CIA Asks for Criminal Probe of White House Treason

[Chris Alger]

I guess they thought the having Tenet fall on his sword about the Niger thing was a freebie. Apparently not.

Of course not really "treason," the only federal crime defined by the Constitution. I mean "treason" the way the war traitors tend to use it, a synonym variously for sedition, dissent, espionage, national betrayal, subversion of the official line, etc. In this case, it means violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 by making public the identify of an undercover CIA operative for pure political spite. She is the wife of for diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, who embarrassed the White House by revealing the Niger uranium hoax. Wilson is retired, so certain administration officials allegedly decided to wreck his wife's career and upset her personal life by outing her to the press.

Her ongoing assignment? Posing as an energy analyst in order to track down WMD proliferators. So the White House allegedly wrecked her attempts to truly prevent what the White House implausibly claims was its goal by prosecuting Bush's "brain fart" (Gen. Anthony Zinni) of a war against Iraq. The White House denies the story, which means that it is calling one of its most prominent press supporters a liar.

My introduction to the story came with David Corn's editorial, A White House Smear (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823), in The Nation.

Here's an excerpt:

"Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. [Conservative jounalist Robt.] Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: '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 allegation. ...

That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.

The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be 'two senior administration officials.' If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as 'nonofficial cover' and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.' If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison."

According to MSNBC today, "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." Full story here. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA00)

Imagine how the right would react if Ted Kennedy had done it.

OTOH, war between these guys usually means blocking an appointment or a recommendation letter for someone's kid. It might be that the CIA is just going through the motions of enforcing a law it has to enforce, that the Justice Dept. will conduct a meek inquiry, and the matter will drop. After all, the CIA did have the decency to slip it in on Friday, making it old news by the time most people tune in. One can't expect much from Ashcroft's Justice Dept., to say nothing of the usual gang of reactionary fellow travelers.

[brad]

i also read that the disclosure lead to deaths of operatives in the field.

also read that karl rove was behind the 'outing', and rove has dual citizenship (germany).

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=karl+rove&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=bj6kf9%24utm%241%40pencil.math.mis souri.edu&rnum=1

[Chris Alger]

I'm very skeptical about the claims that operatives were killed and I don't think Rove's German background is relevant to anything.

The other stuff is very interesting. Wilson has apparently been telling his story to anyone willing to hear it and the essential facts aren't disputed (the White House version meaning that Novak is out to get Bush). Yet none of the major media have wanted to touch it until now. If the leaker had been some liberal, every right-wing talk show host would have gone apoplectic over traitorous support for terrorism, but since its the Bush White House, they're not interested. Again illustrating how much the right truly cares about defending the country from terror and WMD proliferation.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
i also read that the disclosure lead to deaths of operatives in the field.

also read that karl rove was behind the 'outing', and rove has dual citizenship (germany).

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=karl+rove&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=bj6kf9%24utm%241%40pencil.math.mis souri.edu&rnum=1


[/ QUOTE ]

Not all that important but Karl Rove was born in Colorado on 12/25/50 and his father was a local geologist. Just how did he become a German citizen?

[brad]

i just always think its interesting when people with dual citizenship (like arnold) are in high public office (ok behind the scenes but u know). would have left it at that except i figured people would mistakenly assume he had US and israeli citizenship (like a lot of other top US administration figures (pearle, feith, etc.) ) so i put german in quotes.

[Cyrus]

Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002 :

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed Al Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses?"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 U.S. soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence srvices, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

The Congressman did not receive any anwser to the above questions, at the time, or now, after the war in Iraq.

[Wake up CALL]

"The Congressman did not receive any anwser to the above questions, at the time, or now, after the war in Iraq. "

A rhetorical question or for that mater 35 rhetorical questions do not require an answer. In fact an answer is not even expected nor usually wanted. However I will answer ont of them for you Cyrus if it will make you sleep better at night.



President Does Not Need Congress to Wage War (http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/articles_truman_loss_bush_gain.shtml)

[Wake up CALL]

Novak denies the information came from the Whitehouse. Now what Chris? Disappointed?

