims about the uranium story by showing that Wilson had an authoritative source for his.

As for Novak, he has published BS before; I consider him as reliable as Debka. Buy a box of salt.

[CyberAnt]

Exactly! Hillary would do anything to embarass the Bush admin.

And .. I suspect with good reason - the Wilson's are very, very palsey-walsey with the Clintons.

That's enough evidence for me!!

Hmmmm? I wonder if this could be the straw that breaks the Clinton's back. Could this be what trips them up and opens up the door ...?? Interesting!

[UncleJeff]

Wilson claims the intent was to serve as a warning to others on the inside who might consider releasing damaging info.

[UncleJeff]

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."
George H.W. Bush
April 16th, 1999

[tsomer]

hit piece number 51 using the carville talking points.

Now that you mention it this is straight from the "Destroy Ken Star" playbook: leak something and blame the other guy.

[tsomer]

Wilson claims the intent was to serve as a warning to others on the inside who might consider releasing damaging info.

How would that work? Five minutes of fame and a book contract with Simon and Schuster; not much punishment there, it would seem.

[UncleJeff]

I guess the theory is that if they will commit felonies to get back at Wilson very publicly any other potential whistle-blowers had better think twice before crossing Rove, or whoever.

[SSN558]

Well, whoever leaked it needs firing, that's for damn sure.

Clinton and democraps have well placed backstabbers and saboteurs throughout the federal bureaucracies. The liberal media is all over this singing glory hallelujah.

Just like their mentor they are without honor or shame. If it results in the major collapase of U.S. foreign policy, or the Middle East going Nuclear it's all OK if it serves the political purpose.

[cyncooper]

"Critics have said the Iraq-Niger assertion, which later was found to be based partly on forged documents, showed the administration had tried to hype intelligence to make a case for going to war. "

Wilson is a side-show to the main question yet unanswered, who was in the chain that forged and forwarded the documents? Why is this still covered up?

I'd like to know about the forged documents, too.

But why does the media continue to misreport the story? Bush did not base any statement in his SOTU Address on forged documents or Joseph Wilson tea-sipping trips. He based it on British Intelligence which was not based on the forged documents at all.

Each story I've read today on this investigation makes it appear that President Bush made a reference to Niger based on forged documents and ignored Wilson. That is not true.

As to the Wilsons. I've been posting on other threads and I think this story is being spun to draw attention away from whatever they've done and make it appear the Bush administration has done something wrong. Someone on another thread made the excellent analogy to the Florida couple taping Newt and company and the initial stories were spun that it was the Republicans' discussion that was the wrongdoing. Same here, IMO.

And btw, Novak did not report Plame was an "undercover" operative. She may have been, either in the past or was currently, but I don't think so. Again, lazy and loose use of language by these "reporters" to help direct the story the way they wish.

[cyncooper]

potentially endangering intelligence assets during war for petty political gain

Just who are you referring to as an "intelligence asset"? Valerie Plame, whose husband was busy writing anti-war diatribes in "The Nation" on the eve of war? That asset?

And while I'm on the subject, why didn't Wilson bother to include in his "Nation" piece that was written about two weeks after the State of the Union Address any concerns he had about what he'd "found" (or not) in Niger and the president's speech? Hm?

Oh, and when Wilson was a guest of Bill Moyers at the end of February---again, after the SOTU speech, is Wilson agreeing that Saddam has WMD, but his disagreement is with war and Wilson was arguing for "containment" and accusing Bush of Empire building.

Now, I wonder about "intelligence assets" married to such and just where their loyalties lie.

[cyncooper]

Now that you mention it this is straight from the "Destroy Ken Star" playbook: leak something and blame the other guy.

You are correct.

[nicollo]

Novak has sandbox envy. Whenever I read him I smell McCain.

Speaking of odor, this story reaks of CYA. A certain former ambassador employed by the employer of his wife, both weighted like lead in the pencil of a previous Administration, ain't 'xactly prime beef. Folks forget that the CIA is stocked by the Academy. Operatives and agents are one thing, "analysts" are quite another.

This story is rank.

[cyncooper]

I guess the theory is that if they will commit felonies to get back at Wilson very publicly any other potential whistle-blowers had better think twice before crossing Rove, or whoever.

Let's be precise, shall we?

Wilson is no "whistle blower", he is a liar in that he tells part of a story and omits certain facts in order to shape it against this administration. And now his accusation exposing him more as the partisan fraud that he is.

Too bad. Years ago I guess he did a good thing right before the first Gulf War, but then he got in tight with clinton and here we are.