From the WaPo: The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply.
We will come backto that point, but it is important.
The criminal referral sent over by Justice seems to focus on three reporters - Robert Novak, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce. Novak needs no introduction; Messrs. Phelps and Royce penned this story in July, which cites "intelligence officials" to advance the story. Since George Tenet is interested in leaks, and this was one, well, put them on the list.
But wait - even the WaPo has noticed that TIME also had a story citing "government sources", and revised it to include the news that their sources also talked to Robert Novak - surely this did not escape the eagle eyed investigators at Justice and the CIA.
So why is TIME not part of the investigation? Well, in chatting with the CIA, the WaPo identified their contact as a "spokesman", so presumably the discussion was authorized.
But hold on - a "spokesman" seems to have also spoken with Mr. Novak:
When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.
Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."
Hmm. TIME talked to a CIA spokesman, and is not being investigated; Novak talked to a CIA spokesman, and is. We note that in his latest column, Mr. Novak also describes his other source as "At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me", so "spokesman" may be apt. We also note that the CIA folks who work with the press for a living were not able to dissuade Mr. Novak from publishing. Ridiculous. "They believed Novak understood"? Mistakes were made!
Well, the CIA interest in Mr. Novak may flow from apparent White House misuse of info (which the CIA cleverly confirmed!). TIME is off the hook because their chat was authorized. But if an authorized spokesman for the CIA is telling both Mr. Novak and TIME about Ms. Plame's status, how covert was she?
Since the statutes suggest that the government must be taking steps to conceal a person's identity, having an official spokesman confirm her status is a bit inconsistent with that. Maybe the lawyers will consider "Gee, Mr. Novak, wouldn't it be better if you didn't publish" to be taking steps. Or maybe not.
And if the CIA was that wrong about her status, and can only decide months later that this represents a problem (actually, the review is underway, and no decision has been made), then just how irresponsible were the White House leakers who thought Ms. Plame's status was not a big deal?
Sorry, don't anwer that, or expect me too - why they should have taken any chances at all with national security and involved a guy's wife is not a subject I address forcefully and effectively. That said, I prefer light gray to black.
MORE Novak:
BLITZER: ... How much did they press you and say, you know what, this is really a problem? Please don't use her name. She's a covert operative.
NOVAK: It was what I call a weak request. In journalism we are asked not to use things constantly. I'm sure you have been. Don't use that, Wolf.
...NOVAK: ...I thought that was a very weak request, let me repeat.
And the editor of "The Washington Post," Fred Hyatt, said in an editorial as well that if the request had been made by the CIA not to put this information in for the fear of the safety of Mrs. Wilson or anybody else, I certainly would not have used her name. But that request was not made.
Now, why was it not made? There's one of two reasons. One possible reason is that it was a mistake by the CIA. They screwed it up. The other reason is they didn't think her life was in danger. I don't know the answer. It's one of the two though.
UPDATE: Note to self - track down Jim Henley, High Plains Drifter, and get his brother Don, too. We can't both be right, and I will not tolerate disagreement!
Quickly - Take Novak out of the story - the WaPo's account depicts a weak effort by the spokesman.
And where is the WaPo editorial? I need to read these "Notes to Self". But I will say this - the fellow to whom Mr. Henley links is contradicted by the WaPo story to which I linked:
The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.
The idea that reporters play "Gotcha" games with the CIA is not accurate. However it is that Novak came by the name, he would have withheld it if appropriately asked.
Inconceivable? MSNBC has (weirdly) taken it upon themselvs to delete all references to Ms. Plame from their website. Or, look at the non-disclosure of the name of Kobe Bryant's "victim". Yes, those are quotation marks, "victim"! (I Digress!). The press is not wholly adversarial with these agencies, with whom they work, and whose work is serious.
Has the thought occurred that the CIA source in Novak's column--at a time when Ms Plame's identity was not publicly known--was being coy about her undercover status so they were not the source of the information and because there is a criminal law which punishes anyone in government who reveals such information. Being indirect with a veteran Washington reporter is both understandable and prudent. By the time the conversation with Time occurred, her identity had been revealed and the CIA was free to acknowledge her real status.
