|
|
Posted on 09/30/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by mattdono
I need to see more than what's out there to think this is anything like the big deal the press and the Democrats are making it out to be. I'm all in favor of having the Justice Department investigate. I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression. Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already.
It seems to me that the energy driving this is A) Obvious Democratic opportunism and scandal-hunger B) Media opportunism as this is the first Bush "scandal" that isn't manufactured outside the White House (could someone explain what Bush did wrong on Enron again?) C) A burning desire to flesh out a fleshless storyline that the Bush White House clamps down on "dissenters" D) An even more burning desire to make Karl Rove into the Sid Blumenthal of this administration.
Which brings us to another issue: comparisons between this administration and the last. First of all, Rove is not Blumenthal for several reasons but the most important is that Rove's got real power. Blumenthal was a Tolkieneque Wormtongue at best and more likely a slipper-carrier. On the larger front, I will be able to take only so much sermonizing from liberals over this scandal considering the fact that the last White House knowingly filed false criminal charges against inconvenient employees (the Travel Office), invented new privileges and abused old ones to stonewall at ever turn (Bush is commanding full cooperating), and generally accused critics of every form of bad faith imaginable.
So yes, by all means investigate what I predict will be a very minor story. But let's not pretend the Republic is in danger.
NO TO MRS. CLINTON AND MR. CLINTON!
THE CONFUSING WILSON STORY [Ramesh Ponnuru]Hmmm. This seems like Mr. Wilson was really got this ball rolling himself. In and of itself, we may be able to say that he wasn't thinking, misspoke, and this whole thing has been blown out of proportion (which, undoubtedly, it has).
I understood Novak not to be denying that Plame/Wilson is involved in covert ops but to be saying that a CIA source had given him to understand that she was merely an analyst--a very different thing. Did whatever administration official spoke to Novak realize what her job was? If not, does his ignorance save him from breaking the law? There is rather a lot that's murky in this story. The Washington Post reports 1) that Joseph Wilson says that Andrea Mitchell, among others, told him that the administration had told her about his wife's job and 2) that Mitchell had reported that Wilson was saying that the administration had told reporters about his wife's job. So Mitchell's source was Wilson, but Wilson's source was Mitchell?
Source: The Corner, 09/29/2003 05:53 PM
But, then you consider his positions, his politics, and the statements that he has made, as well as the now-denied but strategic name drop of "Karl Rove", it begins to appear that, indeed, maybe he was purposefully effort to get a ball rolling.
The truth of the matter is that Mr. Wilson has now admitted (but only when he was pressed on the issue) that he had absolutely no proof that Karl Rove was remotely involved. In fact, he claimed that he got carried away during a speech (which basically means he made it up). It becomes readily apparent that Mr. Wilson is a) an incompetent, b) a liar, c) an idiot, or d) an incompetent and idiotic liar. Take your pick.
He wrote the original story that has caused this whole dust up. People will (and have) malign(ed) his position as being in Bush's camp, but this is hardly the case. In fact, he opposed the war in Iraq, just as Mr. Wilson had, except for different (more legitimate) reasons.
The following notice was sent to all White House employees:
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee
-----------------------------------
The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel to the President's office. The President has directed full cooperation with this investigation.
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant. Technically, the law does not apply. That's why the CIA wasn't very forceful when it told Novak "it wouldn't be a good idea" to publish.
Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact. Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked.
Clifford May has asked the question, "Who didn't know?" This was really the original reference to the cocktail party circuit. Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Analysts aren't operatives and, thus, don't have the same legal implications.
The investigation has been launched to determine if there was a violation of Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421 which EXPLICITLY notes that the violation of law only applies to "covert agent".
As noted in several posts on this thread, the demoCREEPs are calling her an "undercover agent" or "operative" (which has a covert connotation), as opposed to CIA employee or her acknowledged, current position of "analyst". That is the language game they are playing. They are going to call her an "operative" or "undercover agent", then they will finally point to the law (section 421 cited above) and say, "See, it's illegal." Their cohorts in the media are going right along (see the Gergen/Van Sustern comment in post #3 by .cnI redruM).
The presence of an investigation means nothing. The investigation should reveal that 1) she is a covert agent, 2) she is NOT a covert agent, or 3) she was a covert agent at one time, but isn't anymore.
The law would only be violated if they find #1 to be true. If the investigation reveals #2 or #3 to be true, then no law was broken and the reporting of Mr. Wilson's wife, considering that she talk to him about going to Niger about the Yellowcake, is entirely appropriate.
|
|
It does? How? All this says is, "don't stonewall and cooperate".
I agree with your comments about the application of this law...it only applies if she was a covert operative. There is no way that the CIA would have even acknowledge her existence if she was a covert or undercover agent. I don't even think that they would acknowledge it if she was, at one time, an undercover agent.
The tacit admission that she worked for the CIA is quite telling as to the status of her employment. The known social circles are just an additional reason to (rightly) believe that she was nothing more than an analyst.
Ockham's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". Translation, "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". In other words, the idea that the simplest or most obvious explanation of several competing ones is the one that should be preferred until it is proven wrong.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
The president could be in trouble. Getting some Nixon deja vu.
Because, because, because, he has no credibility unless he reveals the source.
Well, I don't think that is the acid test. I refuse to use the "Clinton" administration as the yardstick to compare any administration too.
The fact that the person who wrote the story, Robert Novak, said he didn't get the name from administration officials. The CIA acknowledge the woman's employment, first and the administration officials knew that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA...THAT'S IT!
That is the extent of the acknowlegement by anyone in the admininstration...that they knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak didn't get the name from the administration officials, but, rather, that they knew she worked at CIA.
However, if the precise same thing happened in a Clinton administration I'm also guessing that many Freepers and the author would be screaming bloody murder.
