Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on September 28, 2003, 05:23:05 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.
The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.
Shouldnt a federal grand jury be meeting to indict Novak and those two officials once they are identified?
strk
-
yes
-
I don't care about Novak. Who are those two "senior administration officials"? Why hasn't Bush fired them? What possible good could come from protecting these criminals?
-
"the senior officials" are the bigger problem, but novak should have known better. how about a little responsable journalism (I know it's so rare we don't really believe it exists).
where I him I'd have ran a different story. "Senior whitehouse officials tell me the name of a covert operative". it's a much bigger story and by providing the name of the operative to the FBI (or whoevers juristiction this is) you prove it as fact without risking anyones life or nat'l security. he should never have printed that name and should be held accountable
-
so whats the covert operative's name , i missed the column.
-
Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed on August 29 the identity of the leaker (to the Washington Post) that Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent of 26 years.
Her team was tasked with WMD proliferation issues.
As a consequence of this leak, her entire team of overseas assets were liquidated. (70 agents)
The leaker, it turns out was Karl H. Rove, White House advisor.
Looks like the Bush team is following in Clintons foot steps, except they are not "downsizing" the intelligence apparatus by firing people.
They just get them killed. :eek:
-
How much salt do we need to take with this story? Is it really true that 70 agents were killed because of this disclosure?
-
As a consequence of this leak, her entire team of overseas assets were liquidated. (70 agents)
Where did you get this?
Novak did nothing wrong. If people in the administration leaked this they should be sent to Guantanimo Bay for a long vacation.
ra
-
It's hard to say Dowding, we may never find out if it's true.
The media in the U.S. is in the pocket of the right wing, and the Democrats are too scared to stand up to the Bush cabal.
When Ambassador Wilson was asked how he knew it was Rove, he stated he had documents in his possession identifying Rove as the leaker from a secret investigation of the State Department's Internal Security Unit.
Wilson has announced that he will have his private attorneys petition the Department of Justice demanding that Karl Rove be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act.
This law was specifically supposed to prevent what has happened in this case, retaliation against a senior government official who tells the truth about that administration by revealing the identities of intelligence members within their own families.
The law specifically states in this case (and this depends on how much Secretary of State Colin Powell is prepared to get involved, if he signs a formal complaint from the State Department) that the Attorney General has no choice but to prosecute. He is required to prosecute, even if he doesn't want to do so.
If true Rove is well and truly screwed, I'm sure it won't hurt Bush - he will just order one of his flunkies to fall on this grenade like Tenet did for his SOTU lie about Iraqs nuclear program.
Even if the 70 CIA assets angle isn't proven, the law was broken by outing Valerie Wilson, the question that remains is, will Colin Powell have the courage and integrity to see that Rove is penalized for it.
-
I think the Washington Post just discovered their next "Watergate".
Pass the popcorn.
-
you are too funny
have you ever considered stand up comedy?
unless of course you are serious - then you are just sad
-
You guys crack me up.
70 Agents "Liquidated"
The next watergate!!!
Cue ominous music!
Can't you get out of the partisan BS..>EVER???
Here's the deal.
Crucify the writer. Step one. He should know better. Crucify the leaks. Step 2. They're traitors. Find out how high it goes, and investigate, but don't let ashcroft do it. Non-appointed personell only on the investigation. See? Non-partisan answer from a conservative.
Let the chips fall where they may.
And if 70 agents were liquidated, don't you think the media would be all over it? Right wing media? Democrats afraid to stand up? Was'nt that Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy basically calling Bush a felon the other day? Oh year, they're terrified. Good Call, Y2****.
If 70 agents were eliminated, don't you think 1 parent, or spouse would say, "Hey, let me call the paper, and tell them, Johnny aint coming home. Weird huh?"
Stop watching those Bond movies.
-
Muckmaw - the 70 agents probably weren't American nationals. They were more likely to have been local contacts. Do you know how many agents were lost by Western intelligence services during the Cold War? Thousands - and you didn't see any waves then. Things haven't changed that much.
Besides, I don't see anyone getting too hot under the collar about the '70 agents' aspect of it. Most people can see it is pretty unsubstanciated.
-
If there's a chance to hang Bush and his Admin., you know the world press would be all over it. If there was any way to put blood on their hands, you know the media would seize it. Not because they hate bush, but because they can pander to a large population that does.
Now, I know nothing about the spy game, but if they can get the real name of an operative, I wonder why the media could not investigate the possible death of that agents associates.
I'm sure if there was even a hint of their demise, it would be headline news, worldwide.
-
I think the intelligence services have real problems if getting hold of an agent's name allows some two-bit journo access to all the people the agent deals with. I don't think things are as bad that.
