White House Outs CIA Agent

hammegk said:
Perhaps if you pc'foaming-at-the-mouth-libby idiots asked the mods nicely enough, they might delete this "mob of screaming pissants (oops, I meant peasants) with torches aflame". :(
Click to expand...

Have you, ever in your life, had anything to contribute beyond spite and malice?
 
Well, Drudgereport is claiming this all a tempest in a teacup now.

'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'...
Click to expand...

I read from several sources that a contact from the White House had called several journalists, so at this point I don't know what to believe.

I'm going to withold judgement until more information comes to light. Someone is lying.
 
jj said:


Was that ever in doubt? The only real question is "who".
Click to expand...

Until the drudge story I was under the impression that a white house source was cold calling journalists and burning an agents cover. Now Novak is claiming that is not the case.

The crux of the issue is where the source came from, as the CIA obviously feels this is serious enough to warrant an investigation.
 
So. Big deal. You can be gay in the CIA, it's just the military where you can't be. I bet a lot of them specifically go for that because it's an alternative for them.
 
Wilson himself has admitted that he 'misspoke' when he implicated Rove. He admitted that he has no knowledge of Rove's involvement whatsoever. Furthermore, it appears that Wilson's wife was not an 'agent' of the CIA. She was an analyst, but not involved in spying, concealed identities, or controlling field operatives. In other words, her life and health wasn't threatened by the release of this information.
Tempest in a teacup.
 
McClellan said White House officials would turn over telephone logs if the Justice Department asked them to do so. But he said Bush had no plans to ask staff members whether they were involved in revealing the name of Wilson’s wife.
....
CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.
The CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said.
....
Novak was not the only journalist that the White House officials tried to interest in the story. A senior administration official cited in a Washington Post report Sunday said two top White House officials called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?vts=092920032110
 
crackmonkey said:
In other words, her life and health wasn't threatened by the release of this information.
Tempest in a teacup.
Click to expand...

THATS JUST WHAT HALIBURTON AND THEIR CRONIES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WANT YOU TO THINK!!!!!

sorry, i love to imitate wahoos sometimes
 
Some more news

....

Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

In addition to Novak's column, an administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson.

.....

The CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said. "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." Sources said Wilson's wife is a clandestine operations officer for the CIA, now out of the field and working on weapons of mass destruction

....

Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21.

....

Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported last night that correspondent Andrea Mitchell had such a discussion after the Novak column appeared.

....

A 1982 law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for someone with authorized access to classified information identifying intelligence officers, agents, informants and sources to intentionally disclose that information to anyone who does not have the proper security clearances.


....
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17129-2003Sep29.html


Edited to add in the actual column by Novak. I am not sure anyone has posted it
http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=142

.....

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.

.....

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.

.....

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.

.....
Click to expand...
 
EvilYeti said:
The crux of the issue is where the source came from, as the CIA obviously feels this is serious enough to warrant an investigation.
Click to expand...

Well, if I was trying to run a covert network, I'd be a tad annoyed if somebody started outing my agents, too!
 
Even Novak admits that two senior administration officials leaked the agent's name to him. Whether they did it in person (as he says) or by phone is totally of no importance at all.

I think Wilson's right. This illegal leak has "political vendetta" written all over it. (But it will be nice if as a result it gets rid of Rove....)
 
President Bush, saying “leaks of classified information are bad things,” ordered all staffers to cooperate with the probe.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp

For the tempest in a teapot crowd. These things need to be taken seriously. If untrue, no harm, no foul.
As I said before Bush has a rep of not allowing loose lips. Not good for the country, not good for him. He has the greatest interest in finding the culprit, if any.

Found it odd though that he wasn't going to ask his staff if they did it. Don't know why you wouldn't.
 
subgenius said:
Found it odd though that he wasn't going to ask his staff if they did it. Don't know why you wouldn't. [/B]
Click to expand...

Two words:

Plausible deniability.