Who ox is being gored? (No pun intended)
If someone works at the CIA (other than agent) it is NO SECRET at all. When I lived in DC I often met people who freely told me they worked at the CIA. They just couldn't tell me what their specific jobs were but there was NO PROBLEM about them telling me that they worked at the CIA.
Well, having Schumer say that the Attorney General cannot be trusted with this is a howler. During the last administration Freepers were very busy having strokes over Janet Reno's refusal to name a special counsel over things like People's Liberation Army funding of and influence over the President, not to mention Carville, Blumenthal, the Pentagon and even Larry Flynt smearing everyone in sight. Would a leak about a CIA employee register even a 3.5 on the Freeper scale? Hard to know. But the motive for this alleged disclosure is so vague and confused. One never had to scratch one's head with Clinton outings. "Destroy this individual now" was the clear message. Who the heck cares about this Bozo's wife, anyway? How did it destroy him? He's a bigger windbag than ever. As a deterrent? It makes no logical sense. Her status has risen immeasurably in their circle of friends.
We FREEPERs, while very passionate, still have the ability to look at facts. And, the facts, ihis situation, simply don't support the reaction that is being caused by the demoCREEPs.
FREEPER pricess leah has a very good take on why this is an issue: bascially, it is a "red herring". A diversion so that the story about Hillary's donors being a big Hamas supporter isn't in the mainstream media.
LOL.....does the sun rise every morning in the East?
It doesn't matter how many times he says it. That's not what the 'Rats want to hear. They will repeat a lie as many times as it takes until it starts to sound like the truth. SOP.
Today, Mrs. Hillary Wilson is being referred to as a CIA "specialist". This could mean she makes the coffee for the office every morning.
Quite a demotion from yesterday's hysteria that she was a "secret agent", a "covert operative" and "handled weapons of mass destruction" issues.
Fox has also toned down its histrionics of yesterday when Shep Smith, John Gibson, etal. were hyping this story so wildly that one would think that our President had set the White House on fire.
Leni
This headline tactic is so infuriating. Knowing that average Americans will not follow up on this story they just want to change minds with misleading headlines. I wish FOXNEWS would run a 24 hour special on how Clarke and Dean were allegedly seen standing near a man allegedly involved in a gay-bashing murder after the last debate. Just run the headline "Dean & Clarke Homosexual Murder" followed later by "Clarke, Dean Gay Murder Allegations On Rise".
Who cares what truth is anymore?
Then why does anybody ever have any credibility talking about anonymous sources?
The fact is that people at the CIA asked Mrs. Wilson to talk to Mr. Wilson about going to Niger to investigate the Yellowcake claims is a part of the story that seems to be getting no play.
The reason why Novak wrote about this was because Wilson rebuked the Yellowcake evidence put forward by British intelligence and repeated in the now-famous "16 words" in the SOTU address.
She is a crux of why he went their to begin with and his . She is an integral part of the story. So, when Novak revealed that she was a CIA employee (including her name), it was part of the story.
Releasing her name, in light of the fact that so many people in Washington D.C. (and even Mr. Wilson's own biography) knew her name and what she did might not have been the best journalistic decision, but it was hardly "do not publish" information. Even the CIA said that they would prefer that he didn't release the name, but didn't insist on it.
Novak, while maintaining his journalistic intregrity, would have likely excluded the name if the CIA explained the potential national security issue. He would have likely said, "Wilson, whose wife works with CIA..." The fact (indisputable fact) is that the CIA didn't do so...they merely preferred that he not mention it.
It's disgusting.
They also have said, "a criminal investigation to see if the White House blew an operatives cover". There is a necessary implication that this woman was an undercover operative, when, in fact, all evidence shows her as an analyst, not an operative.
The normal rules of credibility shift when a reporter's story becomes a political issue. Novak triggered this investigation by his column. He cannot take his match back and undo the fire he started. The only think he can do is tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He is not doing that so he has no credibility to limit the damage in the fire he started.
I'm not forgetting anything. I know that the CIA knows her work status. That's part of the point. THEY (the CIA) was the first group that acknowledge her employment. They would NEVER have acknowledged her employment if she was a covert agent. Period.
Since that's the case, one has to wonder why they've asked for an investigation if Plame is nothing more than an analyst. If no laws have been broken, why waste the DOJ's time?
Why?
Because the democrats have made it a national security issue.
The CIA is (rightly) punting to the DOJ since its own people gave out the information. They can't conduct an investigation becase 1) it is a domestic issue and 2) it would be imprudent, because they are a party involved in the situation.
And if there's nothing to the case, why has the DOJ turned it over to the FBI for investigation? Why is the DOJ wasting the FBI's time, if there's nothing to the case?
As far as the investigation itself, this is the normal course of action with this type of accusation (especially considering the "hot" political nature of the accusation).
Also, the CIA refers matters like this to the DOJ over 50 times PER YEAR. The DOJ investigates each referral with whatever means is appropriate, with the FBI conducting many of these investigations.
Your implication that an investigation is smoke, so there must be some fire is simply too presumptuous.
By the way, the investigation only needs to determine if Mrs. Wilson is an undercover/covert agent. If she isn't, then the accusations are moot (see the actual law in question Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421).
Please read the actual law in question before you respond.
NOVAK RESPONDS: 'NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED ME TO LEAK THIS'
Mon Sep 29 2003 16:44:51 ET
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
"Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
That would be sweet, and if so don't just fire them. Prosecute them for whatever is possible, charge them for the cost of the investigation, and make them work it off by breaking big rocks into little rocks on opposite ends of Alaska(and from what I hear it wouldn't be needed, but make sure they have lots of mosquito and black fly attractant during that season ;-).
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.