Ambassador Wilson

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Ambassador Wilson

Post by lance » Sep 29th 2003, 11:12 am

Hey all,

Things are heating up in the Ambassador Wilson affair.

Just to catch up, Ambassador Wilson was sent by the Administration to Africa to investigate that bit of intelligence regarding alleged uranium sales by Niger to Iraq.

He found nothing and told Congress as much. Last July conservative columinst Robert Novak said that Administration officals had told him that Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valarie Plame, was an active CIA agent.

"According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, a federal employee with access to classified information who is convicted of making an unauthorized disclosure about a covert agent faces up to 10 years in prison and as much as $50,000 in fines. "

Given Ashcrofts zeal in enforcing maxium sentences for offenders, one can only hope that the leaker in question meets the same level of scrutiny by the Justice Department.

The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate the matter.

You can read the story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html

LanceMan

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Sep 29th 2003, 12:33 pm

I'm glad this finally has legs. Its ALL over the news now. The White House definitely deserves this. "Strong on security", only we'll blow your cover if your hubby questions us.

The media was really grilling the press secretary. CNN just said "Major major scandal."

From one of the stories it is apparent that someone inside the whitehouse is turning on the neocons. They confirmed 6 media outlets were contacted by at least 2 people from the administration. This is big.
We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

-George Bush Sr. April 16th, 1999
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Sep 30th 2003, 4:49 am

I haven't heard too much about this but we've got the mirror situation over here.

On the BBC Radio 4 programme 'Today' (high brow news), a BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan stated that the UK government had deliberately made too much of the claims relating to WMDs, and specifically that the claim that WMDs could be launched within 45 mins was incorrect and the government knew it to be so but published it anyway.

Andrew Gilligan's source was top secret but the government knew who it was (the source had come forward and admitted to his bosses within the MOD that it might have been him - I don't think he knew the furore his comments would cause or that the journalist was going to go large on the story), and told journalists that they would confirm the name if it was mentioned. Begin easy guessing game. Dr. David Kelly comes out of the shadows and is hounded by the press, and a select committee.

Dr. David Kelly kills himself. Nobody knows for sure why but it seems to be because he couldn't stand the pressure of being in the centre of such a scandal. Plus it seems the journalism was sloppy and he was misquoted and misinterpreted.

Isn't it odd how we couldn't see the intelligence relating to the war at the time because 'we must protect our sources' (which I agree with). But now, names are being leaked all over the place as it suits...

Will there be an inquiry into the leaking of Ambassador WIlson's wife's name? I certainly hope so... thanks for the link Lance; this is something we're not hearing too much about. Possibly because the BBC was recently sat on by the government and now they are too afraid to report anything bad about bush or blair's government and handling of iraq.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Sep 30th 2003, 9:06 am

Yeah, this seems to be all you get:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3151066.stm

The Whitehouse has been contacted now, and told to save all documents concerning this. This is the type of thing that gets people looking and digging. And when people start looking, the s**t starts to fly. Remember what happened with Clinton? Once the rug is pulled up, you never know what sort of garbage you're going to find underthere. Don't we remember how a little break-in at a hotel led to the President stepping down?

Oh, unless nothing wrong has happened. Then Bush should be perfectly willing to lift up his rug for us. So why isn't he?
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Sep 30th 2003, 10:11 am

andrewgd wrote:Yeah, this seems to be all you get:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3151066.stm
thanks, yeah, I saw that this morning but it doesn't say very much. Our media is being so careful at the moment it's unfunny.

Well, if people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over this then it sounds like it isn't going to go away, thankfully. I would like to see Bush personally take an interest though.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Sep 30th 2003, 11:57 am

andrewgd wrote:Yeah, this seems to be all you get:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3151066.stm

The Whitehouse has been contacted now, and told to save all documents concerning this. This is the type of thing that gets people looking and digging. And when people start looking, the s**t starts to fly. Remember what happened with Clinton? Once the rug is pulled up, you never know what sort of garbage you're going to find underthere. Don't we remember how a little break-in at a hotel led to the President stepping down?

Oh, unless nothing wrong has happened. Then Bush should be perfectly willing to lift up his rug for us. So why isn't he?
Yeah,

I saw a couple of the GOP congressmen trotted out yesterday to the press expressing their full faith in Ashcroft's ability to investigate the administration that appointed him.

:roll:

Democrats are calling for an indepedent counsel. At this point the Administration is balking. Makes you wonder who has something to hide.

LanceMan

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Post by Sammi » Sep 30th 2003, 4:43 pm

My only thought hear is what is going to happen to Robert Novak the person that actually leaked her name by writing it in his weekly column on July 14, 2003. If anyone should be in trouble and fined it should be Novak. Instead of printing this information he should have gone to the CIA, told them what had been leaked to him and let them reprimand the person that told him the information. What Novak did was horrible, not to mention wrong because he put a person serving our country in the CIA at risk.

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Sep 30th 2003, 5:09 pm

I also wondered what, if anything, will happen to Novak. Apparently, whoever leaked the info talked to about 20 reporters before Novak agreed to print the material. Did the other reporters know that revealing the names of secret agents is both illegal and dangerous? Does that mean Novak didn't know or did he print it even if he knew doing so was wrong? I think this investigation will be done quickly and judiciously. The cover-up is often more dangerous than the crime. I think whoever leaked the info and Novak should be prosecuted.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Sep 30th 2003, 5:11 pm

Sammi wrote:Instead of printing this information he should have gone to the CIA, told them what had been leaked to him and let them reprimand the person that told him the information.
Novak did go to the CIA. They told him they'd prefer him not to print it, but they didn't say why (like they're going to tell him she's an agent). So he went and printed it. I don't know why. But he's not going to tell the CIA his sources. Also, his statement yesterday explaining that it wasn't leaked to him is in direct contrast to what he wrote in his article (and what other journalists are saying). He's obviously trying to cover his own ass with it.

But really, one journalist doesn't matter when a member of the administration DID go to at least 6 journalists with this information. Another member of the administration CONFRIMED this.
A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. . . . Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."
The biggest arguement the GOP can drag up is that "we don't really know she was undercover". Which is dumb, because why else would the CIA take it this far? Obviously she was. A memo within the White House states that it was an undercover agent who was named. The following is from a notice sent to all White House employees (my emphasis):
We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Sep 30th 2003, 11:12 pm

Novak got a tip that someone was a CIA agent. He printed it after the CIA asked him not to print it. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that printing the story would not be smart. Yes, he is covering his ass. I've lost what little respect I had for him.

Bush will need to fire someone. The Justice Department will need to prosecute. I don't like how the administration has handled this issue so far. Instead of defending people, it should be getting to the bottom of what happened. I'm very disappointed. I don't doubt that someone used the information on purpose. But I'm shocked that something so stupid, petty, and illegal has been done. The facts that this issue is months old and the administration has dragged its feet are alarming. Sometimes, I wonder if people's brains just shut off when they go to Washington.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 1st 2003, 12:47 pm

TomSpeed wrote:Novak got a tip that someone was a CIA agent. He printed it after the CIA asked him not to print it. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that printing the story would not be smart. Yes, he is covering his ass. I've lost what little respect I had for him.

Bush will need to fire someone. The Justice Department will need to prosecute. I don't like how the administration has handled this issue so far. Instead of defending people, it should be getting to the bottom of what happened. I'm very disappointed. I don't doubt that someone used the information on purpose. But I'm shocked that something so stupid, petty, and illegal has been done. The facts that this issue is months old and the administration has dragged its feet are alarming. Sometimes, I wonder if people's brains just shut off when they go to Washington.
I agree with you TomSpeed.

Interesting. Back in the doldrums of August when only the independent press was covering this story I talked to my boss about this. I said do you really think this story could be true. He said that he hoped no one would be that stupid. The damage done to the country's security, to say nothing of the political fallout, could be disastrous. Who knows how many people were hurt as a result of this leak.

I also agree that the Administration is doing a fairly lame PR job with this. Instead of getting out front of the story and taking action on who was responsible they are playing the "denial" game. See the following story with regards to the President's spokeman Scott McClellan:

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/i ... =3&pid=982
(See Section: CIA Leak is Big Trouble for Bush)

Novak.

:roll:

Political commentator Molly Ivins once dubbed Novak as "the prince of darkness". Most of the convential wisdom I have heard from press recent said that it is possible that prosecutors could go after Novak but they feel this is unlikely. Reporters are rarely targets for investigations involving leaks and national security. I tend to disagree with this but there we are.

I definately think Novak is back peddling big time. For more on what Novak has said recently on the subject you can check out the CNN Crossfire transcripts from previous shows at:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/cf.html

Who knows how this will turn out? It is quite possible that nothing will happen. Why? Well because Ashcroft, political appointee of Bush, will find nothing and will not recommend a independent prosecutor. Congress will not appoint an independent prosecutor because the President's party controls both houses of Congress going into an election year. So it is extremely likely that nothing will happen other than Conservative Republicans will claim this was no big deal. Rice, McClellan will continue to deny and claim that they know nothing about the whole affair.

I do remain hopeful. I remain hopeful that Ashcroft will find something or that an independent prosecutor will eventual be appointed. I hope that whoever leaked this info will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also hope that the American people will take this whole affair of one more incident of an Administration out of control. An Administration that will go to such extradinary lengths to silence and punish its opposition for daring to speak out against its policies. Maybe, just maybe people will remember next November who it was that got us into this mess. Maybe then we will see "honesty & integrity" return to the White House.

LanceMan

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Oct 1st 2003, 1:38 pm

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Oct 1st 2003, 5:14 pm

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.
What did he think the word "difficulties" meant in this context?
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

more..

Post by lance » Oct 1st 2003, 10:15 pm

Hey all,

On todays edition of NPR's All Things Considered, NPR's legal correspondent, Nina Totenberg (I think I got her name right) had more on this story.

She said that the Justice Department asked the White House to preserve all revelant documents to the time period in question. The White House said that it needed 24 hours before it would issue a memo to its staffers instructing them to preserve possible evidence.

From all reports the memo was terse e-mail sent out to White House staff. The question the NPR reported raised was:

Why did the White House need 24 hours to send out the memo?

Granted the reason could be totatly innocent. From a PR standpoint it looks bad. This makes the situation seem even "shadier" than perhaps it may turn out to be.

Remember the Watergate lesson: the burglary was nothing, the cover up proved devastating to the Nixon Adminstration. If the White House has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, why pull a bonehead maneuver like this one?

More food for thought.

LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests