• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White House Outs CIA Agent

subgenius

Illuminator
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

THE FORMER ENVOY, Joseph Wilson, who was acting ambassador to Iraq before the first Gulf War, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to investigate a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to buy uranium there. Although Wilson discredited the report, Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in January among the evidence he said justified military action in Iraq.
Wilson published an article in July alleging, however, that the White House recklessly made the charge knowing it was false.
“We spend billions of dollars on intelligence,” Wilson wrote. “But we end up putting something in the State of the Union address, something we got from another intelligence agency, something we cannot independently verify, in an area of Africa where the British have no on-the-ground presence.”

WHITE HOUSE DENIALS
The next week, columnist Robert Novak published an article in which he revealed that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. “Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate,” Novak wrote.
....

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday night that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew Plame’s cover in retaliation against Wilson. Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

That she was "outed" is old news. That someone is doing something about it is news.
Whoever did it should be held accountable, there's a law for a reason. It puts people's lives in jeopardy.
And how about Novak? Kind of irresponsible?
 
These days, opinion columnists are less concerned with adding to debate than with how many letters to the editor their columns generate.

As long as there's controvesy, Novak will be happy. As for journalistic responsibility, that can always take second place. Or third.
 
Wonder if Novak will be prosecuted.
Wonder if W. will be....what did he know and when did he know it?
Oh, that's right, he don't know nuthin', and nuthin's plenty for him. (Apologies to George Gershwin.)
 
There are intelligence people coming out in Australia, GB and the USA. This is very unusual behaviour for them, as I would think that they are inherently very conservative people who would normally side with a conservative government. This indicates to me that the Iraq invasion was something they think is very unusual and radical.

As to whether or not anything will happen because this guy was outed, nothing will happen. Or, if it does, he will be looked after.
 
I'm surprised, because this is the number one story in the USA, there hasn't been more comment on it. But its been unusually quiet here, or am I wrong again?
This is horrible. Someone did it, I don't care who. Its treasonous, as reflected by the law against it to reveal our secret agents (in this case it was a woman).
Regardless of any of the political ramifications, I still don't know why Novak did it, or why he has yet to come under scrutiny for doing it. You just can't reveal that information no matter who you are, even though you may have a right to protect your sources.
That's the decision you make as a "journalist". Even if you have a story (and I still don't understand why the guy's wife's job with the CIA had anything to do with anything), if there's a law against disclosing the information, ya gotta pay the piper.
Again, its against the law, and treasonous, because an individual footsoldier should not be put in jeopardy this way for any reason.
Imagine if it was the "loyal opposition" that revealed the name of a secret agent.
Any mercy for that "journalist" or the source?
Novak said it was a senior administration official. There is no motivation for him to say this if it weren't true, since he violated the law by doing so, and he did so in furtherance of impeaching the agent's husband.

I welcome an explanation of why anyone in the administration (even some low level bureaucrat patsy who will fall on the grenade) would do such a thing.
And I welcome an excuse for Novak revealing the identity of a CIA agent (obviously working for our country) and jeopardizing her life.
 
So to follow the story Novak, who jeopardized the life of a CIA operative, says his story is 100% accurate, which means "two senior administration officials" leaked her name.

Heads should roll.
 
This is the more reasonable journalistic response to such a leak:

"If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14399-2003Sep28?language=printer

Sorry for the multiple posts, but this thing is just unfolding.
 
So we'll see what the "Homeland" Security administration thinks about such a breach of security.

Will administration fave Novak be shunned (like old lady Helen Thomas) because even though he had a "right" to reveal a secret agent's identity, its certainly not a good thing, or will he be rewarded?

Oh boy, I can't wait to see what happens next.

By the way, I sang "Rave On" by Buddy Holly at karaoke tonight.
 
subgenius said:
I'm surprised, because this is the number one story in the USA, there hasn't been more comment on it. But its been unusually quiet here, or am I wrong again?
This is horrible. Someone did it, I don't care who. Its treasonous, as reflected by the law against it to reveal our secret agents (in this case it was a woman).

I admit the lack of discussion on this topic is odd. I don't like to start threads as a rule and was surprised it took so long for one to get started.

Part of the problem is the sheer inexcusable nature of the crime. I don't think any of the usual gang of Bush apologists can put any positive spin on this, especially since they are so fond of calling liberals traitors!