This whole thing is a big fat Christmas present right in the Democrats' lap. I can't deny that.

But this stuff is bad, bad form if there were really laws broken here. We know these folks play nasty, and they're experts in some pretty squirrely stuff.

Whatever the problem, it should be fixed.
 
Is she an analyst, an operative, an agent? I do not know. Novak referred to her as "an Agency operative"



In an e-mail, White House staff counsel Alberto R. Gonzales counsel refers to her as an "undercover CIA employee"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21505-2003Sep30.html

She could be an analyst. I suspect it also could be the case that if an agent, an operative, an undercover employee is identified, CIA will not immediately run out and say- yes, she was a very important undercover agent, her cover is blown! However, it is quite clear Democrats are milking for all it is worth as well. I suspect in the upcoming investigation we will learn quite a bit of interesting things about all participants in the story. According to a commentator on CNN, Wilson backed off a story that Rove was involved in this. Wilson is also apparently a partisan Democrat, supported of the Kerry campaign.

Novak, by the way does not say that the administration called to leak him the story. He dismisses the controversy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21300-2003Sep30.html

Novak, on CNN's "Crossfire," declared that "nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this." He said the information came up while he was interviewing a senior administration official -- a second one confirmed it -- and that the CIA provided confirmation. The CIA "asked me not to use her name but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," Novak said, because a CIA source had told him Plame was an analyst, not a covert operative. "So what's the fuss about? Pure Bush-bashing?" (Wilson told CNN last night that his wife was on the clandestine side of the agency.)
Click to expand...


What I want to know is why the White House is investigating this only now, and not after the story appeared, in July. If this was a felony, to reveal an operative's name, then why did they wait?
 
Good discussion on the News Hour on PBS tonight.
Card carrying Republican Bush supporter ex-CIA agent denouncing what happened. She was a CIA classmate, an honorable person. The people in the class didn't even know each other's names. Novak's characterization of her as unimportant is wrong.
There is a big principle involved.
Expert in jounalistic ethics: Novak blew it. There was no newsworthy reason to out her. It had nothing to do with the story. Novak is gonna take a big fall on this one.
Once again its the CIA pushing the case. Her identity was something they wanted to protect, as evidenced by the fact they called Novak begging him not to reveal her identity.
Six other journalists contacted by the "source" refused to reveal the identity because of the lack of newsworthiness of it and irrelevence to the issue at hand.
Only purpose in outing her was to smear.
Not good.
 
The above CIA agent also was appalled at Novak's "parsing of his sentences like a Clinton lawyer". Novak said on "Crossfire" he didn't know what her job was. Then why take the chance?
He's lying through his teeth.
 
For all you that think this is just the dems going overboard (and they may, they have every right to) there is a non-partisan issue here:

"FORMER CIA OFFICIAL TELLS PBS: OUTED OFFICER 'HAS BEEN UNDER COVER FOR THREE DECADES'

A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outed CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested.

Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR.

"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades."

[The WASH POST reported on Wednesday that "Valerie Plame" is 40 years old]

MORE

Johnson continues: She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas 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 go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

"I say this as a registered Republican. I am 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 who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht 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 was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

"I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."
http://drudgereport.com/matt.htm


This came from the PBS analysis/interview I referred to previously.

Just because someone can make political hay out of this doesn't mean its not a serious issue.
Deal with it, get it over.
 
If I was an undercover CIA agent from 1989 to 2001, I could be said to have been undercover for three decades. The 80s, 90s and naughties.

That's a fairly charitable interpretation of the comment, though.
 
07/22/03:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said.
"They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

10/01/03:
It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

So, Mr. Novak, which was it: significant or an offhand revelation?

He's going to spin so fast he'll get dizzy.

This guy is a slimeball. And a traitor.
He has said he didn't know what she did at CIA. Then why take the chance? Even if she's low level she was important enough to be covered by the laws protecting her identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom