Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Bush Outing a CIA Agent (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Bush Outing a CIA Agent
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A story has been brewing for some time since those famous 16 words MR. Bush uttered in the state of the Union address about alleged Iraqi nukes.

The latest flap details that someone in the Bush administration leaked that the wife of special ambassador Joseph Wilson was working undercover for the CIA. This was first reported by conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak months ago.

Here's the article:
Bob Novak Column

If you will recall, an Ambassador Wilson was sent over to Nigeria, supposedly at the behest of the Vice President, in early 2002, to check on the varacity of some documents reporting that Iraq tried to buy radioactive yellow cake unranium, material that can used in making weapons.

Wilson made the assertions, backed up our own FBI - that the Iraqi doucments were forgeries. He said this early last year - long before MR. Bush's state of the Union address. He even called the office of the Vice President, who now denies it, though I understand phone records verify Wilson's assertion.

The Bush administration was livid when this was made public, embarrassing Bush. When Wilson went public and exposed this prewar intelligence as faulty, it seems the Whitehouse or someone high in the administration, outted his wife as reported by Novak.

And now, finally months later, the Justice department is looking into it. Wilson says the person who leaked the information to Bob Novak was Karl Rove, something Novak refuses to acknowledge protecting his source. Rove of course denies it.

Just another of the many Bush lies - and funny thing is, the republican congress and Bush don't want a special commision set up to investigate this serious felony.

Yep - MR. Bush sure has brought higher ethical standards to our country. I just can't help but wonder how many more wonderful things our country is in for with this appointed president.

Edited: I added the Bob Novak Link

[ September 29, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Murdok ]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Any proof?

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well - if the Busies would allow an investigation of the facts by an independent counsel instead of a rubber stamp justice department - I'm sure something would turn up.

But as far as I'm concerned - I've read Bob Novak's columns for many years and this is a man, who is a serious minded conservative, who said someone high up in the Bush administration outted Mrs. Wilson. I don't take things this guy says lightly.

He would have no reason to lie.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But Novack isn't saying who is source is. Even Wilson is back tracking now saying that it probably was not Rove. He is now saying that Rove probably knows who leaked it and did nothing to stop it, but that is just speculation.

I have no problem with a special prosecutor. I have not heard yet that the Bush White House has nixed that idea.

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post 
It has been nixed, check Google News.
Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lat's assume it wasn't Rove, it had to be someone high enough to get access to CIA info on covert operatives, or at least credibly claim to have such access (otherwise Novak would have said they were full of it). Who is likely? Rice? Wolfie? Pearle?

Where are the Whitewater conspiracy theorists now, are they chomping at the bit to find out who betrayed the identiy of a covert operative (or made it seem as if they were doing so)? Nah. They're too busy pouring over nonexistent evidence that Clinton had Vince Foster whacked.

None of the conservatives on this board has shown any sign of actually holding Bush accountable for anything . That's not conservatism, it's blind hero worship. Use some intellectual rigor for once and apply a consistent standard. If you hated Clinton, how in the hell can Bush be your Number One Guy?

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Back when I asked -- on this forum -- why Bush hadn't produced any of the hardcore evidence for WMDs that he said he had, almost every conservative here said that he was, beyond a doubt, protecting valuable intelligence assets.

When I suggested that it would be worth losing -- even condemning to death -- a valuable intelligence asset, if that meant we could prove to the world and the American people that our cause was just, I was pilloried for not caring as much as Bush did about our intelligence community.

Oddly, there's been very little outcry about this issue from those same conservatives who cared so much.

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that there should be an investigation. Who ever leaked it should be removed and prosecuted if the law calls for it. If Bush knew and approved then I would support impeachment. However, so far all there are are guesses.

My question is how does this hurt Wilson? It limits what his wife can do, if she really works for the CIA. Why release this info? How does it discredit Wilson?

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
CNN - White House press secretary - McClellan said the White House has no firsthand knowledge of a Justice Department investigation of the matter. No one at the White House, he said, has been contacted or asked to be questioned, or sought counsel for defense on the matter.

