(TacticalPeak, I know you've seen this before, but I thought I'd piggy back on your post in Editorials where it might usefully become part of the discussion and thought on this issue and will here be easily available over the weekend. Hope you don't mind. I very much DO like your "reading" of McClellan's dodge.)
Reports originally said (erroneously, as it turned out) that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of the Vice-President's Office. Who would Novak have called first in those days following Wilson's July 6, 2003 Op-Ed in _The NY Times_? The Office of the Vice-President, naturally.
Immediately after his July 6 op-ed in the _New York Times_, Joseph C. Wilson was thought to have been sent to Niger in February of 2002 at the behest of the Vice President (later vigorously denied by Dick Cheney, September 14 th on Meet the Press, see link #1, below). (This misunderstanding may have arisen from a clumsy reading of Wilson's Op-Ed, in which he wrote that he "was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report." and "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer." See quotations in next paragraph that indicate mistaken in early July that Wilson was sent directly at behest of Cheney.) Robert Novak, _Chicago Sun Times_ columnist and televison commentator, by his own admission "was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment" (link #5). Those are the facts. From those facts, can we deduce who Novak would have called first? The Vice-President's office, of course.
Some proof of misconception in second week of July 2003 that VP sent Wilson: Ray McGovern reflects this 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"
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."
How would the conversation have gone (using Scooter Libby as the contact)? They would talked about Wilson's editorial, why the State-of-the-Union Speech referred to Nigerian yellow-cake uranium and why Powell didn't mention it at the UN, and how Cheney had never sent Wilson on any mission. Then Scooter explains, telling Novak that Cheney, the previous winter (Feb. 2002) had asked the CIA to look into the reports of uranium sales to Iraq from Niger and that it was the CIA at the VP's behest who had sent Wilson. Then Scooter lets it drop, "Well, did you know Wilson's wife works for the Company? Let's see . . . yeah, right Valerie Plame. Word is that she was the one who had him sent to Niger." Novak's ears perk up (all he hears is "nepotism," missing the real insinuation: that Wilson put his wife up to having him sent because he had an anti-War agenda or because he was anti-administration and wanted to put the breaks on the early momentum toward the Iraqi war). Novak checks spelling ("P-L-A-M-E"), thanks Scooter, hangs up. Checks second source, etc.
It's important to realize the purpose 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:
(More detailed and much fuller timelines, distracting for our purpose, can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_timeline.html and http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_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 ).
March 9: "CIA reportedly sends cable that does not name Wilson but says Nigerien officials denied the allegations," according to ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_timeline.html
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. ( http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Bush-Iraqi-Uranium-Forged12jun03.htm )
July 6: Joseph Wilson publishes his Op-Ed in _The New York Times_ , criticizing the administration for allowing Bush to make the Niger-uranium claim in the State of the Union Address. (Link #4 for the Op-Ed.) Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus write an article discussing Wilson's work in Niger and quoting his unfavorable administration comments: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/135174809_intel06.html
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.)
* * * * * * 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
