Was Valerie Plame Walter Pincus' Senior CIA Analyst Source?

Washington Post ^ | August 3, 2005 | Walter Pincus

[Sam Hill]

As those of us who have been following this saga know, Walter Pincus (husband of Clinton appointee, Ann, and close pal of both Clintons) cited two unnamed sources for his "news" story in the Washington Post back on June 12, 2003.

We know of course that the first source was none other than "Admiral" Joe Wilson. But who was the second source? A "senior" CIA analyst who was so willing to risk his job to get out these "truths" about Bush lying to get us into war with Iraq?

CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data

Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."

Excerpted

[Steve_Seattle]

"He has said that he could wrap up the investigation if she would just testify. I don't know if that has changed, but that was what he was saying when she was sent to jail."

What's that TV show where they gradually add in letters to a phrase until people guess what the phrase says? Are you saying that Fitzgerald couldn't figure out "MARY HAD A LIT_LE LAMB" until he got the final "T"? I'm being facetious, but if you have every piece of the puzzle but one, shouldn't you be able to see the picture? I'm just very frustrated about this.

[lugsoul]

It is at least as authoritative as the report that he was fired. If Gannon actually had some evidence of his charge - even an anonymous source - that would weigh in the balance. But evidence ain't his game, either.

[littlelilac]

you got the message didn't you dear?

frankly I think you underestimate the fact that the legal teams of the NY Times and Times Magazine understand the way the legislation regarding leaking of covert CIA operatives works very very well

question to all - I suppose we will have to wait until Judith Miller writes her big memoir about her stay in Jail to find out that what she was in fact the leaker if you can even go that far or dare she ever speak that truth, does she have to wait until Fitzgerald gives up?

[lugsoul]

Really? I thought elitist liberals resorted to name-calling and hurling accusations without support. Like you've been doing on this thread.

[nuffsenuff]

I haven't called you any names.

Well, I did say you were Joe Wilson.

But you're the only one trying to insult people here.

[lugsoul]

You seem to know a lot about DU. How much time do you spend there?

[lugsoul]

"But you're the only one trying to insult people here."

Sure. Read the thread.

[nuffsenuff]

I've lurked there once or twice...

Enough to know what it's like and the terms they use often.

Your posts remind me of them.

[canadiancapitalist]

And you havwen't resorted to insults and name calling? Please.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Fitzgerald is NOT an idiot. No one I've seen here has said that. EVER."

Considering the spectrum of opinion here, I wouldn't go that far, but you are correct that the vast majority of people on here have assumed he's a reasonably straightforward investigator with a good reputation. Most of the "Fitzgerald is out-of-control" stuff came from the news media after the Judith Miller indictment.

[lugsoul]

"I haven't called you any names."

Hmmm... a Plame apologist, a Larry Johnson stooge, an elitist liberal, a DUer...

Is it that difficult for you to even be a little honest?

[lugsoul]

Then you've been there once or twice more than I have.

But, that's okay. When you don't have any support for your claims, I guess you don't have anything but slurs to fall back on.

[lugsoul]

As I said to Sammy boy, let's plan to meet up when he is finished, and bat this all around. Unless, of course, you are up for a wager now...

[Steve_Seattle]

"One could ask why you think it is a slam on Santorum?"

Because it seemed to be a snide reference to Santorum's conservative views on sexuality.

[nuffsenuff]

I thought you meant name calling like "IDIOT"...

[Eva]

Joe Wilson has stated that Chris Lehane brought him on board the Kerry campaign in May, before which time Wilson had never uttered one word about the sixteen words in the Bush speech. It was after that meeting that Lehane shopped the story to the NYT and arranged the Vanity Faire article. The fact that Novack wrote an article about Wilson just played right into their hands. The story was dead before Lehane revived it on the basis of the Novack article. The rest is history.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks.

[Steve_Seattle]

"In a word, yes."

If you think that 46 major news organizations are so duplicitous as to sign on to a legal brief expressing views contrary to their actual beliefs, then you should be writing letters to them rather than wasting your time debating the people here in FR. They are the big fish, we're just a bunch of minnows.

[Steve_Seattle]

What is the wager? That Rove was guilty or innocent? Libby? Plame? Wilson? Novak? What specific outcome are you predicting?

[lugsoul]

Oh, it was snide. But it would only be a 'slam' to those who don't agree with those views. Me - I would think that even those whose views are 100% in alignment with his would have a hard time not letting a grin slip out when the phrase 'man on dog' crossed their mind. Which, when I was thinking of actually being two men and a woman simultaneously - much less being with - couldn't help but think about his parade of horribles.

In response to your other comments about Fitz, I have a hard time understanding how people could crow to high heaven that 'she wasn't covert' or 'she outed herself' without at least implying that he is an putz. Because, if there is a grain of truth to what they are saying, then he has spent time and resources on a two-year investigation of absolutely nothing.