Mark Kleiman and Josh Marshall lead with Chuck Hagel. Hey, I did too, back in "A Better Draft" timeline, where no one can see it. As a relatively long time fan of the Scooter, I can only say, Holy Cow! [My picks, last line, Sept. 27].
MORE: OK, we have Rep. Senator Chuck "War Hero" Hagel pointing the accusing finger at Dick "Chain-gang" Cheney. My heart can't take it!
Props to Mr. Marshall for pointing out that, if this is a war between the CIA and the White House, there is motive on both sides. The CIA resents the politicization of intelligence led by Dick Cheney; people at the White House think the CIA is an ossified, unimaginative bureaucracy which completely missed 9/11, and needs to be shaken, not stirred.
We say it again - just as there may be factions within the White House, it is probably a mistake to think of the CIA as monolithic. Surely, somewhere in the CIA is a once-downtrodden Iraq hawk who has been soaring on wings of eagles since Dick Cheney arrived with his pointed questions. Such a chap has moved from the basement office to the corner suite, and may not intend to return to his old digs peacefully.
And let's not forget Don Rumsfeld, and his pointed questions! Justice Department widens probe of CIA leak beyond White House to include the State and Defense Departments.
Hmm. Both groups have small intelligence units, and might have had access to Ms. Plame's status. The Defense Dept. also has a nest of vipers, (what?) neocons, who might have been the source of the Washington gossip Clifford May alluded to when he described Ms. Plame's status as common knowledge.
However, to round out the warring parties, we also note that over the last weekend, House Intelligence leaders blasted the CIA for its handling of pre-war intelligence and the (hasty) preparation of the October NIE. And now we glimpse David Kay's WMD report. The CIA battles on many fronts! Whether one of those fronts still includes the war on terror concerns us all.
AND MORE: The battle continues - the CIA said the mobile trailers were for bio-weapons; intel units at State and Defense say "balloons".
For all of the current gnashing of teeth over this leak, can anyone explain why intelligence officials were so willing to confirm Ms. Plame's secret identity to Novak AND to a reporter for NY Newsday as early as July 21, 2003.
Great job keeping secrets there CIA guys.
Posted by: "Edward" | October 03, 2003 at 12:40 AM
Uh, no, Edward.
Novak came to the CIA to ask if it would cause a problem if he revealed Plame's occupation in a column. Whoever he talked to obviously tried to talk him out of it. What was he supposed to say, "Plame? Never heard of her. But it might mess up some of our operations if you write about her." This CIA official Novak talked to, he probably thought Novak would write it in the article anyway if he denied it, so there was no point in trying to deny it.
The story was already out by the Newsday article, so there was no disadvantage to revealing her position then.
Posted by: Ulex | October 03, 2003 at 06:54 PM
Ulex - it seems pretty clear that if the CIA guy had said "We believe that publishing will endanger her life", that would have been that.
Why not say the magic words?
I have (a lot) more here, with links.
Key phrase from the WaPo:
The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/10/valeri_plame_wi.html
Posted by: TM | October 03, 2003 at 06:59 PM
Ulex,
How about refusing to confirm or deny her position both to Novak and Newsday. Even if it was different after Novak let the cat-out-of-the-bag, the easy confirmation to Newsday - before the story was "news" - supports Novak's point that the CIA wasn't hiding her secret very well, if at all.
Posted by: Jim | October 03, 2003 at 07:45 PM
From the context of the WaPo article, it sounds like the CIA said (probably honestly) that printing her name wouldn't endanger her life -- but that it could cause other problems. However, they didn't specify those "other problems," perhaps believing that would worsen the leak ("Well, y'see, Bob, she supervises agents in North Korea and Iran . . .").
The CIA thinks/hopes Bob should take the vague message as enough to stifle the story, but Bob disagrees. Life's that way sometimes.
Posted by: Swopa | October 03, 2003 at 08:05 PM
Novak seems to endorse exactly the version of events that I describe above. From Meet the Press yesterday:
Novak: Could I just add—of course, and David will confirm me, that many times you get information and you check it out and they say, “Please, don’t print that. That really will cause a lot of trouble.” And we print it anyway. So, unless the trouble is defined...
Priest: But the tricky part here is the nature of the question cannot be answered by the CIA without revealing the answer to the question. And they themselves would be in tremendous trouble if they were even—if they were to say, “Don’t print that because she’s undercover.” So, they would have to be vague. And they are, usually, vague with us. That’s part of the difficulty in covering the agency.
Posted by: Swopa | October 06, 2003 at 03:15 PM
This is good page.
Posted by: Alex | December 24, 2003 at 11:19 AM
Hello. The interesting ideas, an interesting syllable and the interesting maintenance going to a leg with modern requirements and inquiries.
Posted by: Bob | December 30, 2003 at 07:02 AM