I’m not seeing any contradiction here. In one place he says the information was in an offhand remark. In another he says it was given to him. Different nuances, to be sure, but essentially the same thing – he claims it was given to him in an offhand remark.
Could you link the Time article. Sorry, but I went through the thread and if it’s linked, I missed it.
Now, is Time the only source of the claim about six journalists being contacted? Who exactly is their source on this? I believe their source is unnamed as well. If so, we have dueling anonymous sources. In that case, it’s pretty difficult to factually determine who is telling the truth and who is spinning.
Okay, so you have Bernstein panning a competitor. This is not unusual. This is, when it comes down to it, Bernstein’s opinion, which establishes nothing of fact.
One man’s shill is another man’s journalist. They are all reporting what others said.
That is merely speculation. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re half right. Who knows?
Well, that sounds a bit like guilt by association – and the guilt is (horrors!) holding conservative views. If you mean to say that everything Novak says must be discounted because he’s a conservative, well, I just don’t have an answer for that. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of journalists self-identify as Democrats. So do we toss out everything they say because they, also, have beliefs? Or do you mean that proof of Novak’s conservative leanings equates to proof he is evil?
The core issue of whether someone deliberately leaked the CIA info to punish Wilson is still up in the air. If it’s true, I hope justice is dealt to them. I just don’t buy the idea that because a left-leaning reporter like Bernstein denounces him is somehow proof of anything at all.
I doubt it. I don’t know what to think of the various leaks, but I do know why people were questioning what Mr. Wilson’s game is beyond that he dared speak out against the administration. In a NYT article he took elaborate pains to say how the Vice President knew all about his going to Niger and the results of it and how the administration chose to ignore his evidence and exaggerate the threat, etc. The White House people claim they knew nothing about his trip. And Tenet on the CIA website says this: “In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract…” (my underline) He further says that the CIA did not brief the report to the administration officials. Wilson was wrong, or just misinformed. Or he lied. Whichever.
In this context, Plame being one of those counter-proliferation experts and potentially the one sending Wilson to the area and receiving the reports is relevant to the story, to say the least.
Well, they shouldn’t.
This looks pretty serious. A lot of people around the world could be in danger for having had contact with her.
Hell, even innocent people! People who conducted business with her and believed her cover.
From the much esteemed Josh Marshall at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
"The Washington Post today has one example: the apparent CIA front company that Plame listed as her employer, Brewster-Jennings & Associates.
People are noting that the company’s name made the rounds yesterday after Bob Novak mentioned it on TV, in apparent attempt to discredit Plame as a Democratic partisan."
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
No, not at all, nothing so subtle as a nuance was implied by what Novak said. In the “offhand remark” it sounds like, “And you know, this Wilson guy is married to Plame, who’s a CIA operative, and he said … etc. etc.” and Novak picks up on it.
The "they brought it to my attention as an important bit of news is more like, “Look, Robert, did you know that Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame is a CIA op? Really, it’s important for you to know that, because it has strong implications for the validity of the Nigerian yellowcake business! Yeah, think about the implications!”
Andy, ye have not a leg to stand on, but feel free to continue along these lines if you like wobbling so much.
Oh, please. What you, the RNC and the Bush admin. all seem to be missing is that this is all totally beside the point … do ya think it wasn’t TREASON to betray Plame’s cover in this way? It was. Yes, it was. Wilson coudl be the chairman of the DNC and it would STILL be treason to betray his wife in this way.
Some people need to go to jail.
The verdict isn’t in yet on who betrayed who. In the meantime, a guy with with a wife in an extremely sensitive position within the intelligence community agrees to go investigate an extremely sensitive matter involving proliferations. A year or so later he outs himself and he’s banging on about his trip to anyone who’ll listen, starting with the NYT. Nothing like keeping a low profile, you know?
I think further investigation is a great idea.
Well, you know, he might have been under the delusion that the issue was important. Involving false pretenses for, like, war, and stuff. I can see how a guy could think something like that was pretty important. No, really.
It also doesn’t justify putting a hit out on his wife.
This to me is one of the most demented aspects to the dustup. The neocons hate the CIA for, in their opinion, understating the strength of our enemies? Even though they almost invariably turn out to be right? And for this they pick a fight? Even though Bush Sr. used to be the director of the agency? What the hell are these people thinking?
