Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

David Ensor on CNN: Sources say Wilson's Wife was an Operative

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Cush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:05 PM
Original message
David Ensor on CNN: Sources say Wilson's Wife was an Operative
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 04:14 PM by Cush
CNN's National Security Reporter says: "My sources says she isn't an analyst, but an operative"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eileen_d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Definitions?
I don't know the difference between the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Operative
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 04:07 PM by Cush
she would be out in the field collect info, working with other agents, etc

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. She was a CIA Operative not an analyst
That means she was in a precarious situation and was put into grave danger by the leak from the White House....
Just confirmed on CNN..
She WAS a CIA Operative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Exactly,.,...WAS an operative...not IS ...she's been outted...no longer
fit for duty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eileen_d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Thank you both for the quick answers! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yep...I'll back you up on that
Ensor seemed pretty damn sure on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonAndSun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is very important, Cush
Novakula is saying she is just a analyst, David Ensor says his sources say she is an operative with agents under her. That is why this is so important. He agents, undercover contacts, etc are put in danger because of this.

Novakula is lying!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rolodomo Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. I think security is threatened either way
The WP reports today that she was a case officer, a WMD analyst, and had travelled overseas. However, even if she did not do cloak and dagger stuff, the revelation of her name would allow foreign intelligence to key in on her business transactions and acquaintances many of which are also probably CIA agents.

Can you believe Novak was demanding proof of harm to national security even though a law designed to preclude threats to national security had been violated? This is like inviting criminals to harm national security if the actual harm can't be proved which is very likely in the murky world of intelligence. This is probably of of the many reasons that those who violate this law are held criminally liable per se without a requirement to prove harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Hi rolodomo!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rolodomo Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Thanks for the warm welcome newyawker99 !
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Ironically, this may come down to the meaning of the word "is"
My understanding is that she currently is an analyst (since she is the mother of 2 year old twins), but not very long ago she was a field operative. However, just because she is now an analyst does not mean it is legal to reveal her identity since the assets she "ran" may still be in place and would be vulnerable if others knew her identity. I believe there is a whole process, done over a period of years, to make sure a field operative can "come back in from the cold" so to speak and not endanger his/her former network. Someone (Matcom/Dadcom) can correct me if I am wrong here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yep I saw that too
Very Serious ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
10.  Even Wolfie said..
"Then that makes this more serious"
hah!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unknown Known Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. This makes it more egregious
as any contacts she had would also have their lives in danger or they possibly already have been killed. Her expertise was WMDs - so this leak has also compromised our national security.

This is damned treasonous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Yes. And Novak just lied on national tv
of course, he wasn't under oath...

but this is, no doubt, disinformation planted for those who don't hear the rebuttal.

Whether she is currently an operative or not is unimportant.

The contacts and infrastructure she built as an operative would be passed on to something else, I would think.

So again, the white house has endangered the lives of other agents and their contacts with the info, it would seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annagull Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. Novak just lied on TV about his own column:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is a Agency Operative on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

I hate being lied to, especially so blatantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. he is 1000% correct
and i CANNOT say anymore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. Andrea Mitchell Aware of the Story
Don Imus asked Andrea Mitchell of NBC this morning -

Don- Did you get a call from the White House telling you Wilson's wife was a CIA operative...

Andrea - Snippy answer - I never reveal my sources.

Don- I am not asking you to reveal sources, I am asking you did you get a call?

Andrea - I was "aware of the story" We opted not to publish it because it wasn't central to the Niger story. My standard is not to reveal a CIA agent/government person unless there is a compelling journalistic reason to do so. Based on the facts given to me, there was no reason to do so. I don't know what Novak was told, the facts given to him might have been different.

Andrea did not say, but seemed to suggest in answering Don's question that she had been called/a colleague had been called.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nottingham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Well all its going to take is what time the Snitch called and the
telephone Logs are gonna reveal it! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. Novak Added Legs To This Story
With this flimsy parsing and passing the buck, Novak's opened up more questions than he answered.

I was hoping the Prince of Darkness would come out this afternoon and slime both Wilson and his wife, and he did one better...he added even more questions to be investigated.

Novak knows he's bulletproof...as are most Right Wing "journalists" and that this regime has the ability to just let a story blow out, and they're firmly expecting this one to be that way as well.

Face it, without Democrats in control of any investigative forum, these bastards know they can get away with anything. Thus, the real need not only to take the Executive that was stolen from the people, but work double-hard to capture one if not both houses next year to put a silver spike in these Right Wing for the next decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. By Novak's own admission, the CIA said NOT to use her name!
Why on earth would the CIA tell a reporter that she was an operative, being that that is CONFIDENTIAL, and the reporter (Novak) has NO CLEARANCE?

Even if he were to understand that she were an analyst, something should have told him "gee, maybe I oughtn't use her name, since the CIA TOLD ME NOT TO."

But no. He names her--for no discernable reason other than to screw her and Wilson.

Novaks screwed up, and I hope whomever clued him in bears the brunt of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC