Ended his wife's career? Huh? Wilson himself published his wife's name and job on his biography website as far back as 2002. And, Time Magazine named her as well back in July in an article. The worst kept secret in Washington was that Victoria Plame, or whatever her name is, was a CIA employee.
Links? Ian, I realize you're getting this through Rush or Clifford May (Rush was quoting May yesterday making the very claim: It wasn't a secret!), but doesn't this seem highly dubious, given that A) the CIA looked into this specific allegation and decided that a "LEAK" had occurred, and that B) the Justice Department then got the request from the CIA, looked into the allegation, and agreed that a "CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION" was warranted? This thing already could have been derailed at either of those two points if something as simple as "everybody knew this...no leak occurred" was the case. Neither Tenet nor Ashcroft seem to see it that way. Either that, or Ashcroft is much looser with our taxpayer money than even the Bushies in Iraq. He's going to fund a full scall criminal investigation into a crime that didn't even occur? Wow.
Before, I was assuming that reporters wouldn't likely reveal their anonymous sources. Apparently, it might not be that simple. Any lawyers here know if this guy knows what he's talking about? http://volokh.com/2003_09_28_volokh_archive.html#106494751387414760 "Could Novak be legally ordered to testify about who leaked the Plame information to him (if, that is to say, someone did)? The answer is generally yes. (I'm still not "off the fence" [see below], but on this point at least I'm talking about a field I know something about -- and, to the extent I don't know, I need to learn for my real job -- and which doesn't require me to learn a lot of facts about the Plame affair.)"
WHy force him? Throw the book at him, put him on trial, and watch him choose between a few years of nonconsensual anal love, or ratting out his source. Basically he published a name that should not have been published - something the CIA directly told him not to do. His only defense could be that it was semi-public knowledge and he was drawing attention to that fact so the CIA could take appropriate action. But for that to fly, he'd have to detail how it was semi-public knowledge.
I've read on the web, in a few places, that journalists aren't included in the law, that Novak can't be prosecuted. FWIW.
Journalists should never be forced to reveal their sources. But Novak publishing her name after being told not to by the CIA is another matter.
Does a Felon Rove the White House??? Man, there oughta be a law; oops, there is. "...There is a scandal brewing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that if treated properly by the Department of Justice and elected officials could prove to be one of the clearest cases of documentable criminal conduct and blatant lies by an administration since Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal..." "...The man at the center of this firestorm is Joseph Wilson, the retired U.S. diplomat who debunked the White House's key evidence that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear program. Two weeks ago Democracy Now! aired Wilson's comments before a suburban Seattle audience that he believes Bush's closest aide, Karl Rove, told reporters that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. At the forum Wilson declared, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of White House in handcuffs." Wilson added, "And trust me when I use that name, I measure my words." Wilson told Democracy Now!, "I have reason to believe that it was the political office that at a minimum confirmed it and the political office was Karl Rove.It was a reporter who told me it was Karl Rove and that's as far as I want to go right now."... If true, Rove must be done. Which would make it likely that Bush would be done. Which, of course, would set us all down a road of happiness and prosperity.
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm FORMER CIA OFFICIAL TELLS PBS: OUTED OFFICER 'HAS BEEN UNDER COVER FOR THREE DECADES' A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outed CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested. Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR. "I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades." [The WASH POST reported on Wednesday that "Valerie Plame" is 40 years old] MORE Johnson continues: 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. One, 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... "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."
There are two noteworthy things here, and they are separate issues. The first is the illegal,immoral and unpatriotic actions taken by an individual in leaking out a name of a CIA operative and the irresponsibility of the reporter who published it and now refuses to name the source. The second is the pathetic feeding frenzy of the democratic leadership, candidates for office, congressional leaders and party officials, jumping quickly with the single purpose of getting some political gain out of this issue before knowing all the facts. The only positive on all this was the honorable attitude of our president, and his willingness to cooperate in an investigation. (Which should not be a positive but a given, but it is a positive when contrasted to the way the previous administration handled investigations.) The president seems to be honestly trying to get to the truth, even if it might potentially lead to one of his associates, as was maliciously suggested by some without any shred of proof. I hope he continues on this course and is not just posturing.
Yes, I especially love how the President leapt into action on this, several months ago when the allegations were first made. He clearly wants to get to the bottom of this at all costs.
Didn't you forget to put in the [sarcasm] HTML code? Tell me you're not this blindly partisan. Seriously, there's no WAY you can really convince yourself that this is the case, is there?
argentine soccer fan, you're apparently unaware of several critical facts. Well, one actually. Plame was outed mid July (July 14, IIRC.) Not, as you seem to think this past weekend. If raising a ruckus 10 weeks after the fact is your idea of a "feeding frenzy," I hope God had mercy on your brain when it died. And the same goes for the idea that Bush lept into action on this.