Like I said this angle of it is unsubstanciated. Perhaps it is even a red herring to discredit the story. Either way, I think the real meat of the issue is the disclosure of Wilson's wife as an agent and the veracity of that.
-
Well we should just go ahead and execute Novac, Rove and Bush. That would make you libs happy right? Another approach would be to let the investigation happen and see exactly who did what that was wrong/illegal. And then prosecute that person(s).
Why should Novac be prosecuted anyway? He's a member of the press, or don't they have freedom anymore? Or is it only "liberal" press members that have freedom of the press?
-
Originally posted by Udie
Well we should just go ahead and execute Novac, Rove and Bush. That would make you libs happy right? Another approach would be to let the investigation happen and see exactly who did what that was wrong/illegal. And then prosecute that person(s).
Why should Novac be prosecuted anyway? He's a member of the press, or don't they have freedom anymore? Or is it only "liberal" press members that have freedom of the press?
That's right, Udie. But how much can you print before you start running into the whole National Security issue?
I wonder what the law is concerning this. I imagine Novak was within his right as no one arrested him.
Seems sleazy, but not illegal.
-
I don't think anyone is seriously talking about charging Novak. Even sleazy conservatives are protected by the 1st Amendment.
-
Yeah I don't know the law on this, but I do know the first amendment :) How can the press get in trouble if it's some person or persons in the administration that broke the law, elegedly. I just woke up to this so I know nothing about it. It sure does stink though from what I've learned so far. Look like you libs may finally have something to get frothy at the mouth over. It will be interesting to see if we (conservatives) put the blinders on for this like the libs did with billy boy. I don't think we will, but ya never know I guess.
wait and see for now.....
-
k2cok, where you gettin' your info? Wilson himself said this morning that he didn't know if Rove leaked the info or not. He said he was "caught up in the moment" when he made that statement.
-
Originally posted by Apache
k2cok, where you gettin' your info? Wilson himself said this morning that he didn't know if Rove leaked the info or not. He said he was "caught up in the moment" when he made that statement.
Any chance Wilson's wife is leaning on her Hubby to STFU. Someone threatening her career, perhaps?
*Note: no sarcasm in above statement. Looking for news here*
-
Originally posted by Apache
k2cok, where you gettin' your info? Wilson himself said this morning that he didn't know if Rove leaked the info or not. He said he was "caught up in the moment" when he made that statement.
It seems odd that Rove would even have access to such information given his role in the Bush White House. Why would a political strategist possess classified information about undercover CIA agents? I suppose it's possible if he demanded it for the exact purpose of sticking it to Wilson, but that would leave one hell of a paper trail.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Any chance Wilson's wife is leaning on her Hubby to STFU. Someone threatening her career, perhaps?
*Note: no sarcasm in above statement. Looking for news here*
Don't know. To clarify my previous post, here is the statement he made this morning on ABC.
"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," he said. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment. I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak. But I have great confidence that, at a minimum, he condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down."
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It seems odd that Rove would even have access to such information given his role in the Bush White House. Why would a political strategist possess classified information about undercover CIA agents? I suppose it's possible if he demanded it for the exact purpose of sticking it to Wilson, but that would leave one hell of a paper trail.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Agreed.
-
Nobody has answered my question. All Bush has to do is make a couple phone calls to find out who the leakers are, and have them fired. We don't need an expensive investigation on the part of the Justice department. What's he trying to hide?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Nobody has answered my question. All Bush has to do is make a couple phone calls to find out who the leakers are, and have them fired. We don't need an expensive investigation on the part of the Justice department. What's he trying to hide?
well you're so smart and seem to always know the evil intentions of Bush, why don't you tell us? -or- why not just sit back and enjoy the show? And maybe wait for the facts to come out?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Nobody has answered my question. All Bush has to do is make a couple phone calls to find out who the leakers are, and have them fired. We don't need an expensive investigation on the part of the Justice department. What's he trying to hide?
Are you pretending to believe that if Bush fired someone over this their would then be no investigation?
-
Originally posted by ra
Are you pretending to believe that if Bush fired someone over this their would then be no investigation?
he'd probably be one of the first calling for impeachment if there were no investigation.
-
Originally posted by ra
Are you pretending to believe that if Bush fired someone over this their would then be no investigation?
no
-
The whole story is odd.
1) By default, any ambassador/wife/familly is a CIA agent. This is simply accepted by everyone.
2) Naming the wife as a CIA agent does not name the operatives. Either they were not killed, or it was for a different reason.
3) The wife's name being mentioned in a news report is one thing, continuing the whole contreversy through the media is another.
Too much about this doesn't make sense.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by ra
Are you pretending to believe that if Bush fired someone over this their would then be no investigation?
hehe....in your dreams.