Posted by: dmh | October 02, 2003 at 08:41 AM
The thought occurs. However, the CIA spokesman is meant to manage press relations - at a critical juncture when Novak looks like he might be about to publish, "coy" doesn't cut it. In fact, it falls into, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". Look, the CIA guy should have said what it took to wave Novak off - better Novak knows a secret and keeps it, then he doesn't know for sure there is a secret, and tells the world.
As to TIME, well, the damage was done, but they have an even wider circulation than Novak. Anyway, why drag Newsday in a week later, and not TIME?
The CIA account in the WaPo is not even consistent with a "we told Novak, but he screwed us" defense. They blew it. Doesn't excuse the WH, but it does explain the (possible) confusion amongst staffers who just didn't know either.
This is the "stupid, but not evil" WH defense, with which I am ever so pleased.
Posted by: TM | October 02, 2003 at 09:19 AM
One, the CIA was engaging in damage control from information that had already been illegally disclosed. Two, when you write "But if an authorized spokesman for the CIA is telling both Mr. Novak and TIME about Ms. Plame's status, how covert was she?", you neglect to consider that in the case of Novak, it is likely that the CIA would have confirmed the leak in order to try to dissuade him from publishing it if he had gotten the leak from someone Novak knew was high up enough to reliably know exactly that information, and that he called the CIA for warnings rather than confirmation also renders the question of why the CIA confirmed ridiculously obvious.
For Time, you have to remember there may be five other journalists who can confirm Novak's information, so it is not really odd that the CIA confirmed the leak to Time when someone in their staff probably recieved the leak and it had already been published by Novak. I think the issue of whether the CIA broke the law is absurd because it merely confirmed what was already illegally released to high-levels of the American media.
Posted by: NF | October 02, 2003 at 02:56 PM
I am not suggesting (I hope) that he CIA acted illegally.
However, I am making a point which I should have excerpted from the WaPo story, and now have, in an update. Please pardon my redundancy:
The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply.
This isn't some "Gotcha" game, where Novak cleverly tricks the CIA spokemans, who then says "you got me, print it". If the CIA had asked, regardless of who at the WH gave him the name, Novak would (probably) have withheld.
At a minimum, the CIA spokesman could have said to the WaPo, "Novak ignored our desperate pleas". Stick a knife in him that way. Instead, they say, well, I guess he misunderstood. Silly.
Posted by: TM | October 03, 2003 at 12:45 PM
If you are retired, but have a wife who is an undercover operative with the CIA, and she was involved in sending you on a CIA (but not secret?) mission to Niger, and you return with some information you think is significant, and the CIA and President seem to have ignored your information; several months later, would you go public with it? Would you draw attention to yourself (and inevitably your wife) just to point out in a very public way what you think may be a deliberate mistake made by the CIA? Would you expect no one to notice that you have a wife, that she works, that her work seems related to the mission you are publicizing?
In my opinion, Wilson has carelessly outed his own wife, which is why he is trying so hard to put the blame on everybody else. I guess the temptation to use his little Niger mission as a way to discredit the current administration by arguing the (moot) point about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq was just too much for him. And, alas, the CIA is bordering on complete incompetence to have used the indiscreet husband of an undercover agent to do their work.
Posted by: CWS | October 07, 2003 at 12:12 PM
A boost for Novak from his Chicago editor:
When Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, opened his e-mail from Novak, he was unconcerned about exposing the identity of the CIA officer, whose husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a vociferous critic of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.
He did not call Novak to discuss it, he recalled, or ask about the "senior administration sources" who named the woman. Forty-six years of experience can go a long way.
"Bob Novak has a record of judgment and accuracy in his reporting," Huntley said. "There's not a doubt in my mind that had the CIA said this woman's life was in danger, he would have never have named her."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6938828.htm
Posted by: TM | October 21, 2003 at 02:21 PM