The other problem is the entire current administration is so rife with incompetence and scandal that individual stories likes this are starting to get lost in the noise.

Regarding Novak, I can't imagine what public good could come out of exposing this particular agent. She did nothing but serve her country, exposing her has effectively ended her CIA career and put her life in danger. And for what? What common good is going to come out of this?

If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.
 
EvilYeti said:


I admit the lack of discussion on this topic is odd. I don't like to start threads as a rule and was surprised it took so long for one to get started.

Part of the problem is the sheer inexcusable nature of the crime. I don't think any of the usual gang of Bush apologists can put any positive spin on this, especially since they are so fond of calling liberals traitors!

The other problem is the entire current administration is so rife with incompetence and scandal that individual stories likes this are starting to get lost in the noise.

Regarding Novak, I can't imagine what public good could come out of exposing this particular agent. She did nothing but serve her country, exposing her has effectively ended her CIA career and put her life in danger. And for what? What common good is going to come out of this?

If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.

Good analysis.
I can still see any journalist not revealing even an unsolicited eager traitorous source, but that's different than going ahead and disclosing an agent's identity.

Can't wait for the apologists "spin", I mean justification/explanation. It is taking a while isn't it?
 
subgenius said:

Good analysis.

Thanks! That means alot coming from a veteran.

I can still see any journalist not revealing even an unsolicited eager traitorous source, but that's different than going ahead and disclosing an agent's identity.

I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence, could you try again? If you are suggesting journalists will never reveal their source, I'll say that if the source turns out to be a bigger story then the leak that rule is going to get broke real fast!

Can't wait for the apologists "spin", I mean justification/explanation. It is taking a while isn't it?

Don't hold your breath. I predict the conservative media is going to try and bury this, on the grounds you can't polish a turd.

I also suspect Ashcroft and the Justice Department have inside knowledge of the leak and will suppress it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ashcroft was behind it!
 
If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.
Is a journalist obligated to protect the privacy of somebody that calls them up with unsolicited information?

I would think that a first hand account of the phone call from the unsolicited White House sources would be the real headline story.
 
Let me see if I got this straight, a journalist publishes the name of an undercover CIA operative and no-one is screaming?

The dichotomy of this country's response to treason confuses me. We invite news crews to war and then pull them, after they broadcast live troop movement and locations, with just a slap of the hand. 35 years ago they had on film a citizen of this country committing treasonous acts and then let her back in. There was a rash of agents taken to trial during the 80's for selling information, including names. Then we hold a citizen of this country in prison because they think, maybe, he misplaced some information located on some computer hard drives. Now there is someone that thinks it's news to print the name of an undercover operative in a paper read world wide.

Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the govenment when it deserves it(Ben Franklin). This country is it's people, in particular the one's that serve with their life. To place them in harms way for polictical gains is inexcusable and yes, that means unnecessary war. Can we still place traitors in front of firing squads?


Boo

(sorry if I am rambling, it's late)
 
Boo said:
Let me see if I got this straight, a journalist publishes the name of an undercover CIA operative and no-one is screaming?

The dichotomy of this country's response to treason confuses me. Boo
(snips)
(sorry if I am rambling, it's late)
When he did it I was amazed at the non-reaction.
Only when the CIA itself got the gonads (remember men and women have them) and asked for an investigation has it become news.

The dichotomy is clear once you understand the code. Its the hypocrisy of insider crass big oil amoral selfish self-centered laissez-faire operatives.
The code: everything they say means the opposite.
They are the true believers, if you're against them, you're the traitor, even though they are the ones who betrayed a loyal brave American who passed security clearance and put her butt on the line for her country.

Heads should roll. And Novak, unless he comes up with some reason for what he did should be run out of town on a rail. So far his reason is (see above post).

But all this, and the nebulous reasons for going to war and spending 100's of billions of dollars to do so are less important than private consensual sex, right? OK, and perjury about it, right?

You're not sleepy, you're wide awake.
 
fishbob said:

Is a journalist obligated to protect the privacy of somebody that calls them up with unsolicited information?

I would think that a first hand account of the phone call from the unsolicited White House sources would be the real headline story.

"If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
 

Back
Top Bottom