The extent to which these people have sold their souls is remarkable, breathtaking, and disgusting. Bush Sr should have taken his son aside when this thing started and told him just how serious this thing was. Apparently, either he didn’t or Junior didn’t listen.
I mean, this really is condoning treason. The act itself was treasonous, and Bush Jr did nothing about it until forced. It would appear that Bush Sr is alright with this. Maybe.
Has anyone picked up even the slightest rumor of displeasure from the Dad?
I’m a dad. Perhaps I’m stretching the point, but I’d rather nail my pecker to a tree than publicly embarass my son like that. Of course, our circumstances are by no means similar. But if I were to guess, I’d guess that Bush Sr. would probably prefer his son were still with the Rangers.
Mr. Bush is rich, powerful, and has three sons. I wouldn’t trade places with him.
I’m having trouble following what you’re trying to say. It seems that you are citing CIA people and White House people as though they are interchangeable – they’re not – and you don’t specify which “White House people” you’re quoting.
But you are coming back to the controversial Niger yellowcake claim. That is still not as cut-and-dried as some would have it. Bush relied on the CIA to vet the verasity of the yellowcake claim. There is a good deal of back-and-forth and fingerpointing on who should have done what. Bottom line is that the White House relied too heavily on British intelligence and other intelligence to verify the claim – and remember the White House says it has other sources.
Wilson is a critic of Bush. He feels they were too eager to cite evidence that backed up his point, regardless of what the truth was. Fair enough. I think those who are jumping to the conclusion that the White House hatched a diabolical plot against Wilson are doing the same.
Oh, please. You just lowered the debate five notches with that.
Didn’t you get a pitting awhile back for somehow “knowing” what everyone was thinking or saying even when they didn’t? It now appears that the CIA and Robert Novak are receiving the benefit of your services.
Actually, I suspect that cries of treason right now are dependent largely on which primaries you vote in.
As for some people needing to go to jail – I think some people need to calm down and unlock the caplock. Even though this little drama is being played out at the highest levels of our government, basic philosophies of our legal thinking still need to apply – namely intent and damage. Was this disclosure done with intent to harm? If it was a sloppy act without malice, it’s one thing. If it’s a deliberate act, it’s another. And no one on this board, I dare say, is privy enough into the CIA to know if Plame’s identity truly was compromised in a perilous fashion. There is some debate on whether she was sufficiently well known that any reasonable attentive intelligence group could have identified her.
I somewhat concur. We accept a certain amount of sloppiness in gardening, but not in neurosurgery. Petty gossip is more acceptable in the office than in the Oval Office. Clearly, this does not deserve so dramatic a word as “treason”.
But if this is as it appears…if it was done to undermine the credibility of a worthy servant of our Republic, for no other reason but to protect a lie, and to protect the liars…
It does not rise to “treason”. That is not the word. I don’t, offhand, know what word it might be. But it is nothing to be proud of.
luc: I don’t expect him to do anything publicly, but a little private pressure could have been applied. Given this happened in July and we’re now in October, I believe it’s reasonable to assume that nothing was done privately either.
Had she been assassinated because of the outing, would that qualify as a treasonous act? So far, we have blatant lying to get into a war, and intimidation of anyone who dared call that lying what it was. Exactly how low do they have to sink before we call them what they are? Do they have to actually start killing those who oppose them before we can call them dangerous to the Republic?
Yes, I’m fed up.
No, I don’t think I’m interchanging them…Bush, Cheney, and Rice are the administration, Tenet represents the CIA. If Tenet’s account of a CIA matter (the Niger thing) differs from Wilson’s, then it seems like Wilson has a credibility problem already. There’s really no need for the administration to create one.
US Constitution, Article III, section 3:
I would say revealing the identity of a deep-cover operative, thereby endangering her life and the lives of her network of contacts, which network was dedicated to preventing the enemies of the United States from obtaining weapons of mass destruction (the alleged possession of which was the reason given for one of the wars we are currently fighting), if not the constitutional definition of “aid and comfort,” comes pretty damn close.
Arrest the leaker and let a court decide if it’s treason or not.