In reality, that would be an admission that someone in the admin committed a crime, and the press would be all over Bush. After all, he must have approved the leak. Firing someone would throw everyone for a loop. Might help Bush look like he was out of the loop, though. Its no win, though. If he's out of the loop, he's not in control of his own Admin, and if he's in the loop, he committed a felony.
Probably best to just ride it out and see what the investigation turns up.
Don't make the same mistake Clinton did by having Reno investigate. Use an independant panel, and not Ashcroft.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Don't make the same mistake Clinton did by having Reno investigate. Use an independant panel, and not Ashcroft.
oh God I hope he doesn't do that. Too soon to tell on any of this "information" remember with our new press it usually takes a few tries before they get the actual facts out.
[edit]
if this turns out to be true and this was done for revenge Bush is done. Weather he knew about it or not. Everybody I've talked to this morning about it are in wait and see mode like me, but if it's true they all told me they blame Bush. These are staunch republicans too.
-
not everyone who works for the CIA is a "secret agent"
-
You have to blame Bush.
You know, the Buck stops here and all.
I'd agree Bush is done if this pans out. I'd hate to see a good man go down like that, but if he knew about this, then he is wrong.
The dem. Pres. Wannabees, must have 6 foot erections this morning.
Funny. I see Bush supporters agreeing that if this is true, Bush should be indicted. You never heard anything like that come from any Billary lovers back in the day, huh?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Funny. I see Bush supporters agreeing that if this is true, Bush should be indicted. You never heard anything like that come from any Billary lovers back in the day, huh?
Sure you did. I remember them saying he should be procecuted when he's out of office. I'm still waiting for one of them to follow through on that, but it's been 3 years so..... I agree though, the charactor diference in the 2 parties is about to be shown, if this is true.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Sure you did. I remember them saying he should be procecuted when he's out of office. I'm still waiting for one of them to follow through on that, but it's been 3 years so..... I agree though, the charactor diference in the 2 parties is about to be shown, if this is true.
You can't label the whole party.
I'm sure Sean Hannity and Rush will put a spin on this.
Although Hannity is pretty good. I wouls predict, he'll probably adopt a wait and see attitude.
-
LOL! you guys spend too much time arguing the neuances when you don't even know anything about the fundamentals.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not to defend Clinton or anything, but I think there is a significant difference between leaking the identity of CIA operatives and potentially putting lives at risk, and lying to hide the fact that you got a blowjob from a government clerk. Just my 0.2€.
Well of course, but they are both felonies.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not to defend Clinton or anything, but I think there is a significant difference between leaking the identity of CIA operatives and potentially putting lives at risk, and lying to hide the fact that you got a blowjob from a government clerk. Just my 0.2€.
He wasn't refering to the BJ, that was a non-event and what the left decided was the "crime" The crime was purgery. And not just once but several times in diferent cases and once in front of the whole nation during the deposition he gave, "definition of is". This was done by Clinton himself not any of his minions that he put out to continue the lie and cost the government 50 million dollars.
This new issue we don't even know if it's true yet. If it is I doubt that Bush himself broke the law, most likely one of his underlings. Too soon to tell though either way.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not to defend Clinton or anything, but I think there is a significant difference between leaking the identity of CIA operatives and potentially putting lives at risk, and lying to hide the fact that you got a blowjob from a government clerk. Just my 0.2€.
It was not about a blow job, it was about lying during testimony over a sexual harassment case. (A case he settled btw)
-
Originally posted by Udie
He wasn't refering to the BJ, that was a non-event and what the left decided was the "crime" The crime was purgery. And not just once but several times in diferent cases and once in front of the whole nation during the deposition he gave, "definition of is". This was done by Clinton himself not any of his minions that he put out to continue the lie and cost the government 50 million dollars.
This new issue we don't even know if it's true yet. If it is I doubt that Bush himself broke the law, most likely one of his underlings. Too soon to tell though either way.
You think one of his underlings would do something so critical without passing it by the President?
I can't see it.
P.S.- How the hell did Clinton get away with that, anyway?
-
Mini D: 1) By default, any ambassador/wife/familly is a CIA agent. This is simply accepted by everyone.
That may be the common public opinion but it's not really the truth. Intelligent people know it - including the adversaries. It may not make a difference to a McDonald's employee whether he knows that an ex-ambassador's wife is an active CIA operative, but it surely matters to people she was working against.
Besides, Novak did not say "Joseph Wilson's wife". He said "...Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
It is not a common knowlege "simply accepted by everyone" that a lady named Valerie Plame is a wife of an ex-ambassador Joseph C. Wilson.
2) Naming the wife as a CIA agent does not name the operatives. Either they were not killed, or it was for a different reason.
It can't be healthy to some people seen in a company of Valerie Plame over the last few years...
