NOTE - My latest thoughts, a quick summary, and links to the main stories, are here, or at the main menu. Carry on!
The Justice Department, that is. Our source is the Drudge Report, which gives this NBC News/Andrea Mitchell story a banner headline.
We have been following this story since early July; our timeline is here; Mark Kleiman and Josh Marshall have comments on the latest developments.
David Corn, whose piece in "The Nation" started this scandal, had predicted that the investigation would die in the CIA - George Tenet would stay loyal to George Bush and quash this. Evidently not. One guess - Mr. Tenet, pondering Bush's declining poll numbers and faced with in-house annoyance, decided to do the right thing. One presumes that, with Congress back in town, Mr. Tenet checked with his suporters on both sides of the aisle before proceeding.
So, does this mean that Ambassador Wilson has been telling the truth? A fair response would be, about what? If the CIA thinks a crime may have occurred, it certainly suggests his wife had covert status. However, the MSNBC story suggests that there are two relevant statutes - "Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act." This has me wondering whether Ms. Wilson was not covert, but that her identity was protected by the "Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act", which is a point to which I will revert after I finish being a Saturday Morning Soccer Dad.
That said, the Ambassador was careful to always speak in hypotheticals about his wife - she may in fact have covert status, but the act of identifying her may not have represented the dire security breach he speculated about with David Corn:
Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."
I am not ready to jump on his bandwagon just yet, given his earlier exaggerations. However, the fact that the CIA found a basis for a criminal referral is certainly a blow to the White House.
Now, is there a way to pretend that this is all OK for the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania? Not really. Certainly, John Ashcroft may just sit on this. And there is another angle - suppose there were some Congressmen determined to bring this "Ms. Wilson" question up, perhaps during a hearing on the special appropriation for Iraqi reconstruction. Now, the Administration can play the "we don't comment on active criminal investigations" game, which may buy time at the expense of ghastly headlines.
But buy time for what? This story will become the classic cover-up tale the media live for, we will be treated to regular leaks as to the progress (or lack thereof) in the investigation, and for what? Watergate was about protecting Nixon; Whitewater was about protecting Billary!; no one thinks George Bush is involved in this. Losing Karl Rove would be a terrible blow to the White House, but that seems to be the current worst case. Only a cover-up can raise the stakes.
In my humble opinion, the White House needs to get a senior Admin official in front of a friendly Congressional Chairman, admit that it was an innocent mistake, take the pain, and exit. The Hearing Room, if not the Administration.
And was it an innocent mistake? Who knows? Although NBC News does not mention it, the original Robert Novak piece mentioned CIA sources, as well as "senior government officials". TIME magazine found "government officials" willing to chat about Ms. Wilson's status, in a story that also cited "Administration" officials. If one can presume that TIME understands how to attribute sources, it suggests that there were people discussing her covert status beyond the "senior administration officials" focussed upon by David Corn and NBC News.
I initially muddy the waters with this post, and summarize this theme in the timeline. Alternative explanations abound!
UPDATE: TIME pounces on the story! And does the website load the story with a "Twilight Zone" soundtrack, or is that just my imagination? TIME describes the reporting of Robert Novak, but makes no reference whatsoever to their own earlier reporting, including this sentence:
And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
Look, whoever these officials are, they are clearly part of the story. For TIME to feign ignorance of this is bizarre; if the ignorance is unfeigned, it is laughable.
That said, they do link to their earlier story. Maybe they think we are lazy, or stupid.
MORE: Check the comments - Dwight Meredith guides us to more, and we don't even have a cup of coffee before reacting, also in the comments, with more below, and here.
Here is the breakthrough WaPo piece noted by Dwight; here is the odd NY Times piece. Why is it odd? Note the absence of a byline.
The media silence on this story has puzzled blogspheric observers up to now, but the haze lifts a bit with the WaPo story. Apparently, two White House officials peddled the "Wilson and wife" story to at least six reporters; if Novak was one of them, we doubt the others included the Akron Daily - presumably the WaPo and the NY Times were on the call list.
In which case, in covering this story (or not) the NY Times has spent the summer in the odd position of writing about a White House cover-up of a secret shared by, among others, Rovert Novak, a NY Times reporter, and (if they gossip a bit) the Washington Post. Some dark conspiracy! Furthermore, if Mr. Novak is telling the truth (And TIME's reporting seems to confirm it), the CIA at least initially did not warn people away from Ms. Plame, when given the chance.
OK, Mark Kleiman has thoughts, as does the CalPundit. Josh Marshall has several posts - start here and work down (and maybe up - the day is young). I should move my reaction out of the comments and into a real post. However, it is fascinating that they see darkness where I see light.
MORE: Round up the usual suspects! The perps were probably part of the White House Iraq Group:
Systematic coordination began in August [2002], when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."
...The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.
Hadley and Libby, then.
The Post has an administration official confirming that two (2) "top White House officials" burned Valerie Plame to six (6) different journalists.
Anyone who did that needs 1) to have their security clearance revoked, 2) to lose their job, and 3) to hear the clank of the cell door closing.
Posted by: dwight meredith | September 27, 2003 at 11:33 PM
Hey, Dwight, thanks for stopping by, and wow.
My quick reactions to the story:
(a) since it is one sr. WH source ratting out others, someone has decided (sensibly) that protecting Bush is the first priority.
(b) We get a huge clue about Novak's CIA source - a CIA spokesman!
(c) From Novak's account of his chat with the spokesman, Ms. Plame as La Femme Nikita, with agents jeopardized on eight continents, seems hyped. Novak says he would have quashed it if the CIA really had asked - they seemed worried about her personal security if she traveled abroad.