He rejected a call from some Democrats for an independent investigation, perhaps a special prosecutor, to avoid conflict of interest with Bush political appointees at the Justice Department.

Conflict of interest? Bush and the administration? Unless they agree to a special prosecutor or someone actually admits they leaked the sensitive information - this will make WhiteWater look like spitting on the sidewalk.

I mean - the Justice department has had this information for months now and they are just now acting on it? Who are they fooling? This is serious stuff. Felony stuff - national security stuff. And if the atmosphere around MR. Bush is condusive to such activities for political purposes - maybe Ted Kenedy was right and maybe they did indeed concot a war in Iraq for political purposes...I mean who can tell with these good, well meaning public servants?

Any Bush supporters out there care to comment?

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You know, before we start talking about special prosecutors and witchhunts and everything, I'm willing to give Bush's team the benefit of the doubt.

What I don't understand is why Novak can't just reveal his source -- or why, if two administration officials called a number of journalists to leak this information, none of those OTHER journalists have come forward about being called.

The whole idea of protecting a source is to encourage people to come forward anonymously to give you information that they wouldn't normally like to reveal; surely DELIBERATELY leaking something disqualifies someone from anonymity.

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The whole idea of protecting a source is to encourage people to come forward anonymously to give you information that they wouldn't normally like to reveal; surely DELIBERATELY leaking something disqualifies someone from anonymity
The Reason someone in the Bush administration probably leaked this was punitive as far as Wilson is concerned and was designed to quiet other critics of White House Policies.

As for protecting sources - I have to agree with Novak on this. Even something this damaging, the source could be someone close to the person who leaked the story. You protect your sources like this because you want to be taken seriously as a person who is good to his or her word.

And you need sources like this so you can expose the wrongs perpetrated by any governmental administration. It's the basic right to a free press. Revealing sources is tantamount to telling everyone to just shut up. That is not something a healthy democracy can live with.

I think the time is over for giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's time to go after him and this administration with the same fervor conservatives went after Clinton. How many more lives must be lost due to this faux cowboy mentality promoted by MR. Bush?

The only way anyone is going to believe anything is if there is a special prosecutor or and independent investigation.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How did this hurt Wilson?

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"As for protecting sources - I have to agree with Novak on this. Even something this damaging, the source could be someone close to the person who leaked the story."

You don't understand. Novak says he was contacted PERSONALLY by a White House official, who then leaked the CIA story to him.

Since we're trying to figure out who leaked the CIA story, that would be a good place to start.

And since that story was DELIBERATELY leaked, I don't see that the traditional courtesy extended to sources needs to apply in this case.

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You are kidding - right? Do you understand any of the ramifications of exposing a CIA agent to foreign governments?

Let me see - Wilson's wife "was" an undercover operative for the CIA whose cover is suddenly exposed...thier Children - all in college are now targets for who knows what.

Wilson's own credibility as an Ambassador is no longer worth doo doo. Thus it's a huge deal and hurts not only the Wilson's but the US government as well. This was a treasonous offense.

Does this make any sense to you?

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You're replying to msquared, right?
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Murdock

The reason I am asking is that the motive you are putting forth is that it somehow discredits Wilson and his story. I would understand that it might hurt his wife and children, but how does it discredit him? Again, it limits what she can do now. I am assuming that she is no longer in the country where she was working and therefore is in no immediate danger. Is there any specifics as to what type of operations she ran? Who would be after her and why? Just becuase she was an agent?

I just don't get the motive. It ruins her future as an agent out in the field, but she can still work in the USA. Unless specifics of her work are published, I don't see why any goverenment would come after her. What would the point be?

msquared

Posts: 3970 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All right Tom - I concede your point. The idea of protecting a source should extend to the person who exposes another wrong as opposed to the person who is actually using the press, perpetrating the crime.

Novak then should have known better. If this is what happened. I uderstand this was leaked to multiple reporters - not all of which leaked the information.

These folling links ar worth taking a look at to get the backstory.

Peter Hausen

Talking Point Memo

Jeff Coop

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
msquared -

It's punitive. It's personal - I mean if you are an undercover cop and someone blows your cover - does that not hurt you in some way? Doesn't it hurt Wilson's wife if she loses a job she has worked so hard to get?

Is it okay to destroy a career to make political point?

It sends a nasty message to anyone considering talking to the press or congress about things the Bushies don't want revealed - illegal things - unethical things - what ever - it says, "We know where all your skeletons are burried so don't say anything or else..."

PS - I need to make a correction. The Wilson's have 3 year old twins.

Edited for spelling - and clarity

[ September 29, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Murdok ]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
CNN - The White House would cooperate with any probe, but said the Justice Department has not made any requests for information.
The Justice Department would not comment on whether it is looking into the case.

Yes - ladies and gentlemen - we have an administration of integrity, honesty and have entered a new era of politics in Washington.

quote:
The Nation - So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate--and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible--perhaps likely--that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security.

Welcome to the Bush Administration - too bad they learned nothing from the last number of administrations and scandals.

This story will have some legs.

[ September 29, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Murdok ]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
'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'...
Novak, from the Drudge Report page
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dan Allen -

One question then - why would the CIA ask the justice department to investigate a non-confidential disclosure?

Interesting.

In fact here is the exact paragraph that Novak wrote.

quote:
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.
And the link to the piece -

Bob Novak Wilson Op-ED

If it was so mundane as Novak now seems to claim - why did other sources go out into the media and cold call reporters about it?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enumclaw
Member
Member # 876

 - posted      Profile for Enumclaw   Email Enumclaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lotta silence from the right wing on this one.

Here's the deal. The two senior administration officials screwed up. They aren't supposed to release the facts about who's working for the CIA and who isn't, period.

Now every ambassador's wife in every nation is going to be suspect. Before now, they might not have been; they probably were routinely ignored or thought very little of.

Whoever leaked the info messed up, plain and simple, and that's why the intelligence community is ticked off. They have a right to be mad.

Whether it was Rove or someone else doesn't really matter; what matters is that someone probably should fall on their sword on this one and take the hit for the White House.

I suspect that the fact that nobody has indicates that whoever it is that did this is HIGH up.

As far as Novak detailing who the source was... no way. Absolutely not. Whether this was an attempt at manipulating the media or not makes no difference; the deal is that if someone's being quoted on background, their names stay confidential, PERIOD.

Otherwise, nobody could go to the media and remain anonymous, because they would be left open to later disclosure IF someone decided that their talking was an attempt at manipulation- even if it wasn't.

It's entirely possible that whoever leaked the info truly didn't realize what they were doing; say it was a junior staffer type whose boss knew how to manipulate. The junior staffer could now be destroyed by Novak disclosing their identity, even though the staffer might not have been playing the game.

No, no, a thousand times no does Novak give up the name willingly. However... if this action violated any of the laws regarding such info, then Novak should be compelled to give up the name.

National security trumps journalistic integrity.

However, thus far it sounds more like political maneuvering, and to expect Novak to give up the name for mere political gain is foolish and a vain hope. As it should be.

Paul

Posts: 1656 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"the deal is that if someone's being quoted on background, their names stay confidential, PERIOD."

Speaking as someone who understands the reason behind the traditional protection of sources, I don't see why this courtesy needs to extend to people making deliberate leaks of information that ultimately prove criminal.

Of course, since Novak is apparently now RETRACTING his claims (perhaps because of pressure?), this may all be academic.

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Re: Damage to Wilson

Wilson isn't the one who's damaged, so much as the country itself. Now that's Plame's been outed, every organization she's been with, every operation she's taken part in, is tagged as a CIA operation or conspirator. If she was briefly involved a decade ago with an ongoing operation, and someone remembers that, then that operation is now blown.

Remember, she was an undercover operative working on WMDs. She's doubtless been part of many different things that the CIA uses to track and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. This not only hurts Wilson, punitively; it exposes scores of CIA operations. That's what makes it a treasonous offense.

Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enumclaw
Member
Member # 876

 - posted      Profile for Enumclaw   Email Enumclaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Waiting for one of the conservatives to chime in on this subject...
.
.
.
.
(crickets chirping)
.
.
.
Okay, so let's not bother with THAT. [Smile]

Seriously, Justin has it exactly right. I hadn't realized the extent of the work that she had done, but I've been reading some today about the whole thing.