3) The wife's name being mentioned in a news report is one thing, continuing the whole contreversy through the media is another.
I would be royally pissed off is someone's political tinkering intended to hurt my spouse cost me a career. If I were that Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson himself, I'd be raising a storm as well.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Don't make the same mistake Clinton did by having Reno investigate. Use an independant panel, and not Ashcroft.
Reno's justice department had a tendency not to investigate anything without being pushed into it. If this DOJ gets to work on it quickly without congressional intervention I will be impressed.
-
vote for public investigation.
we can still vote right?
-
lord dolf vader: we can still vote right?
Not for serious stuff like that...
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Mini D: 1) By default, any ambassador/wife/familly is a CIA agent. This is simply accepted by everyone.
That may be the common public opinion but it's not really the truth. Intelligent people know it - including the adversaries. It may not make a difference to a McDonald's employee whether he knows that an ex-ambassador's wife is an active CIA operative, but it surely matters to people she was working against.
Besides, Novak did not say "Joseph Wilson's wife". He said "...Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
It is not a common knowlege "simply accepted by everyone" that a lady named Valerie Plame is a wife of an ex-ambassador Joseph C. Wilson.
This means what where? How much of the public knows who she is? How many more know her as the ambassador's wife?
And... every transaction with diplomats is documented and submitted to the inteligence agencies. This is common knowledge to anyone. There is a reason they are asked to leave countries during conflicts.2) Naming the wife as a CIA agent does not name the operatives. Either they were not killed, or it was for a different reason.
It can't be healthy to some people seen in a company of Valerie Plame over the last few years...
Once again... see the above. If she was an ambassador's wife... it doesn't matter. This would be an assumption anyways. Besides, the report being cited "absolves" the host country, it doesn't condemn it.3) The wife's name being mentioned in a news report is one thing, continuing the whole contreversy through the media is another.
I would be royally pissed off is someone's political tinkering intended to hurt my spouse cost me a career. If I were that Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson himself, I'd be raising a storm as well.
Yep... I would too. But I wouldn't be trying to do it throught the press. This is reaks of political posturing as opposed to genuine concern.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed on August 29 the identity of the leaker (to the Washington Post) that Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent of 26 years.
Her team was tasked with WMD proliferation issues.
As a consequence of this leak, her entire team of overseas assets were liquidated. (70 agents)
The leaker, it turns out was Karl H. Rove, White House advisor.
Looks like the Bush team is following in Clintons foot steps, except they are not "downsizing" the intelligence apparatus by firing people.
They just get them killed. :eek:
Let's have a source for your tall tale
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Nobody has answered my question. All Bush has to do is make a couple phone calls to find out who the leakers are, and have them fired. We don't need an expensive investigation on the part of the Justice department. What's he trying to hide?
Why don't you know? Bush's secret police are at this very moment, working to toake over our nation and execute all the left wing whacko's....flee....flee as fast as you can.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Rude
flee....flee as fast as you can.:eek:
yes please do! Don't worry about taking anything with you! Just get the hell out, PLEASE! :D
-
pretty good article on the subject (http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp)
This Wilson charactor is starting to look like another democrat hack out to get the president. He knows his job will be easy since the dems will convict Bush of anything before a trial or hearing or before the end of the news broadcast.
-
Originally posted by Udie
pretty good article on the subject (http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp)
This Wilson charactor is starting to look like another democrat hack out to get the president. He knows his job will be easy since the dems will convict Bush of anything before a trial or hearing or before the end of the news broadcast.
Lies I tell you...all lies!!!
-
Good Article, Udie.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Why don't you know? Bush's secret police are at this very moment, working to toake over our nation and execute all the left wing whacko's....flee....flee as fast as you can.:eek:
Ah, yes, much as I expected - nothing but smoke & mirrors and hand-waving from the staunchest pro-Bush-ites.
-
Originally posted by Udie
pretty good article on the subject (http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp)
This Wilson charactor is starting to look like another democrat hack out to get the president. He knows his job will be easy since the dems will convict Bush of anything before a trial or hearing or before the end of the news broadcast.
So let me get this straight: the problem is not that two high-level aides in the Bush administration compromised national security in order to spite a public opponent of Bush's WMD claims, but that the opponent in question is actually a latent Bush-hater. Amazing.
BLAME WILSON! DETH TO DEMOCRATZ! <--- haha isn't that so funny and witty
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
So let me get this straight: the problem is not that two high-level aides in the Bush administration compromised national security in order to spite a public opponent of Bush's WMD claims, but that the opponent in question is actually a latent Bush-hater. Amazing.
BLAME WILSON! DETH TO DEMOCRATZ! <--- haha isn't that so funny and witty
You make too many ASSumptions. I'd like for you to point out where I said any of the drivel that you posted above. I think you're going to have a hard time. Like I said earlier, I'm in wait and see mode. I will hold my elected official responsible UNLIKE the democrats and clinton. So go crawl back in your little hole, you can't convict Bush yet as much as you'd like to. Dang too bad we have that constitution huh?
you might try studying both sides of the story.
-
'In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told 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 an undercover operatives'
make of it what you will. just another piece of the new puzzle
-
I read that article, and I briefly looked through the author's other articles. All are pro-conservative/anti-democrat editorials. This Clifford D. May character is starting to look like another conservative hack out to protect the conservative movement at all costs.
For those of you wanting an independent investigation, it doesn't look good (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/index.html).
-
it seems the neo-liberals are looking for WMD's (words of mass destruction) to get rid of bush.
-
pretty good article on the subject
let the spin begin!!!
pass the popcorn
Ive got a 6 foot erection because this thread has gotten so long!! my first thread too, I think (after a couple years of lurking)
strk
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It was not about a blow job, it was about lying during testimony over a sexual harassment case. (A case he settled btw)
Ummm it's what is commonly called a half-truth .... technicaly he didn't lie, but it was designed to mislead. He really didn't have sex with her .... a BJ isn't sex... logicaly he wasn't lieing.
Your spliting hairs with this kinda deal .... is purgery intention now? You can plead the 5th about hanious crimes but yet it's alright for them to question him about a private relationship?
Really watch what people say .... I don't belive in slaughtering people because you 'mis-heard' them or asked wrong .... examineing intentions boarders on thought crime
-
Originally posted by Udie
You make too many ASSumptions. I'd like for you to point out where I said any of the drivel that you posted above. I think you're going to have a hard time. Like I said earlier, I'm in wait and see mode. I will hold my elected official responsible UNLIKE the democrats and clinton. So go crawl back in your little hole, you can't convict Bush yet as much as you'd like to. Dang too bad we have that constitution huh?
you might try studying both sides of the story.
I was criticizing the spin in the article you posted. Do you agree with it or not?
-
Originally posted by Udie
'In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told 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 an undercover operatives'
make of it what you will. just another piece of the new puzzle
This has already been debunked as GOP damage control. Other senior CIA officials have stated that she was infact a field operative with world wide contacts.
Seems that Novak has been taken to the woodshed and now his story is 'evolving".
It is interesting to note that Novak hasn't been a suporter of the Iraq war, still, as a conservitive commentator he has strings others can pull.
-
This has already been debunked as GOP damage control.
Where?
-
here is the original article
Mission to Niger
Robert Novak (archive)
July 14, 2003 | Print | Send
WASHINGTON -- The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.
Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.
Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.
Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.
That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.
All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position -- viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post July 6, he talked about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," asking: "What else are they lying about?"
After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. "The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech." The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Ummm it's what is commonly called a half-truth .... technicaly he didn't lie, but it was designed to mislead. He really didn't have sex with her .... a BJ isn't sex... logicaly he wasn't lieing.
Your spliting hairs with this kinda deal .... is purgery intention now? You can plead the 5th about hanious crimes but yet it's alright for them to question him about a private relationship?
Really watch what people say .... I don't belive in slaughtering people because you 'mis-heard' them or asked wrong .... examineing intentions boarders on thought crime
This is commonly called a spin
-
Condi's version - from fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98517,00.html
strk
HUME: Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was asked to inquire in Africa about what Saddam Hussein might have been doing there in terms of acquiring nuclear materials, ended up with his wife's name in the paper as a CIA person. There are now suggestions that the name and her identity and her CIA work had been revealed by the White House. What do you know about that?
RICE: I know nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this, and it certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate.
My understanding is that, in matters like this, as a matter of routine, a question like this is referred to the Justice Department for appropriate action, and that's what's going to be done.
SNOW: Well, when the story came out — his wife's name is in the paper — was it known in the White House that she was a CIA employee?
RICE: I'm not going to go into this, Tony, because the problem here is this has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that's the appropriate place...
SNOW: Well, but it is revealing, or it's important to figure out what the White House reaction was at the time. For years and years and years, for instance, the administrations chased Phillip Agee all around the globe because he had revealed the name of a CIA officer. This is a grave offense, if you have CIA officers.
Was there, at least within the White House, a gasp when somebody said, "Uh oh"? And if so, did the White House take any action, back then in June, when the story appeared?
RICE: Well, it was well known that the president of the United States does not expect the White House to get involved in such things. We will see...
HUME: You mean the revelation of names?
RICE: Anything of this kind. But let's just see what the Justice Department does. It's with the appropriate channels now, and we'll see what the Justice Department — how the Justice Department disposes of it.
SNOW: But there was nobody at the White House at the time who was saying, "Oh, we've got a problem here"?
RICE: Tony, I don't remember any such conversation. But I will say this: The Justice Department gets these things as a matter of routine. They will determine the facts. They will determine what happened, they will determine if anything happened. And they'll take appropriate action.
SNOW: Do you think the White House should release phone logs, if necessary, to figure out who talked to whom?
RICE: Tony, as a matter of course, when the Justice Department is looking into something, of course the White House cooperates.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I was criticizing the spin in the article you posted. Do you agree with it or not?
too early to say mr. kneejerk :D
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Ummm it's what is commonly called a half-truth .... technicaly he didn't lie, but it was designed to mislead. He really didn't have sex with her .... a BJ isn't sex... logicaly he wasn't lieing.
Your spliting hairs with this kinda deal .... is purgery intention now? You can plead the 5th about hanious crimes but yet it's alright for them to question him about a private relationship?
Really watch what people say .... I don't belive in slaughtering people because you 'mis-heard' them or asked wrong .... examineing intentions boarders on thought crime
If it is not sex, why is it called Oral Sex?
We're not going to start this again,are we?
Just admit it. The *****ing guy lied! He lied to cover his arnold. Any one of us did the same, but covering for it by saying "It was not sex" just makes you look like a political stooge.
-
I heard that the CIA and British Intellegence gave Bush incontrovertable evidence as to the identity of those who leaked the information to Novak.
But, after Iraq / Niger yellowcake, he isn't allowed to believe it.
-
Erlkonig, I know you're on the wrong side of the fence just lookin at your avatar. Is that really you? Everytime I look at that thing I pray to God my daughter doesn't bring home somebody like that.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Erlkonig, I know you're on the wrong side of the fence just lookin at your avatar. Is that really you? Everytime I look at that thing I pray to God my daughter doesn't bring home somebody like that.
:rofl
[post edited to protect the innocent.]
-
Originally posted by ra
Where?
Here. (http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm)
-
how could she be under cover for 3 decades if she's 40 years old? Did she start with the CIA at 10 or 11 years old?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Here. (http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm)
Nice job, you claimed that the story had been debunked by an interview that hadn't happened yet. Are you a CIA undercover agent?
-
Originally posted by ra
Nice job, you claimed that the story had been debunked by an interview that hadn't happened yet. Are you a CIA undercover agent?
What are you talking about...I posted that link today.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
What are you talking about...I posted that link today.
OK, I redirect my comment to MrLars.
-
Originally posted by ra
OK, I redirect my comment to MrLars.
I could tell you, but then I'd have to leak another 'suicide' report. :)
-
A dark van just parked outside my house.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed on August 29 the identity of the leaker (to the Washington Post) that Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent of 26 years.
Her team was tasked with WMD proliferation issues.
As a consequence of this leak, her entire team of overseas assets were liquidated. (70 agents)
The leaker, it turns out was Karl H. Rove, White House advisor.
Looks like the Bush team is following in Clintons foot steps, except they are not "downsizing" the intelligence apparatus by firing people.
They just get them killed. :eek:
k2cok it's even worse than most think. They flew them to Jenin at midnight in black helicopters and killed them by force-feeding them 2.5 lbs. of Pop-Rocks each and then forcing 2 l. of Coca-Cola down their throats. Oh, the humanity!
There's 2 options here:
1. You made this up yourself. In that case, please take a hammer and hit yourself in the head a couple of times - you deserve it.
2. You actually read this somewhere. Please tell me where so I can go make millions by selling the readers of that source 'authentic worn-by-David Duchovny dirty underwear' (Aha! I'll never have to do laundry again!) and 'real rocks from faked moon landing set'.
Here's a reality check - She could not have been 'blown' or 'outed' by anyone because She's an analyst and was not working under any type of cover. Her Husband listed her name and her employer (CIA) on his own website. The only reason the CIA asked Novak to not mention her name is because it's SOP to never officially verify any type of data - even nonclassified data - unless there's a good reason from the intelligence community's POV (like talking about what a stud Mikey Spann was at his memorial service).
Furthermore - the IDs of agents (as opposed to analysts) working 'under a cover' and the 'nature' of *any* 'cover' are all closely guarded secrets. The President himself is not aware of them due to 'need to know' restrictions. The President may be briefed with intelligence developed by agents working under a cover in very, very dangerous circumstances - but before that intelligence reaches the President himself it is 'sanitized' to 'protect sources and methods'. In other words, even the President is told "Don't ask how we know this, but we know it's true". In general, the ID and cover details of an agent are only known to the person directly responsible for the operation(s) the agent is involved in. A case officer could not be ordered by the DO to reveal the 'current' 'cover' of an agent in the field. The DO might already know, but his access to the information could be limited by the 'need to know' clause just like the President's.
About the only time you will ever have someone 'working for the CIA and their Husband has no idea' is when you have a foreign National working 'in place' (i.e. still at the HQ for the Strategic Rocket Forces) as an agent for the CIA, etc. That is obviously not the case here. The Spouses and Family and close friends of covert operatives know that they work for the CIA, DIA, M.I. 5, M.I. 6, AH2 development team, etc. They just don't know what they are doing or where they are doing it at any given time.
Rogwar could probably add some more, but he'd have to kill you all. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
I wonder what would have happened if that information would have been disclosed by a Democrat.
-
Originally posted by Animal
I wonder what would have happened if that information would have been disclosed by a Democrat.
We may find out as that is still a possibility yet to be determined.
-
I forgot to add, or by a Republican while the Democrats where in power.
Yeah, I hope some heads will roll. This is totally outrageous. What was he thinking...
-
Originally posted by ra
A dark van just parked outside my house.
You should close your drapes....shorty :)
-
I get the impression Bush is angry about this and wants some heads to roll, too.
Erl - hope I didn't hurt your feelings. I just have this funny image of my daughter rebelling against me and marrying some guy like your avatar, and having him approach me at the wedding reception and saying, "Hey dude, can I call you dad now?" :lol
-
NO. First ammendment rights will protect him.
-
Yeah, I read it somewhere wulfie.
But based on your post you are not worth having a conversation with, you are too closed-minded to argue with.
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Yeah, I read it somewhere wulfie.
But based on your post you are not worth having a conversation with, you are too closed-minded to argue with.
At least that's true about one of you two.
-
Here's what I mean AKiron:
Here's a reality check - She could not have been 'blown' or 'outed' by anyone because She's an analyst and was not working under any type of cover.
Even Bush has commited himself to finding out who "outed" Valerie Plame, then along comes wulfie defending dear leader by regurgitating Republican spin about her "just" being an analyst.
He can't even admit a crime has happened, that is close minded wouldn't you sa?
-
I don't know that it has yet been established that a crime has been committed. Guess we should leave that up to the DOJ?
-
NO. First ammendment rights will protect him.
it appears you are right, becqause the law requires the person to have access and be a fed employee, whuich novak is not
strk
-
Here's a reality check - She could not have been 'blown' or 'outed' by anyone because She's an analyst and was not working under any type of cover
Incorrect. The CIA has asked DOJ to investigate. They wouldn’t do that if she was only an analyst.
I get the impression Bush is angry about this and wants some heads to roll, too.
He’s only angry because this is turning into a scandal. Had he been sincere he would've questioned his staff on July 15th, the day after the article was published. That was 76 days ago.
NO. First ammendment rights will protect him.
Incorrect. Not on national security matters. Supremes say so.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't know that it has yet been established that a crime has been committed. Guess we should leave that up to the DOJ?
no no no you don't understand. Bush must be impeached NOW, then we can worry about the facts :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Incorrect. The CIA has asked DOJ to investigate. They wouldn’t do that if she was only an analyst.
He’s only angry because this is turning into a scandal. Had he been sincere he would've questioned his staff on July 15th, the day after the article was published. That was 76 days ago.
Incorrect. Not on national security matters. Supremes say so.
So is it your take that Bush had full knowledge of this act and condoned it? If so, please tell me how you know this to be true...it could be, however I have seen no evidence to prove it yet...have you?
-
wilson backtracked today on his assertion that rove was responsible for the supposed leak. wilson even went as far as to say he was simply "carried away" when suggesting as much and apologized. This story, in all its facets becomes weaker and weaker with each passing factoid.
-
interesting interview
strk
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html
LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
-
Originally posted by strk
interesting interview
strk
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html
LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
This is the same article posted by somebody else earlier in this thread. I'll ask the same unanswered question. How could she have worked for the CIA for 3 decades if she's only 40 years old? did she start in her teens?
I'm with yeager on this one, the longer this 'story' goes on the weaker it gets.
-
Udie and Yeager want to change "the story" from leakers in the White House committing a crime to oh that Wilson guy is a hysterial leftist commie babie eater Bush-hater. Too bad the latter has no bearing on the former. You lose.
-
she's only 40 years old?
you got proof of this?
strk
-
Originally posted by strk
you got proof of this?
strk
sure....
though this is from the press so...... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30?language=printer)
snippet
As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star.
[/i]
-
Originally posted by k2cok
Here's what I mean AKiron:
Even Bush has commited himself to finding out who "outed" Valerie Plame, then along comes wulfie defending dear leader by regurgitating Republican spin about her "just" being an analyst.
He can't even admit a crime has happened, that is close minded wouldn't you sa?