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Novak said on CNN that his report was based on conversations with two senior administration officials while he was looking into Wilson's trip to Africa to investigate the uranium story. The officials told Novak that Wilson's wife had suggested the mission for her husband, the columnist said.


He said the CIA confirmed her role and "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."



[/ QUOTE ]

web page (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak&cid=544&ncid=716)

[Chris Alger]

I'm sure he's under incredible pressure from his fellow right wing goons. But an outright denial, which he hasn't yet made, wouldn't be credible.

First, since the fact that she was an operative has been confirmed, do you suppose that Novak just guessed right? Or maybe the CIA blew the cover of one of their own to frame Rove or Bush, knowing that Novak could spill the beans any time?

Second, note that his "denial," instead of being categorical, is open to interpretation.

Novak: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here."

Notice how that phrase "nobody called me" is technically consistent with the account provided by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/index.html): "Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as 'a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.' Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission."

The possibility that the White House leaked that Wilson's wife was a covert operative without disclosing her name and the notion that Novak had called the White House instead of the other way around are both consistent with Novak's "denial".

But of course it wasn't just Novak: "The Washington Post quoted a 'senior administration official' in a story Sunday as saying that two top White House officials disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife in calls to at least six Washington journalists." CNN

Brokaw also claimed that the White House had called NBC with the leak.

[Cyrus]

"A rhetorical question or for that matter 35 rhetorical questions do not require an answer."

It's your prerogative to consider the questions posed by a Republican Congressman to his President as rhetorical. (The term could be correct technically since the Congessman was not really expecting an answer from the idiot at the White House!) But, of course, they are not truly questions that do not require an answer. These questions go to the very heart of the matter and this is why no one from the current American administration dared answer them.

Most of them poo-poo'd them away -- precisely as you did.

"I will answer ont of them for you: President Does Not Need Congress to Wage War (http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/articles_truman_loss_bush_gain.shtml)"

Tempted to refute one of the questions, in fact one of the basic questions, leads you astray : The Executive Branch in the United States has usurped the power to wage war and Congress decided to hide behind euphemisms such as "active acquiescence"! And the legal justification for this detriment to the U.S. republic is pathetically traced in flimsy sidenotes in irrelevant Supreme Court opinions such as Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Hang on to it, boys, for dear life.

As a citizen, aren't you the least bit concerned about your State representatives divesting their powers over to the Presidency and thus betraying their mandate? Was the war cry of the American Revolution "Up with the American Congress!" or "Up with our President!" ?? ...Rhetorical questions.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Brokaw also claimed that the White House had called NBC with the leak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Brokaw could have just made this up after intense pressure from left wing goons.

In any event, Novak should have honored the request of the CIA, and not used the operative's name in his article. If her name was intentionally leaked then those responsible need to be punished in accordance with the law. 10 years in the clink and a 50k fine.

Its unfortunate that politics and not justice, is what is going to determine what course this thing takes.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

Making it up? Not likely. Brokaw claims that NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell actually had the conversation about Plame's identity and that NBC's foreign affairs desk decided not to run it. So they'd have to be in on it too.

[Chris Alger]

Actually, he's confirmed it. Drudge quoting Novak yesterday:

"In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip [to Niger] was inspired by [Wilson's] wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing." CNS (http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/POL20030930c.shtml)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, he's confirmed it. Drudge quoting Novak yesterday:

"In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip [to Niger] was inspired by [Wilson's] wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing." CNS (http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/POL20030930c.shtml)


[/ QUOTE ]

I found this interesting from the applicable article in The Drudge Report. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)

"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."

I'm wondering if this changes any potential criminal charges.

[MMMMMM]

Sounds like a huge difference to me, anyway.

[Boris]

Maybe the Justice Department will consider your opinion and stop their criminal investigation.

[MMMMMM]

Boris you are so obnoxious sometimes--I recall the time you suggested you would like to kick my ass. What exactly is your problem, anyway?