You simply do NOT disclose the identity of people working for the CIA, and you REALLY don't disclose those who're undercover. She was. Now anyone she might have had close contact with in foreign lands, her phone logs, lunch dates, you name it- all going to be examined by the bad guys (or neutral guys- we spy on lots of nations, after all) for who might have been a source for her.

So plainly this is a really Bad Thing.

That said... Tom, I don't really understand what's hard to understand about this. A journalist does not give up anonymous sources, period, end of story. The only reason to do so, IMO, is truly national security.

That's simply how it works. Even if the source is spinning something, if it's true and it's news, the source has to be protected.

If Novak were to willingly give up the sources' names, who would talk to him? Ever? I know I never would. If it became standard, then plainly news gathering would be hampered a LOT.

It could be argued that ANY leaking is "deliberate" leaking. After all, the reason someone is an anonymous source is because they can't be named publicly; so plainly they're telling something that they're not supposed to.

And often there's perfectly good stories that need to come out that would be prohibited under laws, rules, and regulations. There's stuff that happens in nearly every governmental agency that people spill the beans on, anonymously, but their jobs are at risk; if they get caught, they can and will be fired.

You don't give up the source unless to not do so would put the nation's security at risk.

Paul

Posts: 1656 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Murdok:
quote:
One question then - why would the CIA ask the justice department to investigate a non-confidential disclosure?
Why did they wait so long to decide to do so? My understanding is that the process went something like this:
CIA asks Justice about the law.
Justice asks CIA about applicability – is the agent considered covered?
CIA waits 2 months to respond.

Another question: If there is a disclosure problem here, why did the CIA confirm her position when Novak asked?
quote:
If it was so mundane as Novak now seems to claim - why did other sources go out into the media and cold call reporters about it?
Who else is making the claim, besides Wilson? If it is true, then why haven’t any of the other reporters contacted come forth to back his story up?

So far, there is nothing to suggest that there was any real criminal intent here.

Enum:
quote:
Here's the deal. The two senior administration officials screwed up. They aren't supposed to release the facts about who's working for the CIA and who isn't, period.
…
Whoever leaked the info messed up, plain and simple, and that's why the intelligence community is ticked off. They have a right to be mad.

Agreed, but then someone in CIA screwed up also.

Justin:
quote:
Remember, she was an undercover operative working on WMDs. She's doubtless been part of many different things that the CIA uses to track and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. This not only hurts Wilson, punitively; it exposes scores of CIA operations. That's what makes it a treasonous offense.
Novak stated that: “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'”. It wasn’t the White House that feed him misinformation, but the CIA. He didn’t use her name because of what the administration officials said, but what the CIA source told him.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Justin Johnson
Member
Member # 1259

 - posted      Profile for Justin Johnson   Email Justin Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Novak stated that: “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'”. It wasn’t the White House that feed him misinformation, but the CIA. He didn’t use her name because of what the administration officials said, but what the CIA source told him.
That's Novak backtracking, apparently, and now it's his words against Wilson's, who says the Novak thought she was an operative:
quote:
from Talking Points Memo, who interviewed Wilson recently:
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative."

I think the reason that Bushistas are silent is because, if it happened the way it currently appears to have happened, then the act is indefensible, even to them. Like WMDs, they're waiting for vindication in the form of some evidence or report they can point to, because if they wander in and say nothing more than "trust the president and his staff", they'll get smacked around by a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Who else is making the claim, besides Wilson? If it is true, then why haven’t any of the other reporters contacted come forth to back his story up?

So far, there is nothing to suggest that there was any real criminal intent here.


Okay, I get it, the argument from the Bushies must be: "Look, we're a collosal bunch of screw ups and we just endangered the life of one of our own agents and botched possibly years of covert work, but we didn't mean to do it, so don't hold us responsible."

Until one, just one, of the self-proclaimed conservatives on this board actually starts applying some objective standards to the conduct of this administration, I will consider the lot of them nothing better than partisan stooges blinded by their need to protect Bush because He Isn't Clinton.

Starr was sent after Clinton because of things that allegedly happened before Clinton took office, and here the administration has exposed their own agent but none of you thinks its time for an independent counsel? Hmmmm, bad land deal versus possible TREASON, yeah the land deal is more important, obviously...

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Check this out -

Washington Post and Karl Rove

It seems more and more evidence is pointing to Karl Rove as the person, if for nothing else, who endorsed the leak to the press.

His name is popping up in more than a few newspapers and TV outlets. I'm thinking he might be sweating pretty well about now.

And the Bushies are just sitting with their smug little smiles - with the justice department in their back pockets...yep. A more ethical administration - a new Washington.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It is rather pointless to speculate at this time as to who the leak is.

LetterRip

Posts: 7100 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well - if it was lower level don't you think they would have come forward already?

And if it is someone high up they will will most likely keep their mouth shut - all smug in their actions.

Speculation is all the Bush administration is giving us so what do you expect? Should we act any better or more responcibly than the conservatives did during the countless Clinton witch hunts?

Face it - the whitehouse refuses to do an internal investigation because they are too arrogant to think they actually did something wrong. MR. Bush puts on his little angry face, but it means nothing. He'll let this blow over.

But it won't blow over.

You know - I cannot fathom why the conservatives, the fundies and the Fox News boneheads all keep silent - the same people who bitched up a storm like a bunch of yappy little mutts when the FBI files were found in the Clinton Whitehouse residence.

But oh - they do speak! They say it's not important - it's being made into a bigger deal than it deserves - those darn democrats! Tom Delay is such an idiot, Mr. Big mouth himself thinks this is nothing important and even made jokes about the outing of an undercover CIA operative!

Mr. Republican himself.

Where is their outrage now? Hypocrites all!
And people wonder why we generalize.

Blood is in the water...who's got the chum?

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Novak: Wilson's Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent
quote:
The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public.

According to columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Mrs. Wilson's name in his July 14 column, sources at the CIA expressly told him she was not a spy.

"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives," Novak told his audience on CNN's "Crossfire."

"So what is the fuss about?" he asked, then wondered aloud, "Pure Bush-bashing?"

In fact, in a little-noticed line in the initial Washington Post report on the announcement of the CIA's request for an investigation, the paper noted that "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

Still, hours after Novak went public with a clarification of Mrs. Wilson's status, she was described as a "undercover agent" by former White House chief of staff David Gergen in an interview with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, and as a "covert agent" by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

Wilson: I Made Up Rove Leak Allegation
quote:
Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson admitted Monday morning that he fabricated a key part of his allegation that the White House deliberately blew his wife's cover as a CIA weapons analyst.

Wilson has accused top Bush political strategist Karl Rove of leaking the name to columnist Robert Novak, telling a Seattle audience last month that he wanted "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

But he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that he got "carried away" and made up the Rove allegation out of thin air.

"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," Wilson told GMA. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment."

Wilson then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak."

Wilson insisted, however, "I have great confidence that, at a minimum, [Rove] condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down."

Begining to sound like much ado about nothing, but we'll see.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
JM - I love your source - Newsmax.com!

We are trying to get to the bottom of this and you give us the rights version of the Enquirer. I was looking for stories of two headed babys before long!

The right wing responds and they give us NewsMax!

The simple fact is, Wilson's wife was indeed an undercover operative. That is no longer in question if CNN, the New York Times, Fox News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal are to be believed. And let's not forget the CIA - who have never denied her covert missions and even if she is a covert operative - they wouldn't say so and break the law like some in the Whitehouse..

As for the Rove connection - Wilson is not the only one making that assertion - he still belives Rove is involved but is backtracking until more evidence is brought forward. Go back and reread the Washington Post story I posted here yesterday.

And again I ask - if this is no big deal - why would the Justice department get so involved in a little thing like the outing of an analyst?

And JM - you gotta post information from somthing other than NewsMax - all the news thats fit to print? I expect better from you!

