White House Outted CIA Agent

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Clinton lied about a lot more than just that. It's just no one cared much about his lies on Kosovo or campaign finances, etc.

notice I said "big" lie... Those other lies... especially about Kosovo... perhaps are more important, but didn't receive as much attention in the media. And when people think of Clinton and lies... Monica is the first thing that comes to mind... which is unfortunate, but true.

[Alexander's Horse]

I believe Richard Starr is available.

[Berzerker]

Ken Starr

Sava -

Well Clinton's big lie and subsequent impeachment proceedings were about a private sexual affair that, quite frankly, is none of the publics' business. Bush's lies, mistruths, manipulations, whatever; have put us in a war, and now seem to have put our national security in jeopardy and an alleged covert ops' life at risk. I also read another probable lie in the paper today about the White House denying Rove leaked any information to Bob Novak. Bush is a bigger liar than Clinton. Everything Bush says is a lie or political bait and switch... No Child Left Behind... Clear Skies Initiative... Tax Cuts... War... Uranium... etc...

His big lie was over campaign finances from China which even the NYT said was the biggest scandal since Watergate (how selling military technology and secrets to the Chinese was a lesser offense than Watergate only the NYT can explain). Why so much of the media focused on Monica and ignored China is an interesting question. But Clinton's lie regarding Monica was not why he was impeached, he lied in a court of law to deny an alleged victim - Paula Jones - her day in court for sexual harassment charges.

[Japher]

Mister Starr...

I got a friend with the last name Starr... that's what we call him

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ken Starr

Ken's brother Richard the Democrat attack dog

[Mordoch]

Here's a particularly damming quote from a PBS News Hour guest on the subject.

This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. 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 has been 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 meets 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.

-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.

http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2003/09/30/ts.rm?altplay=ts.rm

[Guynemer]

Wowie.

I wonder if Mr. Johnson will find himself in front of many cameras, tape recorders, and notebooks in the months to come.

[DanS]

Whatever can be said of this, this shouldn't be much of an investigation. Certainly nothing like the document trail of Whitewater. So they should do the investigation and fire and prosecute anybody they need to fire and prosecute. Doesn't matter if it's Card.

I agree with the guy interviewed on PBS to a large extent, although he loses me when he starts talking about whether or not the policy that Wilson was arguing was stupid or not. It doesn't matter whether the policy was good or bad. This crap is very out of bounds.

[The Mad Monk]

Agreed.

Whether Rove blew the cover or not, it's very clear that somebody did.

Speaking as as conservative and a Republican...I want that somebody on a pike.

[Q Classic]

if rove goes, so will bush.

not because bush would've been involved--but because rove is a very shrewd operator, and i can't see the bush campaign coming up with someone as, ah, talented, as rove.

[PLATO]

I just wonder how many tax dollars we are going to spend to try to find out a name that Novak knows so well.

[-Jrabbit]

My wife told me about this wehn I got home from work last night.
Outing a covert agent? Pretty shocking, and treason in fact if not in law.
Doing it to slap her husband around for embarrassing the administration? Cowardly, craven, and pathetic.

I predict a quick scapegoat-and-stonewall from this admin. After all, Daddy Bush is the former head of CIA. They're smug enough and calculating enough to try to make this go away.

Personally, I'd like to see a special prosecutor, but the White House is closing ranks as we speak and unless someone steps out, it's very doubtful we'll ever know the full truth of this case. (Unless the CIA decides to do its own "investigation"...)

[Jack_www]

I doubt that we will ever find out. It is real easy to leak information, and if this person acted on his own, very little evidence will be around to prove who did it. The only thing I could think of is if the reporter tells who gave him the information, but that is never going to happen.

[Caligastia]

This is a nothing story.

Plame was not an undercover CIA agent, just a paper-pusher. So the CIA confirmed Plame's employment to columnist Robert Novak. Has it occurred to any of you that the CIA doesn't routinely confirm the employment status of undercover agents or spies?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent. The only person making that claim is her husband.

This is just another pathetic attack from the Bush-haters. Here's an insight from the Wall Street Journal:



Political Intelligence

The agenda behind the kerfuffle over Joe Wilson's wife.

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

We've been knocking our heads trying to figure out how a minor and well-known story about an alleged CIA "outing" has suddenly blossomed into a Beltway scandal-ette. The light bulb went off reading Monday's White House press briefing.

