« the protesters' own quagmire | Main | How soon is now? »

good morning, hesiod

This link is for Hesiod:

Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry: CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

Ok, Hesiod. I'll give a comment here, but it's probably not what you were looking for.

If the inquiry proves that this is true, it's appalling. Not to mention a crime.

That's all I'm going to say on this for now. It's Sunday and my son has challenged me to a video-game playoff at the Arcade.

I'll be Bush, he'll be Dean. We'll see who wins.

Comments

The real question is. "Why did the Bush administration think it was ok to sit on this for 3 months". After all, you and I don't know who the guilty party is, but Bush could find out in a few minutes if he cared. His father certainly would have.

Oh, please. Michele, that's his most naked attempt for hits EVER. And you fell for the troll?

Remove the links, just to fuck with his numbers.

I think this is just another one of the left's endless red herrings.

Red Herring? Are you nuts? A man (Agee) was chased around the world for revealing an undercover CIA operative's identity. It's a federal crime to do such, punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Whoever the person is who did this should be charged, and serve their time, no matter what their position in the government.

Actually, I see it as more of a smoke screen. The only one definately on the hook right now for revealing an undercover CIA operative is Novak - and he admits they asked him not to do it.

What I've noted about most of the coverage of this has been the use of the opportunity to slip in some sort of insinuation (or outright statement) that the 16 words in the SOTU address were misleading or false, along with statements that the adminsitration backed away from or retracted the statement.

As if it were fact, when that is not what happened.

I'm not sure I buy the rampant speculation that it was a move to either discredit or intimidate Wilson - damned sloppy and stupid if it was, and if that was the case, whoever 'leaked' her status should be fired and prosecuted.

I'm also somewhat suspiscious of where Tenets political loyalties lay in all of this - he did more than enough to stir up the confusion and feed the catterwalling by jumping out very quickly - probably without consultation with the rest of the Administration - with his 'yeah, it might be bogus, and it was all my fault it was in there' admission.

There's games afoot, for sure, but I'm thinking they aren't exactly those that the major media would like to lead us around the nose into believing.

Okay, Wind Rider hasn't read any of the accounts of this scandal, so I'll sum up one last time: SOMEONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED NOVAK AND TOLD HIM TO RUN THIS!

Michele, thanks for the sentiment. It isn't that I don't trust you, but I'm still waiting for Bill O'Reilly to apologize to the protestors and announce his mistrust for this Administration, as he promised he would do should there be no WMD found.

But thank you for the character you've shown in putting yourself out on a limb. I'm going to hold you to your word.

These allegations are far more serious than Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice acts - and those were impeachable offenses. But until these allegations are substantiated I'm inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Afterall, this Whitehouse is obsessed with maintaining internal control and security. The absence of leaks from the Bush Whitehouse has been the story for almost three years and everytime a "top" or "senior" administration official is named it invariably turns out to be a Clinton appointed hold over of a crank. Anyone remember Terrance J. Wilkinson. The last time something like this popped up, something that looked like a slam-dunk on the Bush administration and had all the lefty jackals salivating it involved Mr. Wilkinson. He was prepared to go on record saying that he was present at a meeting with Bush as a CIA consultant, and he would verify that the Bush administration was looking to fake the information on Iraqi nukes. Only problem being that Terrance J Wilkinson turned out to be a crank. He was never a CIA operative nor was he ever a CIA consultant, in fact he doesn't exist at all.

Right now we have an unnamed source that implicates two other unnamed sources in providing Robert Novak with info about Valeri Plame's cover as a CIA agent. Until we have names, dates and phone logs this is one step from being an urban legend.

And if we're sticklers for accuracy, the WaPo says six journalists were "cold called"; only Novak went with it.

But hey, what's a few more felony counts among friends?

Robert: do you not recognize a distinction between Capitol Hill Blue and the Washington Post?

Wind Rider: In what way were the 16 words not "misleading"? Carefully phrasing something that you have reason to know is not entirely accurate so that it sounds "technicall correct" is in fact beind deliberately "misleading."

Urm... speaking of red herrings.... the author of the above "Liberal red herring" post was cough, cough "Alfredo Stroessner".

A brief (if didactic) history lesson- General Alredo Stroessner was the dictator Paraguay for 34 years, and was deposed not by Progressive forces and the inexorable march of democracy, like most of his Latin American (I won't say "fascist," because I don't want to invole Godwin's Law here, so let's say-)less than progressivedictatorial brethren, he was actually tossed out in a squabble among insiders of his own administration. The author of this comment has played a very subtle and totally ironic joke, and I am going to stand up out of my chair and applaud (hang on...) (ok, hard to type standing up) his wickedly appropriate jest. I am not sure if Stroessner actually used the term "red herring" (or the Spanish equivalent) as his administration was collapsing around him, but if he did, BRAVO!

I am not worthy...I am not worthy.....

Holy shit, are we back on the "16 words"??????

That was three fucking months after the vote authorizing military action, it did not refer to "yellowcake" or Niger, it referred to the British intelligence reports that the British still stand behind (or have I missed the reports that the Brits have admitted it was all liiiieeeeessssss!!!!!).

Funny, but the news accounts I saw when this first surfaced (as opposed to columns <cough*Novak*cough> and commentaries) never described Plame as a covert or undercover operative. Her job was described in such a way I concluded she was an analyst, not an operative.

You can't blow an analyst's cover because they don't have any. They're the people who park in the sun at Langley and wear their CIA identification tags right on their shirt fronts for everyone to see.

I suppose if I weren't thoroughly bored by these kinds of pseudo-scandals I might look into the matter and satisfy myself one way or the other about this point, but leftie screeches of scandal against Republican presidents got boring decades ago.

The only one definately on the hook right now for revealing an undercover CIA operative is Novak - and he admits they asked him not to do it.

Well, that's not true. At the very least, someone told Novak -- itself an offense. Whether they told him not to put it in the paper is irrelevant. But even then, why would they have told Novak in the first place, if not to have it printed?

Someone pointed out to me (via an email) that the Alfredo Stroessner that I thought was being an ironic GENIUS earlier in this thread actually posts under that name here all the time, and that I have inadvertantly 1. given him credit for a very sassy and ironic coincidence, and 2. that he's kind of, uh, y'know, not anything like I gave him credit for.

Boy, am I disappointed.

Can we go back to where I thought you were a genius? It was more fun then....

McGeehee, if you are a Republican, I hardly think you should be talking about pseudoscandals. Does Whitewater ring a bell?