posted
I watched coverage of today's White House press briefing on the leak of a CIA operative's name by "someone in the Administration." I'm used to weasel words from press secretaries, but this was ridiculous. The guy was asked several legitimate questions that he could've simply said "I'm not going to reply to that." Instead, he pointed took the opportunity to say that the question was somehow "biased" or that the reporter was straying from the topic. Instead of this tactic working, it simply fanned the flames. Reporters smelled blood at that point.
"Sir, when you say that this question is not on topic, do you mean to deny that someone in the administration actually uttered the words 'Mrs. Wilson is fair game?'"
The man who is supposed to have said those words is Carl Rove. If anyone would have said that sort of thing, Mr. Rove is the guy. He's political slime of the worst stripe, and I don't care what your party affiliation is, if you can read about this guy and come away without wanting to take a long hot shower, you're a stronger person than I aspire to be.
He's out there!
So, there's at least some plausibility to the thing. Now, what the White House could've done is instruct the press secretary to just say "Rove never said that." Or "he did say it, but that does not reflect the opinion of the President." Instead, they tried to say that whether something like that was said or not is irrelevant to whether someone purposefully leaked the name of a CIA operative.
Right.
I have to tell you that I think Bush is blowing it on this issue. Ashcroft is NOT the person to conduct this investigation. The Atty General may, in fact, be the source of the leak for all we know.
More importantly, I really would like to know what the Atty General will do when the source of the leak is found. He's on record as saying that every crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and castigating Federal Judges who fail to sentence up to the full limit allowed. He's actually alienating an entire branch of government by arguing that sentencing guidelines should be imposed on all criminal cases.
So...what they do if/when they find the culprit in this case will be very enlightening.
If the administration thought about it at all, I think they'd want to go with someone independent to look into the case. That way they aren't leaving themselves open to criticism should they come in with less than the maximum charges.
Ultimately (if deliberate), this is a case of treason, punishable by death. If they don't go for that with their own people, what right have they got to insist on maximum sentencing in any cases involving regular citizens?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to bet that the administration will throw the guy to the wolves before there is even a chance of an Independent Counsel investigation.
The Republicans were all for digging in to Whitewater (and they came up with what? Clinton committing perjury about something unconnected to the case?) will they be as strongly in favor of "Independent" counsel for something as serious as this?
Let's see. They: 1) put an American citizen's life in jeopardy, 2) did it for political retaliation, 3) possibly endangered every covert operative that had worked with the woman, 4) undermined a large percentage of the CIA's covert, on the ground intelligence?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side note, if it's unconnected to the case at hand, it's not perjury, it's a lesser offense of lying under oath.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Investigators want to find out who leaked the name of a CIA officer married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. The officer's name, Valerie Plame, first appeared in a July 14 story by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, and she later was identified by Newsday as an undercover officer.
The White House and the Republican National Committee turned up the heat Wednesday on Wilson. The GOP's communication office highlighted remarks in which Wilson backtracked from his original assertion that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, was responsible for the leak.
McClellan said that Wilson "has said a lot of things and then backed away from what he said. So I think part of your role," he told reporters, "is to do some further questioning there."
Novak, in a column published Wednesday, wrote that he discovered Plame's identity when talking with a senior administration official about why Wilson, who had been part of President Clinton's National Security Council, had been tasked with investigating allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.
A second official confirmed that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Novak wrote, adding that the CIA itself never suggested to him that publication of her name would endanger anyone. Novak also wrote that the officer's identity was widely known in Washington.
The instigators are starting to recant, their own statements. The CIA told Novak that knwledge of her name would not endanger her or any work.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wilson's comments are irrelevant at this point. His credibility does not impact the fact that two senior Bush administration officials revealed information that breached national security and possibly endangered lives.
So what if turns out Rove is not the guy who leaked it? Does it make the entire Bush administration less guilty?
Bush cannot deny responsibiilty regardless of whether or not he authorized, or otherwise had knowledge of, the leak. When criticized as a "lazy" or "stupid" president, Bush argued that he is a "hands off" type of executive who delegates tremendous amounts of responsibility to his subordinates. In other words, Bush told us that even though his hands are not on the wheel, he has faith in the people doing the actual driving. Bush justified his ignorance by telling America that he has faith in his subordinates. To use that same ignorance as immunity would be disingenous.
[ October 02, 2003, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: the CIA itself never suggested to him that publication of her name would endanger anyone. Novak also wrote that the officer's identity was widely known in Washington.--from linked story
The instigators are starting to recant, their own statements. The CIA told Novak that knwledge of her name would not endanger her or any work.--HDD
HDD, there is a big difference between 'the CIA didn't suggest the story would endanger anyone' and 'The CIA told Novak that knwledge of her name would not endanger her or any work.'
The first implies CIA silence to me, your interpretation implies an active CIA denial that publication of an undercover operative is just peachy. I find that a bit hard to credit. Note that Novak is quite possibly spinning the story for his own benefit.
Beren, you made some good points. Wilson's comments and credibility are irrelevant at this point, certainly insofar as whether a crime has been committed. And concerning Bush's management style.
I am wavering as to whether a special counsel is called for, but look at these poll numbers.
quote: an ABC-Washington Post poll found 69 percent of Americans, including 52 percent of Republicans, believe a special counsel should be appointed.
If these poll numbers hold up, it will be interesting to see if Bush and Ashcroft can stonewall the appointment of an independant prosecutor. If only a stained dress would turn up somewhere! Then it would be a clear-cut case. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How were people endangered by this? Would anybody really try to kill the Ambassador's wife?