Right out of the box, Helen Thomas asked if "the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?" OK, the point of this exercise is to get President Bush to fire someone. But whom? That answer became clear when the press corps quickly uttered, and kept uttering for nearly an hour, the name "Karl Rove."

Of course! The reason this is suddenly a story is because Mr. Rove, the President's political strategist and confidant from Texas, has become the main target. Joseph Wilson, the CIA consultant at the center of this mini-tempest, had recently fingered Mr. Rove as the official who leaked to columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA. Mr. Wilson has offered no evidence for this, and he's since retreated to say only that he now believes Mr. Rove had "condoned it." The White House has replied that the charge is "simply not true." But no matter, the scandal game is afoot.

The media, and the Democrats now slip-streaming behind them, understand that the what of this mystery matters much less than the who. It's no accident that Tony Blair's recent and evanescent scandal over WMD evidence concerned his long-time political aide and intimate, Alastair Campbell. We're also old enough to recall what happened to Jimmy Carter's Presidency once his old Georgia friend Bert Lance was run out of town. If they can take down Mr. Rove, the lead planner for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, they will have knocked the props out of his Presidency.

The political goals must be paramount here because the substance of the story is so flimsy. The law against revealing the names of covert CIA agents was passed in 1982 as a reaction against leaks by Philip Agee and other hard-left types whose goal was to undermine CIA operations around the world. This case is all about a policy dispute over Iraq. The first "outing" here was the one Mr. Wilson did to himself by writing an op-ed in July for the New York Times.

An avowed opponent of war with Iraq, Mr. Wilson was somehow hired as a consultant by the CIA to investigate a claim made by British intelligence about yellowcake uranium sought in Niger by Iraqi agents. Though we assume he signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement, Mr. Wilson blew his own cover to denounce the war and attack the Bush Administration for lying. Never mind that the British still stand by their intelligence, and that the CIA's own October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, since partly declassified, lent some credence to the evidence.

This is the context in which Mr. Novak was told that Mr. Wilson had been hired at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee. This is hardly blowing a state secret but is something the public had a right to know. When an intelligence operative essentially claims that a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie, certainly that operative's own motives and history ought to be on the table. In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters. It remains far from clear that any law was violated.




The real intelligence scandal is how an open opponent of the U.S. war on terror such as Mr. Wilson was allowed to become one of that policy's investigators. That egregious CIA decision echoes what has obviously been a long-running attempt by anonymous "intelligence sources" quoted in the media to undermine the Bush policy toward Iraq. Mr. Bush's policies of prevention and pursuing state sponsors of terror overturned more than 30 years of CIA anti-terror dogma, and some of the bureaucrats are hoping to defeat him in 2004.
As recently as Monday, the New York Times hung its lead story around a leak that the Pentagon had somehow not got its money's worth from the $1 million it had spent mining some of Ahmed Chalabi's intelligence tips. We'd love to see a declassified bang-for-the-buck analysis of the tens of millions the CIA has spent paying sources who claimed to have Saddam Hussein in their sights. If CIA Director George Tenet can't control his bureaucracy, then President Bush should find a director who can.




Which brings us back to the politics. The Democratic Presidential candidates are naturally all over this pseudo-story, calling for a "special counsel" and Congressional probe. They can suddenly posture as great defenders of the CIA and covert operations, though some of them spent the decades before 9/11 assailing both. And if they can't get Mr. Bush to give up Mr. Rove, perhaps they can keep the story going through next November.
At least we can be thankful that Democrats buried the independent counsel statute during the Clinton years. "Leak" investigations are notoriously fruitless in any case and typically a waste of Justice Department resources. It's especially amusing to see the media whose lifeblood is leaks feigning outrage. We trust that Mr. Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill understand that if they throw Mr. Rove over the side, the blood in the water will really be theirs.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004089

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
His big lie was over campaign finances from China which even the NYT said was the biggest scandal since Watergate (how selling military technology and secrets to the Chinese was a lesser offense than Watergate only the NYT can explain).

Probably because after Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee, the NYT didn't feel like going on another wild goose chase (as far as selling secerts). As fo campaign financing, they didn't go after it because the Republicans didn't want to make an issue out of it, because they were breaking the law also.