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just because it's RW doesn’t mean it's wrong.
CNN and MSNBC have been known to be correct on occasion, too.
Oh, the sheer idiocy of ignoring the point of the article just because you don't agree with the source's point of view... grow up.

How about straight from the horse's mouth:
The CIA leak
quote:
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
And the original story - it was from July, by the way. If this is such a big deal, why the delay? Why didn’t the DOJ release the hounds on July 15th?
Mission to Niger

Just because someone picked up a talking point and it's been repeated doesn't make it true. It happens all the time - a buzz word or talking point comes out, in about 12 hours you'll see it in 20 different places.
The CIA has yet to say either way what her role is, so I don't give a crap what the CONJECTURE is until there's a definitive word.

I am not saying the allegations aren't true, only that they are aren't proven, so you might want to hold off on the lynch mob for now.

Of course, it's all GW's fault. He knows and sees all.

Some of you give him entirely too much credit.
Either he's an idiot who doesn't know a hawk from a handsaw, or he's in full control of every little detail - ie "Bush's releasing her name", "Bush's war", "Bush's economy", yadda-yadda-yadda.

Which is it?
If he's an idiot, he probably doesn't have a clue, so it's not really his fault.
If it's all his fault, then he can't be much of an idiot for being in such control of everything.

But don't let logic stand in your way of hating him.

Anyway, like I said, we'll see, but it still looks like much ado about nothing to me.

[ October 01, 2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryGuest
Member
Member # 1251

 - posted      Profile for OrneryGuest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is dead serious. The Bush administration is playing politics with the lives of American spies abroad. Some of them may yet die as a result of this single breach.

This is from PBS last night, direct quotes from former CIA operative Larry Johnson, a republian who just said he's disgusted to be a republican. He worked with her in the CIA. If you believe in any deity, pray...pray that this doesn't get anyone killed. Pray that the foreign nations haven't tracked down all the american spies in their countries who met with her. Or the body count will start rising.

"The reporters who did not file a story and promised, or given assurance to these individuals that they would be protected, they need to come forward. To hear bob Novak parsing words like a Clinton lawyer defining sex is outrageous. Sure, they didn't call him, he called them but they volunteered the information. They took the initiative to divulge the CIA officer's name. And that is outrageous."

--------

"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 September 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."

--------

"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."

Go to source for more excerpts

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

Someone in that Bush administration should be tried for treason.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryGuest
Member
Member # 1251

 - posted      Profile for OrneryGuest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Also, the RNC chair admits it's worse than Watergate:

------------
Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when
you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal
the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it
should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world
implications of it. It's not just politics.

-------

That's right, this is not just politics. The Bush administration went over the line. Karl Rove (who is being accused by everyone in the media) has spent so much time playing politics he's forgotten that the interests of the nation should be held above that of his party and even above that of the Bush administration. Treason. The last time someone did this, people died.

Another quote from the ex-CIA operative in the PBS story:

"We saw this in the 70s with Marchetti and others and Philip Agee who outed officers and they were killed"

Posts: 136 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
WHatever the facts of this case turn out to be, I think its clear that we need a long-term provision calling for special investigations, not carried out by the justice department. Obviously, Ashcroft is beholden to Bush at some level, and any investigation carried out by his department will be viewed as suspect by those of the left, unless the JD decides to prosecute Bush or Rove of someone high up in the Administration for treason. On the other side of the coin, if they DO decide to prosecute, then there will be many on the right who will say that the JD is being overly agressive to ease concerns about partisanship from the left.

However, as we saw under Clinton, special investigations can ALSO be political in nature. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the fourty million spent on Starr's investigation was totally removed from politics. Part of it was, part of it wasn't.

But I don't think its reasonable to expect a justice department to carry out a non-partisan investigation of its boss. Just as we have internal affairs for police departments, we need a branch of our justice system for policing the police... a group who's job it is to make sure investigations get carried out properly in circumstances such as what we are about to see in Washington.

The denial of the request for special counsel by the Bush administration worries me more then anything else. Whether or not someone in the administration is guilty of the charge, we've consistently seen the attitude from our president and his advisors, Cheney and Ashcroft in particular, that the american public doesn't have a right to know whats going on in the decision making process. This is again their attitude on the Wilson situation. We, apparently, do not have the right to request a non-partisan investigation of our administration's possible venture into the realm of treason.

I sent of a letter to Kerry, Kennedy, and Meehan (my reps) to keep up the pressure for a special counsel. Not so much because I believe that there is definetely treason going on, but because I don't trust an administration that wants to police itself when charged with treason, and I believe the only way to keep our government honest is to not let politics dictate investigations.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kilthmal
Member
Member # 547

 - posted      Profile for Kilthmal   Email Kilthmal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Bush administration went over the line. Karl Rove (who is being accused by everyone in the media) has spent so much time playing politics he's forgotten that the interests of the nation should be held above that of his party and even above that of the Bush administration.
Why would all those girls accuse those men of being in league with the Devil if it weren't true?

Ev,

More accountability and transparency is always important. However, you must remember that you can only trust yourself. So, while an independent prosecuter might be important to bring the force of law to bare, there are people who are more motivated to find the horrible thing the administration did. That's why I'd perfer if everything was posted to the web to let the bloggers and such review, correlate, and complain. After they do that, the independent prosecuter will hopefully be able to choose correctly among all the varying viewpoints.

I'd also like it if there was a law set up to protect and pay people who rat out their wrong-doing boss. If someone can expect fame and a rich reward it's more likely they'll be willing to make powerful enemies.

Kilthmal

Posts: 728 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
JM -
quote:
Oh, the sheer idiocy of ignoring the point of the article just because you don't agree with the source's point of view... grow up.
When the source is telling me the only reason Wilson said anything in the first place is because he wants a movie deal then yes. If you read down the page at the other stories - the National Enquirer is brought to mind and I wanted to see if Elvis was still alive.

Is he JM?

I think you should grow up and start reading some adult papers and not the trash the right wing shoves down your throat as factual evidence.

But to show I'm fair and balanced - try this site - a much better and more liberal version of your site. Though this one is much more accurate and does not pander to mindless browsers looking for Elvis.

MediaWhores Online

And for a very good site that caters to progressives -

Buzz Flash

As for your other comments - I think Onery Guest did a smashing job of ripping up your arguments! [Smile]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Jedi:
quote:
Okay, I get it, the argument from the Bushies must be: "Look, we're a collosal bunch of screw ups and we just endangered the life of one of our own agents and botched possibly years of covert work, but we didn't mean to do it, so don't hold us responsible."
Where did you get this from this?
Me:
quote:
Who else is making the claim, besides Wilson? If it is true, then why haven’t any of the other reporters contacted come forth to back his story up?

So far, there is nothing to suggest that there was any real criminal intent here.

What I’m commenting on is that the Anti-Bushies “on this site” seem to be taking Wilson’s accusation as fact – without any support. He made the claim that six other reporters were cold-called with this story. Where’s the proof? It’s not as if the reporters would be violating some confidentiality privilege if they admitted receiving such a call – but no one has. Wilson is now admitting that his claims about Rove were a tad excessive, but it’s all still coming from a talking head that has no support.

I don’t think that there is any question that someone screwed up – the law was broken, and that’s why the JD is investigating. But it wasn’t just a administration official that screwed-up; someone in the CIA confirmed that she was an operative, but apparently didn’t tell Novak her true status.
Wilson is loudly claiming a political motive for which he has no proof – but that’s all immaterial to the Anti-Bushies.

Murdok:
quote:
The simple fact is, Wilson's wife was indeed an undercover operative. That is no longer in question if CNN, the New York Times, Fox News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal are to be believed. And let's not forget the CIA - who have never denied her covert missions and even if she is a covert operative - they wouldn't say so and break the law like some in the Whitehouse.
If someone in the CIA confirmed that she was an agent (whether undercover or not), as Novak contends, then they did break the law.

OG:
quote:
"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."
Given that Mrs. Wilson is 40 years old then maybe “SpyKid’s” is based on a true story? [Wink]

That she was exposed is wrong – but to claim that it was an intentional act committed solely to ‘punish’ her husband is nothing more than political swamp gas.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1