CIA Asks for Criminal Probe of White House Treason

[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, 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.