| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Senator Schumer, "No ordinary leak" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 29 2003, 06:02 PM (736 Views) | |
| Hoss | Oct 1 2003, 07:52 AM Post #31 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
My favorite accomplishment of Bill Clinton is turning over the entire Legislative and Executive branches of government to Republican control. Picture 1993, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton has just backed into the White House as Perot took Bush Sr's votes. The House of Representatives and the Senate are in the hands of the Democrats. 1994, Republicans win majorities in both the House and Senate. 2000, Gore defeated by George W. Bush by narrow margin. Clinton negatives plague and overshadow Gore that many votes are lost to Nader and Bush that may have gone Gore's way. That is the only thing that made Clinton not a complete waste of flesh. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 1 2003, 09:52 AM Post #32 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Don't forget that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and welfare reform! Oh wait, those were Republican programs...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 1 2003, 10:00 AM Post #33 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
This is from Robert Novak (the guy who "broke" the story about Joe Wilson and the supposed leaks): Here's the URL: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20031001.shtml The CIA leak Robert Novak October 1, 2003 WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation. The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret. The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush. This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one. During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission. How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry. (NOTE FROM BILL: I POSTED CLIFF MAY'S COLUMN EARLIER IN THIS THREAD.) A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations. The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor. ---------- Here's a little Wilson tidbit... it seems he told the Washington Post that he was shopping for a movie... "We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie." "In addition, she is 40, slim, blonde," said the Post, adding that "the photos in his office [reveal] she has the looks of a film star." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Oct 1 2003, 11:20 AM Post #34 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
First, I did not receive a planned leak. Oh really? For a seasoned reporter he is all of a sudden acting pretty stupid. I don’t care how off the cuff a remark is made. When it is made During a long conversation with a senior administration official, the remark must be considered as a planned remark and suspect. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. NOT PARTISAN? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Novak was having a conversation with a MEMBER OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! :lol: :lol: Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Well what do you call this…He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. Also, While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. Come on Novak! Use some f$%#ing common sense!!! CIA personnel are given covers for a reason…even if the person or job being performed is considered low man on the totem pole. :angry: :angry: Third, it was not much of a secret. How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. So what? A name being floated around DC on occasion, does not equal that name being published in a NATIONAL FORMAT! As far as her name being published along side her husbands in “Who’s Who,” I would like to see that registry. I would hazard a guess that it doesn’t go into details about what Mrs. Plame does at the CIA, or that she was in a position to recommend her husband for sensitive jobs. :angry: However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations. So she was just an analyst. Does anyone actually think Al’Qaida and other terrorists would give a flying flip if she were just an analyst? She is privy to an ENORMOUS amount of top-secret information. If she went over seas, doesn’t anyone see how dangerous a position she could find herself in? :angry: Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. So this makes it ok for Novak to print her name in such a grand fashion? :angry: Here's a little Wilson tidbit... it seems he told the Washington Post that he was shopping for a movie... "We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie." "In addition, she is 40, slim, blonde," said the Post, adding that "the photos in his office [reveal] she has the looks of a film star." Is this gossip trash suppose to justify Novak’s carelessness? :angry: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 1 2003, 12:03 PM Post #35 |
|
Unregistered
|
Robert Novak's expanation does very little in the way of addressing my concerns. It is good to know that other people (other than most of the media, many pundits, many respected politicians . . . ) still think there still might be a very serious issue here, too. One quick thing - while I disagree with Robert Novak's decison to publish Ms. Plame's name, I completely support the concept of a free and independent press. In this case, though, I think it is reasonable to question just how independent political operative Novak . . . I mean columnist Novak . . . really is. I also think that it is reasonable to question his (Novak's) judgement. After all, reports indicate that "someone" contacted perhaps five other journalists with the same "leak" and only Robert Novak published the name. Ms. Plame's name did little to enhance his July column, either. I can't believe that the other journalists refrained from printing Ms. Plame's name for any reasons other than professional, ethical reasons (i.e. not wise to publish the name of a CIA opertive or a CIA employee or a CIA analyst or the name of the wife of a former ambassador who was researching sensitive information for the CIA on behalf of the Vice President's office when that former ambassador's wife is/was an undercover CIA employee or a CIA operative or a CIA analyst). |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Oct 1 2003, 12:21 PM Post #36 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Sorry, I still don't see how the name or career of an ambassador's wife remains secret - especially from the governments of the countries where he has been assigned. Edit: Apparently there is a relatively easy answer to the question. This wife arrived after he retired as a diplomat. It may explain, however, why Novak's source said "... she's unlikely to receive an overseas assignment, but please don't mention her name anyway...". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 1 2003, 06:07 PM Post #37 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