Who exactly has asserted that she was a person involved in covert activities - as opposed to being an employee of the CIA?
And I'm still waiting for a link, etc. pointing to where you read your grim news regarding '70 liquidations'. I haven't heard of any '70 liquidations' myself.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Manedew
He really didn't have sex with her .... a BJ isn't sex... logicaly he wasn't lieing.
ask your wife doofus (if you have one) and tell us how it flew.
"Really honey all I had is a blowjob."
-
sure....
why thank you! Maybe Johnson was mistaken about her length of service, because I cannot find any other references to it other than his statements.
even so, such a small discrepancy does not unravel the whole thing. That is just wishful thinking by people who are uncomfortable when confronted with the fact that their political party might not be the bastion of honesty and decency they pretend to be.
strk
-
Originally posted by strk
why thank you! Maybe Johnson was mistaken about her length of service, because I cannot find any other references to it other than his statements.
even so, such a small discrepancy does not unravel the whole thing. That is just wishful thinking by people who are uncomfortable when confronted with the fact that their political party might not be the bastion of honesty and decency they pretend to be.
strk
Well since it's day 2 or 3 of this new controvercy I think I'll hold my judgement until more concrete facts come in from the cough "press" cough. This small discrepancy does sort of make me question the rest of what Mr. Johnson has to say and couple that with Mr. Wilson changing his story and potentially slandering Carl Rove, well it IS starting to look like yet another partison witch hunt.
We shall see.....
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Udie and Yeager want to change "the story" from leakers in the White House committing a crime to oh that Wilson guy is a hysterial leftist commie babie eater Bush-hater. Too bad the latter has no bearing on the former. You lose.
huh? I'm just pointing out the otherside of the story that is in the media out there, you know the part you ignore. You see, I believe in the constitution. I believe in inocent until proven guilty. I believe somebody in this whole mess is telling some lies. I see people like mr. wilson changing his story and then leaving little gems like this Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." and I think hmm this guy just might have an agenda to bring down the president. I look at the fact that the left has gone for Bush's juggular each and every time they've felt it was politicly safe to do so and I can not honestly say to myself that the democrats are above setting this whole thing up.
At the same time I'm willing to admit to myself that my feelings could be leaning towards believing the president because that's "my team". I will say that if it is proven beyond a resonable doubt that Bush knew about this supposed leak before it happened I will fully 100% support his impeachment. If it turns out that he knew about it afterwards and did nothing, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him again in '04. Might have to switch to libertarian at that point, God I hope not. I know very very very few democrats who did that with slick willy. Then again I know few democrats who have much honor or integrity, though I do know a few and even some on this board banana.
The left, and I mean the far crazy whaco left, are ready to convict Bush on anything possible in a moments notice. Your party is the one that doesn't know what the definition of "is" is. And you're going try to take some moral high ground :rofl Ya see you have to remember that there is zero evidence that any leak came from the whitehouse. You guys should be carefull. You're letting your hate give you target fixation and you're going to get bounced, yet a gain, from behind by of all people Bush :lol Rope-a-dope :) It's not healthy either. And believe me I'm talking from experience here. Hatred for clinton ruled my life for 7 years, it's not really a good way to live.
Please do me a favor. I seriously want you to think about this and give me an honest answer, I'll do the same for any question you want me to. I want you to think and be honest with yourself and ask yourself if you really truely want to try and unseat a president when we are in the middle of a 2 front war. Do you really think that's a wise thing to do right now?
-
Originally posted by Udie
huh? I'm just pointing out the otherside of the story that is in the media out there, you know the part you ignore.
What other side? All you have been doing is posting articles about Wilson's partisanship and pro-Democrat sympathies. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim that the scandal was born in and rests on anything he says happened. Enough with the hand-waving already, let's deal with the serious issue here.
Now that we've disposed of that distraction, I think it's unlikely that Bush himself had any knowledge that the leak would occur. However, we do know that he and his administration basically avoided the whole issue until it became absolutely politically necessary to take some sort of position. In this case, they basically said that they were so strongly committed to national security and the integrity of intelligence services that they would do nothing - but hey, good ole Ashcroft's boys might be able to figure it out. Hardly the actions of a leader who we never cease hearing is supposed to be the antithesis of Clinton: doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient.
-
I think it's unlikely that Bush himself had any knowledge that the leak would occur.
me too. I dont think Bush knows all that much about anything that goes on in his white house. Not because he is stupid, I dont think he is necessarily an idiot, but he is in way over his head and he is adeptly handled by Rove and Cheney and a few others.
NO, this has Rove's fingerprints all over it. Karl Rove has proven in the past that he has no qualms about dishonesty and he is basically a partisan hack and a thug.
strk
-
Two sides to every story. For every left spasm there shall be an equal and opposite right spasm.