[Boris]

criminal investigation (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6892561.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
Boris you are so obnoxious sometimes

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
I recall the time you suggested you would like to kick my ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I really do that? Sorry. I didn't mean it. I'm a lover not a fighter.

[Chris Alger]

In which case the CIA wouldn't have bothered sending two letters to Justice, and Justice wouldn't have upgraded their "probe" to an outright "criminal investigation" last night.

It's just fodder for die-hards that refuse to believe anything negative about Bush.

[MMMMMM]

"It's just fodder for die-hards that refuse to believe anything negative about Bush."

OK what about die-hards that refuse to believe anything positive about Bush?;-)

[Chris Alger]

"Novak said the CIA asked him not to disclose Plame's name, 'but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else,' and that he was led to believe that she was 'an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.' Novak was wrong on those accounts, according to the CIA. 'We wouldn't file a crimes report' if the case didn't involve an agent undercover, a U.S. official said.

Today's LA Times

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"Novak said the CIA asked him not to disclose Plame's name, 'but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else,' and that he was led to believe that she was 'an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.' Novak was wrong on those accounts, according to the CIA. 'We wouldn't file a crimes report' if the case didn't involve an agent undercover, a U.S. official said.

Today's LA Times


[/ QUOTE ]

You want to have your cake and eat it too I see. First we should believe the CIA on this matter and not Novak but we should believe Novak or Wilson about the source off the leak being from the current administration. Any other topics where we need to use selective reasoning in order to believe you?

[Chris Alger]

None of what you just wrote makes any sense at all.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
None of what you just wrote makes any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree since what I wrote is what you expect us to believe. Hard to believe we are on agreement on this matter. Does this mean you have changed your opinion?

[Cyrus]

"What about die-hards that refuse to believe anything positive about Bush?"

You mean, you mean there is actually something positive about Bush? Whoa.

What, what, what?

[Chris Alger]

10,000 dead and counting for no good reason? Our cup runneth over.

[MMMMMM]

"...for no good reason"

I guess that about sums up your views on the subject, eh, Chris?

[yellowjacket]

For those who don't think that this is a big deal, Larry Johnson, a Republican CIA analyst, was on Newshour last night and he, shall we say, slightly disagreed:

----------------------------------------
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 until 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 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 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.

[adios]

Political Intelligence (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004089)

[b]REVIEW & OUTLOOK

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.[b]

[Chris Alger]

The plain facts of the scandal have been public for two months. The Wall Street Journal tried to smear Wilson (and continues, as we shall see) at the same time the White House is accused of trying to smear Wilson. Yet nobody at WSJ could figure, until Monday, why anyone could take a alleged White House felonies seriously. Then it dawned: the whole thing amounted to a plot to get Karl Rove. So there's a conspiracy between Joe Wilson and his wife, W. Post reporters Dana Priest and Mike Allen (who must have fabricated their story about a White House official claiming that two others had contacted six reporters to blow Valerie Plame's cover), Tom Brokaw (who claims that reporter Andrea Mitchell was so contacted by the White House), and the CIA, all sparked by Bush fan Robert Novak. "The point of this exercise," claims the Journal, is to "take down Mr. Rove," who's spin expertise Bush needs to get reelected.

Brought to you by the same outfit that tried to sell Bush's tax cuts as middled class relief, Saddam Hussein having "scores of scientific laboratories and myriad manufacturing plants cranking out weapons of mass destruction," of the Atta Prague meeting being a "smoking gun," and, of course, leaving no administration claptrap unendorsed, the African uranium claim. Why anyone would demean themselves by believing a source with such obvious contempt for its audience is indicative of the masochism that accompanies the traditional conservative love for inflicting pain on others.

Notice, however, that there isn't a single contradiction of the facts reported thus far. The real reason the story is "so flimsy," according to the Journal, is that outing an undercover CIA operative is no big deal. After all, the law against doing so wasn't intended for right-wing types: "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." It's therefore okay for the White House to "burn" spies if it's "all about," or at least sort of related to, "a policy dispute over Iraq."