She is not endangered by this admission.
However, for years she has traveled the world dealing with people who have secretly given information to her. Now, if you were head of a foriegn country and knew she was in your country, and that Jane had dinner with her, wouldn't you now consider Jane a security risk? Perhaps killing Jane would solve that security leak you are having.
The world will never know the number of intelligence assets, people spying for the US, that have been compromised and possibly killed, because of this story.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wilson has singled out senior White House political adviser Karl Rove for blame in the disclosure of his wife’s identity.... Critics of Ashcroft pointed out that Rove, as a private political consultant, had worked for at least two of Ashcroft’s campaigns for governor and senator in Missouri.
If the Republicans want to discredit Wilson because he donated money to Democrats, they have to also accept the fact that Rove's active role in Ashcroft's election campaign also taints Ashcroft's objectivity. You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the Republicans want to discredit Wilson because he donated money to Democrats, they have to also accept the fact that Rove's active role in Ashcroft's election campaign also taints Ashcroft's objectivity. You can't have it both ways.
Having it both ways is what the politicians of this country, but especially the republicans of recent years, excel at. I'm afraid that they're going to get away with it this time, too.
This is treason, ladies and gentlemen. A capitol offense, and we ought to push that to its limits. My guess is, though, that this will fall the same way that other problems with Bush and Cheney have fallen. Like the sealed and secret energy crisis meetings with big energy people. And Bush's sealed driving records in Texas and the state where he was a drunk driver. Etc, etc, etc.
We need a special council on this one, badly. But I have a feeling we won't get one.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is treason, ladies and gentlemen. A capitol offense, and we ought to push that to its limits."
Such utter tripe I've hardly had the joy to read before Behead dear George because some bastard under him is said to've leaked The undisclosed identity of female spook Who's not been hurt, but just unmasked Assumptions, all, sans shred of proof And yet you shout of treason, sir How sad and yet predictable.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaking classified information isn't trivial, and if any individual has the privilege of having it, they should know well enough who not to talk to about it. Disclosing classified information is considered a national security breach no matter how severe, and they should be dealt with in the manner that they agreed to be dealt with when they decided to have the privilege.
quote: Such utter tripe I've hardly had the joy to read before Behead dear George because some bastard under him is said to've leaked The undisclosed identity of female spook Who's not been hurt, but just unmasked Assumptions, all, sans shred of proof And yet you shout of treason, sir How sad and yet predictable.
Dear george, as you put it, has purposefully distanced himself from his own administration specifically so people will leave him alone. He takes month long vacations from the most important bloody job in the world. His negligence alonge ought to be a crime. Christ, if any of us were as lax about our jobs as he is about his, we'd be fired! Not knowing is no excuse for him, its his job to know. And you think he doesn't condone undercutting his political oponents? This about a man who went AWOL for a year, and then has the hypocratic nerve to run political ads about a POW claiming that he was unpatriotic?????
You're sadly delusional.
And you have no more proof that no itelligence operation was harmed than I have proof that there was an intelligence operation harmed. And its beside the point. That sort of leak is unallowable by principal, even if nothing came of this specific occurance.
I cannot begin to express my anger. This is far more "unpatriotic" than the simple disagreement that causes so many accusations of disloyalty from the whitehouse. But thats ok...mindlessly accept what they tell you.
Perhaps you also belive they're protecting the environment?
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Bowles's post gives me a mental image where Bush's aids brief him on the daily events with pop-up books and Dr. Seuss type of rhymes. That may be the only way to get through to him. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that I am not defending Bush From claims he's lax and blah-blah-blah I'm simply laughing at your wish To see him hung for being lax
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB, the fact that this needs to be prosecuted to, as AG Ashcroft is found of saying, "The Fullest Extent of the Law" (capitalization-his) does not mean we want to see Bush hung.
We want to find out who broke the law and have them prosecuted.
If its Rove, Wilson, or some overly vindictive CIA flunky who was mad at Wilson for some other reason entirely.
There are many reasons for this. Mrs. Wilson was not killed because she was exposed, but there is questions about her sources and the other undercover indviduals she dealt with. You know she's a spy. You backtrack her movements and find out who all she dealt with. You begin to unravel a network of spy's, patriots, and people who give the US intelligence.
More importantly, lets assume the innocence of all involved. That is the American way--innocent until proven guilty.
Another American way, since the creation of the constitution, is to set good precedents that protect the people from BAD and GUILTY politicians in power. If this goes lightly investigated, or the investigation is done questionably, then some future politician will be tempted to treat Secret information, treasonable information, as political power--after all, they will assume that Rove/Bush got away with it.
Ashcroft is right now campaigning for the right to gather ever more personal information from the American public. The Patriot Act is being fought not to protect terrorists, but out of a fear that information gathered will be used for political purposes, not legal purposes. Mrs. Wilson's CIA status was information locked away in the best governmental safe place--and it appears to have been used for political purposes. If there is any chance for the Patriot Act to be extended or enhanced, Mr. Ashcroft needs to prove to us that our information the Government gathers is safe from political manipulation.
The way to do that, from what I can see, is to insure this investigation is 100% open and above board.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Critics of Ashcroft pointed out that Rove, as a private political consultant, had worked for at least two of Ashcroft’s campaigns for governor and senator in Missouri.
Thanks for posting this, Beren. I've hopped off the fence and now wish for an independent investigation, due to a clear conflict of interest on the part of the AG.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