That is true, but it just came to light and was brought to everybody's attention now. So we have to judge people's actions from this point on. Maybe the president will dissapoint us in the future, but don't you agree that so far he appears to be doing the right thing in cooperating with the investigation and clearly asking everybody in his staff to do the same? He spelled it out in a very unambiguous way. I wish Clinton would have done the same when he had to deal with his scandals, because it would at least have removed the appearance of impropriety. I hope that the guilty party will be found soon, and I hope he gets his well deserved punishment for undermining national security.
Wrong you big liar!!! I knew about it. What, I'm better informed than the godda** president????? Oh yeah, he doesn't read the newspapers. Maybe you're right.
Apparently the democratic leadership just found out too. Or, if they knew all along, then that is further proof that their sudden outrage is not genuine but political motivated, as if they were waiting for the proper time to all strike together. Or perhaps none of them read the newspapers, either. You, Superdave should be commended. You are better informed that all the democrats in congress and presidential candidates.
Got to hand it to Bush. This new line he is using is a really good one - makes him sound like he is actually interested in getting to the bottom of the story. Of course the facts and his actions don't bear that out but hey the media will eat it up as good lap puppies and we will move on. I sincerley hope that SOMEBODY asks Bush the following two questions: 1) If you were concerned about this why did you wait two and a half months? Why did you wait for the CIA to ask for a formal investigation? 2) Are you not at all concerend that the Justice Dept filled with Bush appointees may not be the most impartial agency to conduct the investigation. Why are you opposed to an independent investigation?
Two and a half months really isn't that long in Washington time for an investigation like this to start. Compare and contrast with the stonewalling of the Clinton White House and the Reno Justice Department. It's also filled with Clinton appointees and Bush 41 appointees and so forth and so on. In 1999, it was Republicans and Democrats who let the independent counsel law expire because it was considered by both to be "structurally flawed".
Let's say the tipster is Karl Rove and he gets fired and/or prosecuted. Bush says he regrets having to ask for the resignation of someone he regarded as a friend and valued advisor. I fail to see how this really hurts Bush other than to solidfy his supporters and critics in their various camps. This is a non-issue as far as Presidential electoral politics is concerned - just one more fact indicating that the Iraq war was not based on "pure" and "moral" motives after all. Still, in the end, success or failure will be judged on the basis of the facts on the ground in Nov. 2004, at which time this story will be all but forgotten by the average swing voter. Unless you think there is a trail further into the White House of a knowing conspiracy to reveal a CIA agent ... and I highly doubt that ... and even more highly doubt it would be provable if such a trail existed. The likelihood that someone will ask, in a televised Congressional hearing, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" is nil.
The man in charge of the investigation is John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section of the criminal division. He is not a Bush appointee and worked during the Clinton administration. His team consists of 11 lawyers who also are not Bush appointees. The white house has also not ruled out the possibility of appointing a special councel depending on the evidence that is obtained. The democrats are blowing lots of smoke, but this investigation is being handled the right way. Or at the very least, the White House is working hard to take every step to give the appearance that it is handled the right way. Unless we have evidence to the contrary we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Good points monopoly. So far this President has proven to be unbelievably immune to scandal that would have brought down previous administrations. The reason? Voters "elected" Bush based on his character not his policies or politics. It is really hard for someone to admit they misjudged character so badly. It is like being a relationship with someone you know is an arsehole but it takes a really long time to actually own up to that fact because it also says something about you. TWUB - 1) That's weak. It takes 2 and half months to say "I won't tolerate leaks of this sort in my adiminstration?" Please. 2) I should have been clearer. The DOJ is headed by Ashcroft - possibly the most reactionary AG in history. Couple that with the fact that Bush rescued him from the political wilderness ... pardon me if I am a little skeptical about his ability to aggresively investigate his boss. 3) The Independent Counsel was considered flawed because Ken Starr abused it so badly. Bush and the AG can still appoint an Indep. Counsel - they just have less power than the original statute.
Please, what? He said exactly this a few months after he'd been in office. The request for investigation into the leak was made through normal channels. Government moves slowly, and two and half months really isn't that long for an investigation to start. Ashcroft, who despite his shortcomings as an AG, has shown none of Reno's tendencies with regard to investigations. Be skeptical all you want, but until you have more to go on, pipe down. It wasn't just Ken Starr. Neither Republicans nor Democrats were fond of it, and they weren't fond of the massive costs involved, either.
So in your mind, the administration's reluctance to address matters TREASON emanating from INSIDE the White House is excused because Democratic leadership's acting now on it might be politically motivated? You are so associated with your partisan identity that you employ such intellectual dishonesty to excuse treason. This administration could use more men like you. For awhile, I've thought there many among us who have proven themselves unfit for effective citizenship. Thanks for reinforcing that cynicism.