White House outs CIA agent

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Story here

President Bush's aides promised yesterday to cooperate with a Justice Department inquiry into an administration leak that exposed the identity of a CIA operative, but Democrats charged that the administration cannot credibly investigate itself and called for an independent probe.

White House officials said they would turn over phone logs if the Justice Department asked them to. But the aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.

An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson. The leak could constitute a federal crime, and intelligence officials said it might have endangered confidential sources who had aided the operative throughout her career. CIA Director George J. Tenet has asked the Justice Department to investigate how the leak occurred.

[On Monday, a White House spokesman denied that Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, was involved in the episode, the Associated Press reported. Wilson has publicly blamed Rove, although Wilson did say Monday he did not know whether Rove personally was the source of Novak's information, only that he thought Rove had "condoned it."

["He wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. . . . It's simply not true."

[Yesterday, McClellan had called Wilson's charge of Rove involvement "totally ridiculous" and "not true."]

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that she knew "nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this, and it certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate."

She also said the White House would leave the probe in the hands of the Justice Department, calling it the "appropriate channels now."

McClellan said the Justice Department has requested no information so far. "Of course, we would always cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter like this," he said.

Asked about the possibility of an internal White House investigation, McClellan said, "I'm not aware of any information that has come to our attention beyond the anonymous media sources to suggest there's anything to White House involvement."

The controversy erupted over the weekend, when administration officials reported that Tenet sent the Justice Department a letter raising questions about whether federal law was broken when the operative, Valerie Plame, was exposed. She was named in a column by Robert D. Novak that ran July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

CIA officials approached the Justice Department about a possible investigation within a week of the column's publication. Tenet's letter was delivered more recently.

The department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted, officials said. The officials said they did not know how long that would take.

Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates seized on the investigation as a new vulnerability for Bush. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to pursue the matter for two months, said that if "something this sensitive is done under the wing of any direct appointees, at the very minimum, it's not going to have the appearance of fairness and thoroughness."

From the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) called it "a natural conflict of interest" for Justice Department appointees to investigate their superiors, and said congressional committees should step in to try to determine what happened.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft should play no role in the investigation and should turn it over to the Justice Department's inspector general, who operates independently of political appointees. "President Bush came into office promising to bring honor and integrity to the White House," Dean said. "It's time for accountability."

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) said the investigation "must be conducted by an independent, nonpartisan counsel."

Although the Independent Counsel Act, created after the Watergate abuses, expired in 1999, the attorney general can appoint a special counsel to investigate the president and other top government officials. Special counsels have less independence from the attorney general, but proponents of the system said that makes them more accountable.

More specific details about the controversy emerged yesterday. Wilson said in a telephone interview that four reporters from three television networks called him in July and told him that White House officials had contacted them to encourage stories that would include his wife's identity.

Novak attributed his account to "two senior administration officials." An administration aide told The Post on Saturday that the two White House officials had cold-called at least six Washington journalists and identified Wilson's wife.

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

The disclosure could have broken more than one law. In addition to the federal law prohibiting the identification of a covert officer, officials with high-level national security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements, with penalties for revealing classified information.

Wilson had touched off perhaps the most searing controversy of this administration by saying he had determined on a mission to Niger last year that there was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore for possible use in a nuclear weapon.

His statement led to a retraction by the White House, and bolstered Democrats' contention that Bush had exaggerated intelligence to build a case against Iraq. The yellowcake allegation became known as "the 16 words" after Bush said in his State of the Union address in January that the British government had learned that Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

An administration official said the leaks were "simply for revenge" for the trouble Wilson had caused Bush.

Wilson said that in the week after the Novak column appeared, several journalists told him that the White House was trying to call attention to his wife, apparently hoping to undermine his credibility by implying he had received the Niger assignment only because his wife had suggested the mission and recommended him for the job.

"Each of the reporters quoted the White House official as using some variation on, 'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said. "The time frame led me to deduce that the White House was continuing to try to push this story."

Wilson identified one of the reporters as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News. Mitchell did not respond to requests for comment.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on ABC's "This Week" program: "The CIA has an obligation, when they believe somebody who is undercover was outed, so to speak, has an obligation to ask the Justice Department to look into it. But other than that, I don't know anything about the matter."

Democrats also questioned why Bush's aides had seemed to show little interest in the disclosure before the CIA request was made public. McClellan was asked about the Novak column during briefings on July 22 and Sept. 16. He replied that no one in the White House would have been authorized to reveal the operative's name and that he had no information to suggest White House involvement.

Democrats e-mailed a quotation from former president George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, who said in 1999 at the dedication of the agency's new headquarters that those who expose the names of intelligence sources are "the most insidious of traitors."