The Journal then caps its argument with the obligatory smear: "The first 'outing' here was the one Mr. Wilson did to himself by writing an op-ed in July for the New York Times. ... 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." Why assume a confidentiality agreement instead of just calling Wilson or the CIA to confirm? Because it would have to acknowledge the denial? Not likely. Wilson's already denied it: "There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip." ( Wilson (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm), NY Times, 7/6/3) If Wilson has an agreement with the CIA, it's between him and the CIA. Yet the WSJ deems it fit to "assume" not only its existence but its violation, going even further by insinuating that Wilson blew his "cover" and subverting secrets comparable to those allegedly betrayed by the White House.

The Journal also suggests that Wilson was merely a mouthpiece for his wife -- although his 23 years in foreign service have apparently made him a lefty kook in his own right -- because, get this, he was hired at her "recommendation." From this preposterous leap of logic the Journal jumps to the alleged right of "the public" to know whether "an intelligence operative" -- Wilson's wife Valerie Plame -- essentially claims that a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie." [1] I for one have always been curious to learn which secret agents secretly dislike US policy. I never thought I'd see the WSJ claim that I'm entitlted to this as a matter of right, even if it means compromising their secrecy and putting operations and lives at risk. Don't expect to see the Journal ever take this position again.

"In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters." This is a variant of the "she's just an analyst" theme that other Bush apologists have cited, relying on "confidential" CIA sources (why more "confidential" than any other source? because tnese journalists just made it up and don't want questions they'll have to answer with a lie). In any event, the CIA has already torpedoed the propaganda that her secrecy was nothing worth protecting.

This isn't the first time that the Journal has pulled smears against Wilson out of thin air. On July 18, the Journal ran a piece by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinburger. Weinburger described Wilson, offering no facts, as "a very minor [2] former ambassador ... with a less than stellar record" bent on "using any opportunity to refute the justifications for our ever going to war." Weinburger strongly suggested that Wilson's predisposition would include subverting his mission to Niger, or perhaps concoting the whole thing, given that his oral debriefing to the CIA means that "we only have his self-serving op-ed article in the New York Times to go by." Weinberger never mentions, however, how Wilson is a bad source compared to the admittedly forged documents the U.S. gave to the IAEA to refute Wilson's finding. Weinberger's apparent qualifications to publish such slime are his own indictments for lying to Congress and obstructing justice (suspiciously pardoned pre-trial by Bush the Elder, a participant of some of the very meetings Weinberger allegedly lied about).

This is typical right-wing Gingriching of someone with a proud record of service. The last ambassador to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Wilson sheltered and may have saved the lives of hundreds of Americans just prior to the Gulf War. Instead of complying with Saddam's order, punishable by death, that he "turn over" all foreigners, he appeared at press conferences wearing a hangman's noose: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [censored] rope." Saddam backed down. President Bush praised Wilson a "truly inspiring" diplomat who exhibited "courageous leadership" at a difficult time. One of the survivors, a conservative former Bechtel manager, says "I love Joe Wilson. ... I don't give a damn what his politics are." Washington Post, "The Man Behind the Furor," 10/1/3. Even Novak had the decency to note that "My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed 'the stuff of heroism.'"

Proving that not all conservatives are thankless, lying goons. But then not all conservatives write op-eds at the Journal.
_____________________
[1] This is actually a betrayal of the Journal's real mentality. Lower down, the editorial complains about "anonymous 'intelligence sources' quoted in the media" trying to "undermine the Bush policy toward Iraq." But given that the public has a "right" to know these things, what is the Journal concerned about? Evidently, the name and identity of the sources, as if the public were more concerned about their names rather than the substance of the whistle blowing. Since this isn't credible, just whose "right to know" is the Journal concerned about? It must be the White House's, so it can fire, reassign or generally discourage experts within the government from "subverting" the official line. Of course, the premise of the editorial is that the White House probably doesn't share this attitude, everything amounting to a plot against Rove.

[2] Very minor. Only the head of African Affairs for the UN Security Council.