It seems that Mr. Wilson has just a teeny bit of an agenda. I found this editorial with a personal quote that doesn't help his "case" of alleged leaking at all: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/hdale.htm White House under attack By Helle Dale "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." Those are the words of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who will certainly be a household name for weeks to come. Chances are very good that we will never know who from the White House leaked the information about Mr. Wilson and his wife to members of the press. For one thing, that's the nature of leak investigations. Journalists don't reveal their sources, and sources have a way of disappearing into the mahogany paneling in the halls of power here in Washington. Most of such investigations end inconclusively. What we do know is that damage is being done to the reputation of the Bush White House by the controversy over the leak. President Bush came into office with the promise to bring honor and integrity to the office of the presidency after the Clinton impeachment trial, and here we are now with calls for independent prosecutors coming fast and furious from Democrats, who hated the idea when Bill Clinton was the target. In a politically sound move, and as soon as the CIA reported that "two senior administration officials" had given the name of an agent (i.e. Mr. Wilson's wife) to journalists, the White House lost no time facilitating the leak investigation. It was referred to the Justice Department on Sept. 27. So far, we have seen none of the Clinton-era, Janet Reno-style stone-walling in evidence. Still, looking at the main players in this case and their statements, there is a sliding scale of truth, which, in the end, will prevent us from knowing what actually happened. Statements shift from moment to moment, and each has his interests to protect. Administration officials obviously do. So do members of the media, especially, columnist Robert Novak, whose article on July 14 caused the initial furor. Take Mr. Wilson himself, who has been much in evidence on national television screens since this weekend. Could he have an agenda beyond demanding justice? Well, what would you think of someone who tells people around Washington — as Mr. Wilson did last week — "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." That sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it? It is in fact quite a bit at odds with the reasonable image that Mr. Wilson has been projecting on our television screens in recent days. Mr. Wilson also saw fit back in August to accuse presidential adviser Karl Rove of having orchestrated the White House leak. He swore he would see Mr. Rove led out of there "in handcuffs." Now, he says he got carried away by passion and is in possession of no evidence that Mr. Rove was involved. That Mr. Wilson holds such views in no way excuses the injustice that was done him and his wife Valerie Plame, when a leak to the media identified her as a CIA officer involved in analysis of information regarding weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Wilson — who had been sent to the African country of Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that uranium "yellowcake" had been sold to Iraqi agents — emerged last summer as a severe critic of the Bush administration. He accused the White House of "misrepresenting facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." It is for this criticism that Mr. Wilson claims he and his family are being punished. Which may well be true. That would be both illegal and unethical. As Mr. Wilson stated at the time, "Whoever leaked that comment about my wife did it very clearly to smear my good name and my wife's good name." He has not himself, however, had any compunction about smearing Mr. Rove's good name without any evidence. Now, Mr. Bush might well be able to get this whole affair behind him by finding a scapegoat to fire — had it not been that revealing the identity of a CIA officer is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A simple dismissal would not put an end to the matter. So, here is another suggestion to get to the bottom of this mess before our policy in Iraq becomes a victim of Washington's politics of long knives. Let's polygraph the whole bunch —White House officials, media types, CIA officials. At the CIA, they at least allow agents who have been accused an "exculpatory polygraph test." In the Washington political jungle, that may be the only way of getting at the facts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Oct 1 2003, 07:48 PM Post #38 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
It does not justify Novak's article. It does something to undermine Wilson's credibility. Although I don't see this as a major Hollywood blockbuster. A Lifetime movie of the week maybe, but that's about it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Oct 1 2003, 08:33 PM Post #39 |
|
Time to put something here
|
In this world of man when has reasonable judgment ever prevailed? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Oct 1 2003, 08:51 PM Post #40 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Um..Salem witch trials? Wait... the protestant reformation.. No..really..I know this one, just give me a minute. Seriuosly, did Novak do this to wreck the Bush Administration? What was his motive behind revealing the name? ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Oct 1 2003, 08:55 PM Post #41 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
With friends like this..... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 1 2003, 09:59 PM Post #42 |
|
Unregistered
|
Dandandat: your point is well taken - but in my post where the snippet comes from, I was really only referring to the actions and behavior of the Democrats relative to the Robert Novak article. You're right to ask the question that you've asked though - given the many examples throughout history where humanity has failed. But I still believe that our human nature is more good than bad - even the human nature of Democratic members of congress .And I still believe that the Democrats will settle down (as far as the issue surrounding Robert Novak's article) once they're satisfied with the progress of the investigation. I trust that if wrong has been done, President Bush will "purge" the offender(s) from the government. President Bush strikes me as a man who has little tolerance for intelligence leaks. If a proper investigation shows that no wrong has been done, President Bush certainly has the backbone to stand up to any political pressure or public opinion pressure (pressure that might come from some of the unreasonable extremist elements who would like to see this develop into a major political liability for the Republican administration). I still have some concerns about how the DOJ will treat this investigation - I hope that I'm pleasantly surprised. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:31 PM Jul 11