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[billvon 3,120]

Wouldn't publically revealing the name of a CIA operative during wartime be considered treason?

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Treason? No. That term only refers to liberals.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Wouldn't publically revealing the name of a CIA operative during wartime be considered treason?

Publicly revealing the name of a CIA operative at any time is punishable by 10 years in jail. I would think that treason charges should also be a consideration.

Does this story really suprise anyone? I mean anyone other than the sheeple buying the party line?

[billvon 3,120]

GWB, 2001:

"But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I'm looking forward to reiterating that message."

George H Bush, 1999:

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

George H Bush, 1999:

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

yeah, but this guy openly disagreed with George W. so he had it coming.

[QuickDraw 0]

Quote

yeah, but this guy openly disagreed with George W. so he had it coming.

Disagreement.... the bain of democracy.

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[billvon 3,120]

>On Monday, a White House spokesman denied that Karl Rove,
> Bush's top political adviser, was involved in the episode, the
> Associated Press reported.

I can see a Saturday Night Live-esque scene evolving from this:

Interviewer: Was Karl Rove involved with this leak of confidential information?

White House representative: Absolutely not! We do not tolerate such behavior in the White House.

Interviewer: Was Richard Armitage responsible for the leak?

WH rep: Definitely not. As the president said, we place a high priority on the safety of our intelligence people.

Interviewer: Did George Tenet leak the information?

WH rep: No comment.

[SkydiverRick 0]

I saw this story on Fox News so it can't be true.

never pull low......unless you are

[FliegendeWolf 0]

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Well, it's been over a day and I can't help but notice that the usual dz.com conservatives haven't piped in about this issue. If this issue is more liberal spin I'd love to hear about it!

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[billvon 3,120]

> Well, it's been over a day and I can't help but notice that the usual
> dz.com conservatives haven't piped in about this issue.

They're off complaining how the effinliberal media is always so _negative_ about things like soldiers getting killed, treason in the white house, guerilla attacks against US troops etc. God knows they themselves were never negative when talking about, say, our European allies. Why can't the nearly-communist media report on all the good stuff going on, like how all the opium growers in Afghanistan are boosting their country's economy and making a better life for themselves under American rule?

[FliegendeWolf 0]

An Update

My favorite part:

Quote

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

Thanks, George!

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[billvon 3,120]

My prediction on the right-wing reactions to this:

"She wasn't a very important CIA agent."

"The Dems are so desperate, they'll clutch at anything, and will even make a big deal over treason."

"The enemy probably knew who she really was anyway."

"Someone's just trying to smear Bush."

"It's all the press's fault."

"Well, the administration official who leaked it wasn't _really_ part of the administration."

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

"It's all the press's fault."

Well, I've already heard this one. On NPR of all places. Whoever they were interviewing was saying that Novak should not have published her name.

?

No. Novak, a journalist, was doing his job, which was to report news. The white house official, on the other hand, broke the law. It's not that Novak shouldn't have used her name. The W.H. official shouldn't have leaked it in the first place. All responsibility rests with the official. Of course, in typical fashion, this White House is quick to foist blame and shirk responsibility.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, I'd say they're both to blame. Sometime journalists need to weigh the probative value of certain information. Was naming names necessary for the story to have the same meaning? If not, could it do harm to your nation by publishing it?

[TheAnvil 0]

That's because some of us have been busy. My brother has been in town. The little shit ran TheAnvil into the ground quite handily this morning. Nobody should be able to run like that. The little fucker ran three miles, came and got me, then we ran six and he ran some more.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. The democrats are all up in arms about this - probably wanting to divert attention from the embarrassing statements of their candidates in the last two debates. Perhaps there's actually something to be up in arms about. Perhaps not - we shall see, I'm sure. However, considering the age of the person in question, the fact that Clandestine Trainee Service recruits for analysts and operatives, and because nobody has stated openly (to my knowledge; I've had company the last few days) if she was an overt or covert employee, I seriously doubt it.

Neil Boortz, a fellow libertarian, had a few words on his website today concerning this:

"The Democrats are making a big deal over the fact that the Justice Department is investigating the leak. This is nothing unusual. The CIA is obsessive about privacy, and every time the CIA feels that information about one of their operations or employees has been improperly leaked they ask for an investigation, and that request is almost always granted. There are about 50 such investigations a year. The fact that there's an investigation, then, is no huge news.

Hitlary's dog-washer, Junior New York Senator Chuckie Schumer was seen yesterday pounding the "crime" drum. Schumer is taking great joy in proclaiming that someone in the Bush administration has committed a crime. But is that so?

The law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The law imposes a 10-year, $50,000 fine for those who transgress. Here are the three elements that must be satisfied for a crime to have taken place:

The accused party must have made an intentional disclosure of the identity of the agent.
They must know that the person they identified was actually an undercover agent
The government (the CIA) must be taking measures to conceal this agent's relationship to the United States.
Sorry ... no crime. How can you say that the CIA was making an effort to conceal this agent's relationship to the U.S. when they verified here employment to a reporter? Now ... if she actually had been an undercover agent, that relationship would never have been disclosed.

It is really going to be interesting to see how long the media is going to play footsie with the Democrats in pushing this nothing story."

My bet is that the democrats are making fools of themselves as usual, but I've been wrong before.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>Perhaps there's actually something to be up in arms about. Perhaps
>not - we shall see, I'm sure.

Hopefully. I would hope for an independent investigation to determine who in the administration outed a CIA agent; surely something you don't want to have happen twice. I suppose how fast or thorough you want the investigation depends on how much you value the lives of CIA covert operatives.

>However, considering the age of the person in question, the fact that
> Clandestine Trainee Service recruits for analysts and operatives, and
> because nobody has stated openly (to my knowledge; I've had
> company the last few days) if she was an overt or covert employee,
> I seriously doubt it.

From Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department:
------------------------------
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 was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. 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...
-----------------------------

>It is really going to be interesting to see how long the media is going
> to play footsie with the Democrats in pushing this nothing story.

Right. This is just treason; merely a threat to the safety of the men and women of our intelligence agencies. Not even worth reporting. It's not like the president got a blow job or something!

So to sum up your post:

-She probably wasn't an important covert CIA agent.

-The Dems are so desperate, they'll clutch at anything, and will even make a big deal over _this._

-It's the press's fault that there is such a big stink.

-Someone's probably just trying to smear the administration.

Four for six!

[TheAnvil 0]

Yawn. Did you even read my post?

Quote

Hopefully. I would hope for an independent investigation to determine who in the administration outed a CIA agent; surely something you don't want to have happen twice. I suppose how fast or thorough you want the investigation depends on how much you value the lives of CIA covert operatives.

Agreed. The FBI I'm sure will do a good job of it. They do this sort of thing quite often - about 50 times a year. Is something that happens 50 times a year always a big news story? I don't recall Leahy's being kicked off of the Intelligence committee for revealing classified information creating such a media frenzy.

Quote

From Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department:
------------------------------
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 was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. 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...
-----------------------------

Like I said - I've been busy the past couple of days. If what Mr. Johnson is saying is correct, something bad has happened and someone needs to go to jail. As I said, we'll see.

Quote

Right. This is just treason; merely a threat to the safety of the men and women of our intelligence agencies. Not even worth reporting. It's not like the president got a blow job or something!

...or lowered technology transfer standards for the Chinese to acquire satellite tech...interfered with a search of a Russian freighter that shot a Naval Intelligence officer with a laser...I can go on.

I really like this next part:

Quote

So to sum up your post:

-She probably wasn't an important covert CIA agent.

My own opinion. I stand by it. Regardless, important or not, if she was exposed in any way the leak should be plugged. If a crime has been committed, it should be investigated and the culprits prosecuted. The President said that too, by the way.

Quote

-The Dems are so desperate, they'll clutch at anything, and will even make a big deal over _this._

If Libertarian candidates ever say anything as stupid as their buffoons have said in the past couple debates I'll seriously consider becoming an independent. They are desparate and should be - live with it.

Quote

-It's the press's fault that there is such a big stink.

No, that's Boortz' opinion. Reread my post. I'll hold back on my judgement until later. Boortz could be right - he often is.

FoxNews is doing a lot of reporting on this issue by the way. Does this mean they're tools of the right wing?

Quote

-Someone's probably just trying to smear the administration.

Yep! See my comments on Leahy up above. And something might be rotten in Denmark as well. We shall see, as I said earlier. If the lefties screaming now had screamed loudly about such things previously, perhaps I'd take them more seriously. Why isn't Leahy screaming, by the way? I haven't heard him yet, but as I said, I've been a bit out of it for the past few days.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>They do this sort of thing quite often - about 50 times a year.

50 times a year, CIA operatives are outed by high government officials, and such cases are investigated by the FBI? Could you give some links to, say, even five?

I think there's a bit of a difference between deciding on the level of technology transfer between two countries - and outing a CIA agent.

>FoxNews is doing a lot of reporting on this issue by the way. Does
>this mean they're tools of the right wing?

Uh, no, why would that follow?

>If the lefties screaming now had screamed loudly about such things
>previously, perhaps I'd take them more seriously.

Do you take the conservatives screaming about this more seriously than the liberals screaming about this, then?

[TheAnvil 0]

MATLAB is pissing me off because the damned server it's on is down, so this is an interesting diversion.

Quote

50 times a year, CIA operatives are outed by high government officials, and such cases are investigated by the FBI? Could you give some links to, say, even five?

I got that off Fox this morning - I'll find a few links for you. By high government officials - probably not. The fifty times refers to the sort of investigation. Nice play on words.

Quote

I think there's a bit of a difference between deciding on the level of technology transfer between two countries - and outing a CIA agent.

Yes there is - the tech transfer is by FAR more far-reaching and damaging.

Quote

>FoxNews is doing a lot of reporting on this issue by the way. Does
>this mean they're tools of the right wing?

Uh, no, why would that follow?

Don't play dumb, it's puerile. This was in response to your media stink and communist media quotes and you know it. How many CNN stories were run on Mr. Leahy?

Quote

Do you take the conservatives screaming about this more seriously than the liberals screaming about this, then?

For the most part, yes. They tend to say intelligent things.

You never mentioned anything about Mr. Leahy...why?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Pretty good, I was thinking no one would bite on the obvious bait. Even to the point where Fl and BV were responding to 'imagined' responses. Then POW - Anvil right on the hook.

Here we go. Seeing the post ignored by conservatives was fun this morning, this is more fun though.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Bill...you keep forgetting. Any news that is bad for the right, is propaganda and a smear campaign. Any news that denegrates the left is fair and balanced. How long will it take you to learn that simple fact?

[billvon 3,120]

>By high government officials - probably not. The fifty times refers to
>the sort of investigation. Nice play on words.

What sort? Did you mean that we lose 50 agents a year by being outed by someone in authority? I had no idea we lost so many agents a year that way.

Or did you mean there are fifty FBI investigations a year of some sort that have something to do with the CIA? That might be true, but what does that have to do with anything? This is a big deal because, from every appearance, someone in the Bush administration put an American agent's life at risk for political gain, committing treason in the process. Even the most Limbaugh-esque reading of the issues can't spin that into business as usual, just a little glitch, nothing to see here.

>Don't play dumb, it's puerile. This was in response to your media
>stink and communist media quotes and you know it.

I have never claimed that FOX is a "tool of the right wing," just that they lean strongly to the right. There are plenty of republicans condemning this as well; it would follow that even right wing news organizations would be all over it.

BTW the LATimes website currently has nothing on its front page about this scandal. Would you conclude that they are therefore strong supporters of the current administration, far less biased than CNN or FOX? Or is it just what happens to be on their website right now?

>For the most part, yes. They tend to say intelligent things.

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm 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 with no relevance to the story. . . . This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

>You never mentioned anything about Mr. Leahy...why?

Because I wasn't talking about him. Do you want to talk about him? Go right ahead.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

What sort? Did you mean that we lose 50 agents a year by being outed by someone in authority? I had no idea we lost so many agents a year that way.

I hadn't heard she's dead. When did this happen? 'In the know' would be more appropriate than 'in authority' as well.

Quote

Or did you mean there are fifty FBI investigations a year of some sort that have something to do with the CIA?

From the context of the story I heard it could be CIA, DEA, DIA, or agents from any of the three letter biggies - or others. Whatever the case, the sort of investigation is routine for the FBI - a special investigator for such a case is preposterous. It is the level and possible motive of the source that is noteworthy. Playing on words again. Tsk tsk tsk.

Quote

That might be true, but what does that have to do with anything? This is a big deal because, from every appearance, someone in the Bush administration put an American agent's life at risk for political gain, committing treason in the process.

Other than theories, you have no proof (yet) that political gain or revenge was the actual motive, though its certainly plausible. Tell me - who is threatening her life right now. Has someone used this information to kill other operatives or compromise them? How did you come to be in possession of such information?

Quote

BTW the LATimes website currently has nothing on its front page about this scandal. Would you conclude that they are therefore strong supporters of the current administration, far less biased than CNN or FOX? Or is it just what happens to be on their website right now?

Don't be ridiculous. If you like we can get into this. I'll name numerous left leaning quotes from all sorts of 'regular media' and you'll respond with a bunch of right leaning quotes from FoxNews. Yawn.

Quote

>For the most part, yes. They tend to say intelligent things.

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm 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 with no relevance to the story. . . . This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Larry Johnson's words. If it was a partisan attack, it should sicken everyone.

Quote

Do you want to talk about him? Go right ahead.

The above in reference to Sen Leahy. Isn't it fitting when discussing a topic to bring up other examples in recent history? I think a nice history of recent leaks would be oh so nice of a story for Fox or CNN. Such discussions help to put things in perspective lest those ignorant of history become misled.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!