1. white house includes Africa/Uranium in State of Union address to build case for war in Iraq.
2. everyone knows this is falsified information
3. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson criticizes administration for including this information.
4. Somebody (alleged to be in White House) outs the fact that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative on WMDs, essentially destroying all the work she has done (making contacts, etc).
Nevermind that it is a felony to do this sort of thing.
anyway, #4 is "alleged" at this point, but it would be par for the course for Karl Rove in my opinion.
FoxNews wrote:Contacted by phone, Wilson said Sunday he thinks it's safe to assume that the CIA would not refer the matter to the Justice Department unless it thought a crime might have been committed. He said if White House officials were to blame, their motives were easy to decipher.
"It's pretty clear to me that, knowing that they could not shut me up because I had already told my story, the purpose for doing this was to intimidate others and keep others from stepping forward," Wilson said.
1. white house includes Africa/Uranium in State of Union address to build case for war in Iraq.
2. everyone knows this is falsified information
Last I had heard, British intelligence still maintained the connection, saying there existed information other than the forged documents. I don't think the statement should have been included in the State of the Union address with no more proof than that, but I don't think it can currently be said it is known to be falsified information (other than the forged documents).
As to the rest of the article, if someone did leak the information about her being a CIA operative, then the should certainly drop the book on them if they can substantiate it.
CIA Director George Tenet wrote:the state department's bureau of intelligence and research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
...
Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries [at the time of the State of the Union address], officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues.
so fair enough, my words "knowingly used falsified information" are inaccurate.
they did knowingly use highly dubious (at best) information though and presented it as credible. the shade of grey of the severity of deception is certainly in doubt, that it was deception is not.
Plame was described as a CIA employee in a July column by Robert Novak in the Chicago Sun-Times. CNN has been unable to reach Plame.
Deplorable. Not only did someone reveal a CIA operative, but the media feels they must publish it for the world to read. WTF...
If it's a massive crime to reveal an agent (as it should be) why is it apparently A-OK to share that information with the world? Shouldn't Novakhave said "Um, yeah, OK - but I'm not putting that in the piece - that information could have repercussions on our national security" Instead it was like "This information could compromise National Security? Cool, that'll gather lots of attention - send it to print!! I won't tell the public who you are and my "journalistic ethics" will protect you (and me!)."
No, not saying that whomever revealed this information to Novak isn't a piece of shit of the lowest grade who should do some serious jail time, but Novak exercised piss-poor judgement in publishing it and I'm amazed that everyone seems to feel this is perfectly OK.
Understood. I know what "leaks" are. Why does the media comply with publishing shit that shouldn't be made public? Do they make no judgement calls? If someone "leaked" the name of an agent-in-place where revealing the identity of that agent would get them killed, would journalists still feel the need to report it?
Once again, the "source" is the real scumbag, but I'd list Novak as an accomplice/accessory.
I don't think the press should decide what is or what isn't printable in the areas of "national security." Self censorship of information is, in my opinion, as dangerous to free press as is direct governmental censorship of the press. In today's society the press is a check on the powers of the government, Watergate being a potent example. It's the reporters job to print stories that they have (if they are the truth of course).
In this case, it was the White House's job to keep that information from the press. The blame clearly lies on the informant and those who ordered the informant to go to the reporter.
OK, granted, asking them to decide that something affects National Security is outside the job scope of a journalist (they will anyway), but surely he understood that what was being revealed to him broke Federal Law... or did he?
Once again, answer the follow-up question. If the identity of an agent-in-place were "leaked" would they still publish it? i.e. Does the press think of the ramifications of publishing or do they just think about the attention?
well when you ask a question as broad as "does the press...", the answer is not going to be yes or no.
what i can tell you from meetings where CNN's chief executive in charge of newsgathering has discussed - in general terms - that there have been extremely sensitive situations where CNN has gotten information - specifically in the last 13 years in Iraq - which they have not aired because it would jeopardize peoples' lives. Whether or not this is really true or if it is something that this executive says to put a 'face' on company policy who knows. but i think that this news organization takes that very seriously, and i imagine most of them do.
because Geraldo chose to disclose troop movements on the air, doesnt mean Fox intended to subvert the war effort. IT just meant that Geraldo made a judgement error or gambled and lost (going for the sensationalism and figuring he'd get away with it).
i think in this particular case you are talking about an individual colomnist - a commentator more than a traditional 'journalist' made a choice for whatever reasons to print the story. the Chicago newspaper that published the piece probably has limited ability to edit his columns without his direct consent as part of their contractual agreement.
i can't watch Crossfire today to hear Novak talk about it because i'm in a stupid meeting, but i will be curious to find out.
But Miles O'Brien did just ask the analyst he was interviewing on CNN about this as to whether or not Novak is to blame as well. The analyst said "I'll let Bob Novak answer that". hehe.
if we find ourselves in a spot where the newspapers of America are to arbitrate which intelligence leaks it is OK for the executive branch to disclose, we have a serious problem =).
