I see that you excerpted only the sections of today's Novak article to suit your purpose. Since you want to parse things to fit your purpose, I have posted the entire column below for easy reference. I don't appreciate you calling me a liar, because I am discussing the known facts and offering my take...just as you are. I have been very civil in my discussions. Further, I didn't say that you
were attacking the President. I said that you were "buying the liberal democrat party line of attacking the President". There's a notable difference.
In addition, the known facts, at least up to this point, haven't supported your argument.
Novak said he was told the woman was an analyst, not a covert agent. That is a fact. That's what he was told by the CIA official. You can believe or not believe Mr. Novak, but he has no reason to lie. In this column today (below...in its entirety), he says he would have withheld the name if he knew it was that sensitive. She may have been or still was a covert agent, but Novak's source in the adminisation (which isn't necessarily the White House). Also, this situation doesn't seem to be, as you have opined, a partisan issue. Mr. Novak says that, "It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger." Again, you can believe Mr. Novak or not, that's up to you. The man has an established reputation for being an honest journalist that tells the story as he finds it.
I agree with you that if someone's life was in danger because of this revelation and it was an intentional act (which is a requirement of the law) that they should, indeed, be nailed to the wall, as you put it. Interestingly, the President has said the same...if that is the case, they will be dealt with. Considering his known stance on leaks, I don't imagine this person is going to get much leeway.
You don't need to shoot arrows or insults...yet. We will see with time. The investigation will show what it will show. You, or I, will get to look back on this thread and see if our "takes" were accurate or not. If you wish, you can tell me "I told you so". Until then, let's try to keep things civil. Disagree, not disagreeable, as I told you during our debate about Wesley Clark.
Do you think the CIA would ask for an investigation if someone revealed the name of a non-covert analyst who everyone knew worked for them?
You are mischarcterizing the importance of the referral. I have answered a similar comment about this idea, at length, on this thread. I have also made significant commentary in post #87 in the same thread.
October 1, 2003
WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.
This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
The point is that she was covered. Novak's unnamed source notwithstanding, the official position of the CIA is that her employment by them is classified. It doesn't really matter what she did for them - what matters is whether anyone was supposed to know, and it is UNDISPUTED that we were not supposed to know she worked for the CIA, and it is UNDISPUTED that a "senior administration official" told Novak that she worked for the CIA - and, btw, did it in the context of pushing a story line that is contradicted by the CIA - that Plame got the gig for her husband. If Democrats had done this, you'd be screaming for their heads.
Thanks for that.