that's the way it'll begin unravelling.
Logic points to Libby or, yes ByeDick, to CHENEY:
The argument: Robert Novak, troubled as to "why a high-ranking official (Joseph C. Wilson) in
President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this (Niger)assignment" (link #5),
immediately went to who he believed (because of mistaken reports) send Wilson in the first place: The
Vice President's office. Therefore, the most obvious first place for him to receive the first leak was
from someone in that office. Simple as that.
Mistaken reports (June 6-14) that indicate or imply Wilson was sent directly at behest of Vice
President's office: Ray McGovern reflects this common misconception in a July 14 open memorandum
to Bush: "There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of
Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but
to others as well."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4107.htm . As does Will Pitt when
he writes on July 11: "Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to
investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence."
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030711_pitt_bush_you_are_a_liar.htm . Ian Macpherson writes,
similarly, "Now it appears that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of none other than Vice President
Cheney's department"
http://www.netnacs.com/downunder/archive/du-0026.htm . Steve Perry
continues the error even at the end of the month: "It was Wilson who traveled to Africa in 2002 at Dick
Cheney's behest" (PLEASE HELP BY PROVIDING MORE LINKS)
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/storyReader$517 .
So . . . Novak would have called Cheney or, more likely, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's
Chief-of-Staff (or, perhaps a staff member directly below Scooter). To find out "why a high-ranking
official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment," Novak would
have gone to the presumptive "assigner."
It's important to realize the purpose of the leak ("his wife at CIA sent him") was to discredit Wilson as
a maverick-with-an-agenda, getting his wife to send him on a mission the results of which would
undercut Bush's designs on Iraq.
Paul Krugman, as he so often does, gets to the marrow: "both the columnist Robert Novak and Time
magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been
chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative."
(
http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg47823.html ) The purpose, therefore,
was NOT revenge, NOR punishment, but to undercut Wilson's credibility. (To be fair, Krugman later,
inexplicability concludes: "So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson,
but also to send a message.") IN the July 22 Newsday item (see link in Timeline) Wilson also admits to
befuddlement: "They were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There
are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was
cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."
Given the circumstance of the following summer (2003) when everyone was questioning the existence
of WMDs, considering that someone who had investigated one of the claims Bush made in his
State-of-the-Union Speech just undercut him in a July 6 NY Times op-ed piece, Scooter's plant was
artful and effective, despite Novak's dull-witted interpretation (nepotism). It was clever about crushing
anyone (Libby is more circumspect and pragmatic than Rove). The purpose was not primarily to inflict
revenge upon Wilson, nor was it necessarily a warning to others who might take similar public stands,
but to undercut an opponent who had momentarily risen in their midst. Bloodlessly, swiftly.
I know that if the purpose of the leak was revenge or a warning to others, the political damage to the
administration would be worse. Since no one is likely to go to jail since bar for conviction under the
operant law is rather high, all we can hope for is political damage. But mistaking the motive may well
lead us in the wrong direction and allow the entire story to gradually dissipate in the short-shelf life of
public attention. As it is, the administration will have to account for a coordinated attempt (2 leakers)
to discredit a man who has ably served five administrations and was even labeled "courageous" by
George Walker Bush. Perhaps those charged will tell investigators who else was in on the meetings
where the strategy to discredit Wilson was hatched. (It was certainly coordinated and continuous, as
attested to by the July 17 and 22 similar stories in Time and Newsweek–see timeline, below) Perhaps
not.
TIMELINE:
ca. 2001
Wilson: "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this
subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium
business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked,
'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that
time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to
me and said, 'yes, we want you to go'" (qtd. in link #2).
2002
February: Joseph C. Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate rumors of sales of yellow-cake uranium to
Iraq. His trip lasts eight days: "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current
government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium
business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken place" (from NY Times, 6 July 2003, qtd. in
http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm ).
2003
January 28: George W. Bush's State of the Union Address.
June 12: Walter Pincus reports in the _The Washington Post_ that an unnamed retired diplomat had
given the CIA a negative report concerning uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.
July 6: Joseph Wilson publishes his Op-Ed in _The New York Times_ and is quoted by _The Washington
Post_. Both items criticize the administration for allowing Bush to make the Niger-uranium claim in the
State of the Union Address. (Link #4 for the Op-Ed.)
July 13: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ in which Valerie Plame is
identified as a CIA agent. Novak writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame,
is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his
wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him" (qtd. in link #3).
July 17: Time magazine publishes the same basic story, also attributing it to "government officials."
July 22, Newsday also confirms "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass
destruction issues in an undercover capacity." Link:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-uscia0722,0,6160519.story?coll=ny-top-headlines Sept. 14: Dick Cheney on Meet the Press denies knowing Wilson and seemingly goes out of his way to
say "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea wh hired him and it never
came..." Russert interposes: "The CIA did." And Cheney responds, "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
(Link #3) (Why is Cheney going out of his way to volunteer this information? Wilson seems similarly
perplexed; in an interview with Ann Goodman, also in link #3, after Goodman says "He (Cheney) also
said that he didn't know who had sent you, raising questions about the whole legitimacy of your
mission to Niger," Wilson says, "I heard that. I don't know what the Vice President was trying to get at
in that. )
Oct. 1: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ recounting the entire story
from his vantage. (Link #5)
* * * * * * Laws * * * * *
1917: Espionage Act (thrice amended since).
1982: The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act
Both are discussed by John Dean at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html * * * * * * Links * * * * *
Link #1:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/1555209 Link #2:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823 Link #3:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/1555209 Link #4:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm or
http://truthout.org/docs_03/100203B.shtml Link #5:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html * * * * * Bibliographies * * * * *
http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm (a bibliog. of articles criticizing the admin.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