(d) TIME disappears from this story too; quite likely they talked to the CIA spokesman, and nobody cares.
(e) Psychic prediction - Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, was involved with the politicization of the CIA and the 16 words. She is involved with this. And, if I am a Bush loyalist, I would rather pitch Scooter than my man Karl (especially if she actually did it). Cheney got slapped for his verbal overkill on Meet the Press (the 9/11 Saddam connection, among other things), so we deem his staff to be vulnerable on this point.
Thanks vey much.
Posted by: TM | September 28, 2003 at 07:49 AM
Hey Tom, I stop by frequently.
if the Post stiry is accurate, I do not think that Novak's original source can be CIA. The "senior administration official" talking to the Post specifically said that the two folks peddlingthe story were "top White House officials." The CIA is not part of the White House.
I suspect that the "senior administration official" talking to the Post was CIA (Tenet).
From the Post story, it appears that Novak got the leak from the White House and then called the CIA and informed them he was running the story. That is when the CIA did not strongly object to the story.
If you look at who works in the White House, has Security clearance needed to know the identity of covert CIA agents and who can be described as "top" and Senior, I think the suspect list includes the following:
Dick Cheney -- Vice President
Karl Rove -- Senior Advisor the the President
Condi Rice -- Assistant to the President for National Security
Andy Card -- Chief of Staff
Ari Fleischer -- Press Secretary
Dan Bartlett -- Assistant to the President for Communication
John Gordon -- Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor
Scooter Libby -- Cheney Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President
If the Post story is accurate, it seesm likely that two of those eight commited multiple felonies.
Posted by: dwight meredith | September 28, 2003 at 02:03 PM
Tom:
I forgot to mention that any budding Agatha Christies can get a list of high level White House officials here.
Posted by: Dwight Meredith | September 28, 2003 at 02:05 PM
I think it should be mentioned that the man largely responsible for making the exposing of CIA agents such a serious crime was George Bush Sr.
Posted by: Merdog | September 28, 2003 at 02:29 PM
Just so the people here know, "Scooter" Libby is a man. His full name is "I. Lewis Libby." Someone above has him as a female "she." For what it is worth...
Posted by: Hank Essay | September 28, 2003 at 09:02 PM
Yes, but it was the assasination of Richard Welch, thanks to a leak by Phillip Agee's
KGB funded front group; who in turn got it
from another KGB apparatchik; Mr. Mader. Who
argued for the continuation of such disclosures
none other than Morton Halperin; future NSC officer under Clinton. Who helped spread government assasination conspiracies in the
70s, the same Phillip Agee, working with Sid
Blumenthal. Who would not hesitate to reveal
active intelligent assets in Iraq & Afghanistan in a new york minute; the same
crew,
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2003 at 12:37 AM
If Libby did it, then he ought to be arrested. But let us not get too distracted here. Too much embarassment for Bush and friends is no good for 2004, too much is at stake for this to become "big". So I hope it doesnt.
Posted by: Sir Richard | September 29, 2003 at 10:15 AM
Oh, man, I mean, Oh, darn, "Scooter" is a guy? I have been gender-bending that tidbit for about a year now. Global replace!
Posted by: TM | September 29, 2003 at 11:16 AM
What bothers me the most about this affair is that the entire story is constructed by the news media using anonymous sources. In the blogosphere, we insist on links, and sources, so that we can "fact check your ass". We have done that on many occasions and revealed factual and philosophical errors, and plagerism, among other "crimes of fact". Here we have an allegation that may or may not be a crime, but with no government official on the record providing any facts. We have Bob Novak's word for the original story, and wronged husband Wilson's complaint about it, and that is all. If this were a story originating in the Internet, it would have died a long time ago for lack of sourcing. Why is it that the news media can do this, over and over with many stories, and not be called on it? It's not news if it cannot be fact checked, is it?
It's quite clear that someone may be lying here. Absent names and job titles, we cannot know who. And, of course, news people cannot be forced to name their sources by law. So where can any investigation go? An anonymous smear, originating with complaints from an avowed anti-administration source, Wilson, and not a single fact to back it up.
Posted by: Chuck | September 29, 2003 at 01:56 PM
Too much embarassment for Bush and friends is no good for 2004, too much is at stake for this to become "big". So I hope it doesnt.
Let's see. The CIA has charged that somebody at the Whitehouse is leaked the identity of an undercover agent (apparently to get retribution against a whistleblower). This is a felony. George Sr. himself described people who compromise intelligence assets as "the most insidious kind of traitors".
You, however, hope this story will disappear quietly, because you wouldn't want a Democrat to win in 2004. This is staggering, appalling, and breathtaking.
Now, I'm an independent who respects traditional conservatives, because I think they're largely correct--we do need to balance the budget, respect the second ammendment, maintain personal freedom in private life and in business, etc. (I also think traditional liberals have some good points about compassion and a just society, which is why I'm an independent.)
But there's a new element on the right which is willing to forgive Bush's advisors for anything--including widespread violation of core conservative principles--simply because his advisors are Republicans.
Remember: If you believe the Democrats are so evil you must stop them at all costs, you'll find yourself in bed with some mighty strange people.
Posted by: EK | September 29, 2003 at 02:29 PM
Can you explain how a woman 40 years old can be a reported CIA employee for three decades, 30 year veteran of the CIA, etc.
Bunk all bunk
Linda Bartcher
Posted by: Linda Bartcher | October 02, 2003 at 04:09 PM