The Betrayal of a Diplomat

[Pexster]

I really don't understand why Robert Novak hasn't been arrested for his role in this. I don't see how being a journalist exempts him from the law. He illegally disclosed the name of an undercover CIA officer. Just because the "leaker" was the first to do so doesn't give him a free pass. The unknown source told a few people -- Novak told the world. He should be in jail.

Ex-diplomat whose wife was outed at CIA is next to throw book at Bush
By Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writer

April 30 2004

WASHINGTON -- Adding to a growing bookshelf of critiques of the Bush administration, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV says in an account being published today that two top White House officials played roles in retaliating against him and his wife for criticizing administration war plans.

But the question of who leaked the name of his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, to journalist Robert Novak remains a whodunit, Wilson said in an interview Thursday, admitting that he does not know who provided the information to Novak.

The leak is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation. It is illegal to disclose the identities of CIA operatives.

In a book he described as part memoir, part political attack, Wilson says that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, helped organize a March 2003 meeting to start gathering dirt on Wilson.

The planning, which the book asserted also may have involved the vice president and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), came after Wilson publicly questioned now-discredited statements by President Bush that Iraq was attempting to purchase nuclear-weapons materials in Africa.

The "work-up," as Wilson described it, laid the groundwork for a political and public relations attack that the White House launched against him and his wife in July after he further detailed his concerns in a New York Times opinion column — which ultimately led to the outing of his wife by Novak.

Wilson also said he discussed how Bush political chief Karl Rove called journalists and others after publication of the Novak column in an effort to discredit him.

But Wilson said he did not identify Rove as the perpetrator of the initial leak.

Wilson entertained questions in a series of interviews with a handful of reporters Thursday as part of a highly orchestrated publicity campaign for the official release of his book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity." The launch included leaking the book itself to the New York Times on Thursday, a flurry of TV appearances, a nationwide book tour and a possible speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this summer, his publicist said.

Asked to respond to the allegations involving Rove and Libby, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan declined comment Thursday, except to say: "Joe Wilson has said his primary objective is a political agenda to defeat the president. I don't intend to promote or review a book of someone whose primary objective is grounded in a political objective."

A spokesman for Gingrich denied that the former speaker had any role in the affair. "The allegation that Newt attended any meeting ever to discuss Joe Wilson is completely false," the spokesman said.

Wilson said he didn't identify his sources in the book, which based on his description Thursday appeared to be largely a compendium of assertions and claims that have swirled around the episode for months.

As described by Wilson, the book recounted his tenure in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, where he was the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He includes a photograph of himself in the Oval Office with the President George H.W. Bush, and a copy of a note from the former president thanking him for his government service.

The balance of the work was an indictment of the administration of the current president, whom Wilson said he has never met.

Wilson became a lightning rod after challenging a statement by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from Niger.

Wilson had been commissioned by the CIA to assess the claim the year before, and concluded that it lacked merit. Ultimately, he detailed his concerns in the July 2003 New York Times article.

The White House later acknowledged it was a mistake to include the statement in the speech.

Wilson said his book details a White House meeting involving Libby as early as March 2003 in which officials discussed responding to his attacks. He said he believes that Libby was the "driving force" behind the effort whose ultimate aim was to smear Wilson by unmasking his CIA wife and suggesting that his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger was an act of nepotism.

The book, he said, recounted an episode where Libby was heard to describe Wilson as a "playboy." He said the book also reported that Rove "pushed the [Novak] story" for a week in discussions with journalists, among others.

He said around that time he got a call from MSNBC talk-show host Chris Matthews, who said Rove had told him that "Wilson's wife is fair game." Matthews declined to comment.

Wilson said Rove decided to stop hawking the story when newspaper stories began to question whether whoever unveiled Plame's identity may have violated a federal law protecting CIA operatives.

Wilson said he also asserted that Rove and Libby had an argument about who should bear responsibility for any fallout from the episode.

In December, the Justice Department named U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago to examine whether laws were broken in connection with the disclosure of the occupation of Plame.

A grand jury in Washington has been investigating the case, and heard testimony from several White House officials earlier in the year. Among other materials, the grand jury subpoenaed telephone records from Air Force One, and minutes of a White House working group on Iraq whose members included Rove and Libby.

The law prohibiting disclosure of CIA operatives' identities has been rarely used in part because journalists getting the tips are disinclined to reveal their sources and the people leaking the information are disinclined to come forward on their own.

A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment about the status of the investigation this week.

[tony_j15]

blah blah blah. she was by no means undercover! Every foreign intelligence agency could find out what she was doing if they bothered. point is, she was doing nothing important and this whole thing is being blown out of porportion to further the liberal propaganda machine: bush is a moron who should be kicked out of office.

[Bovon]

Yeah, I can't imagine exactly how a journalist can gather and report information that is super secret sometimes, and never name the person who gave it to them. IMO that is treason! (note, I have been 'chastised' recently for the use of the word treason, LOL).

I feel much the same way concerning many religious priests who have molested children and get away with it..even when the Pope has knowledge of it. What makes these A/H's so immune to prosecution? and/or "special"...

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread..the two thought kinda combine tho.

[Pexster]

tony_j15, whether a foriegn intelligence agency could or couldn't find out her identity and job role is irrelevant. Whether her activities at the time were or were not "important" is irrelevant. How much this is "being blown out of proportion" is, I guess, open to debate. However, I strongly suspect that had a different White House administration (say, a Democratic one) done this, you'd be clamoring for heads to roll.

Finally, I have to wonder when someone who I imagine considers himself to be a patriotic conservative considers a violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act by outing a CIA agent to be an non-issue.

Bovon, no offense taken. I think I agree with your analogy.

[John Prophet]

I feel much the same way concerning many religious priests who have molested children and get away with it..even when the Pope has knowledge of it. What makes these A/H's so immune to prosecution? and/or "special"...

nothing...they should be in jail. And the pope's head should be first to roll.

------

frankly I think a lot of stuff is blown out of proportion by the media and by "us" bloodthirsty diametrically opposed partisan folks. I say "us" because though I vote republican I am by no means one who would dream of saying republicans are siants and saviors. I know better.

But my point is that ANY little thing that happens today is immediately seized upon as being grounds for impeachment...the atmosphere today is very bloodthirsty.

The media make their millions by grabbing "stories" and blasting them across the world minute by minute....they always need new "fodder"...and on those days when we have no atrocities or natural disasters to follow, they have to seize upon other important things like celebrity divorces. (yawn)

They yearn and leech about for any tiny thing that can be called a "headline" or a controversy or scandal. Frankly the headlines of today seem to pale to the ones of yesterday, lol.

Perhaps the problem is that we dont need a "headline" EVERYDAY....maybe they should just have news once a week...then they would have something to report...as opposed to having to overmagnify things to make a "headline"

When they create and promote controversies over a president and vice pres sitting beside each other at a hearing that concerns them both...I totally lose interest. (I cant say lose "respect" cuz I have never had any respect for the media at all....I am hard pressed to see what service they are providing for the people anymore.....their lust for money and competition to be "#1" has totally tainted whatever "purpose" they claim. Ahh, but such is life in a capatilist society...money is the root.)

JP

[Mike]

Originally posted by Bovon
Yeah, I can't imagine exactly how a journalist can gather and report information that is super secret sometimes, and never name the person who gave it to them. IMO that is treason!

Nope, journalists in most states (not sure if this is a federal law) have a shield law so they can't be forced to give up the information. Of course, certain circumstances arise where this law can be circumvented.

[Pexster]

Mike, I'm not even suggesting that Novak give up his source. I'm suggesting that just because his source gave him the info, he's still breaking the law by passing it on.

[MTAtech]

Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources - even sources who tell them things they never publish. Protecting journalist's sources helps information get to the public - a larger public good. The Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hays, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), has been widely interpreted as recognizing that a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment.

I do find it amusing how the conservative element of this forum thinks it is no big deal to disclose the identity of a CIA agent in violation of the law. Apparently, the law does not apply to all - just those that have the same political view.

I also find it amusing that the same element finds nothing wrong with a White House that protects leakers of this information.

[Thud]

Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources - even sources who tell them things they never publish. Protecting journalist's sources helps information get to the public - a larger public good. The Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hays, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), has been widely interpreted as recognizing that a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment.

That's well and good....but why did the world need to know that she was a CIA agent? Why did he need to name her? He had no reason, that I can see, other than he just happened to have the information. That makes no sense.

[MTAtech]

Thud, I agree, the world didn't need to know and the person that gave that information to Novak should go to jail.

Saying that, it should not be gov't's job to tell reports what should be printed. When we start going down that road it is a slippery slop.

So, to recap, Novak isn't guilty of anything but bad judgement but the White House official that leaked the info is guilty of a crime.

[Theophylact]

I think "bad judgment" is putting it a bit mildly, and it's not clear that Novak isn't in violation of the law. But his refusal to name his sources is almost certainly legal. If not, it's in the best traditions of the press (or at least it would have been, if he hadn't been doing it as a witting agent of the Administration).

[MTAtech]

I must have been feeling charitable this morn, Theo. Novak is most certainly a biased surrogate and his motives were to punish Wilson.