Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House Rules Out Three Aides in Leak on CIA

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:26 AM
Original message
White House Rules Out Three Aides in Leak on CIA
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday ruled out three top aides as the source of a news leak identifying an undercover CIA officer whose husband was critical of Bush administration Iraq policy.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he had talked to each of the aides ahead of a 5 p.m. deadline on Tuesday for officials to turn over information in a Justice Department probe of the leak.

He left open the possibility the leaker would never be found. "I think all of us in this room know that it sometimes can be difficult to determine anonymous sources. But let me emphasize ... no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States," he said.

McClellan said senior Bush political aide Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams, had each denied being the source of the leak, which identified CIA operative Valerie Plame. McClellan said he talked to the officials in response to news reports he called "unsubstantiated."

"I've spoken with each of them individually," he said. "They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it."

more..............

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ;jsessionid=VFYLZMU00SAQOCRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=3571525
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, so because they said they didn't do it, they're "cleared?"
:rolleyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, I'm impressed....
What a thorough, objective, no-stone-unturned investigation!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. As the shredder shreds
"You wern't the source were you Karl?"
"No...haha No way...uhuh...nudge, nudge, say no more..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. and we are to believe this WHY?
because Rove has never lied or done anything underhanded or ugly in his life?

because Abrams has such a sterling reputation for honesty?

because Libby is so credible?

sorry folks, that just doesn't do it for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlcandie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Anything the WHorehouse does is above board!!! Stop it!!!
/sarcasm off


They are just so capable...like reviewing and interpeting the FIE to mean that we should go to war in Iraq.

And like Condi overlooking to read the document about the yellow cake.

Very capable...culpable, er
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. just a few links to add background
Karl Rove

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,10561...

But Rove has a murky history. In the 1970s he was investigated for running 'dirty tricks' seminars for Republican activists at the time of Watergate. In 1986, while running a Texas governorship campaign, he announced that a bugging device had been found in his office. The discovery hurt Rove's Democrat opponent, who promptly lost the election. Yet it was never discovered who planted the bug and - despite his denials - it is widely believed that Rove put it in his office himself.

Elliot Abrams

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052803A.shtml

When Elliott Abrams stood in front of a federal judge in October 1991 and pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress, few imagined he would ever return to government. At age 43, he had become one of the casualties of the Iran-contra scandal, detested by Democrats for his combative political style and mistrusted by human rights activists for playing down the crimes of right-wing dictatorships in Central America.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:x2rejYo_XYUJ:monde...

The strategy of primacy was first formulated in 1992 in a confidential Pentagon document, Defense Policy Guidance 1992-1994, by Paul Wolfowitz and I.Lewis Libby, now respectively deputy secretary of defence and national security adviser to vice-president Dick Cheney. They recommended preventing any "hostile power from dominating regions" whose resources would allow it to attain great power status, discouraging attempts by the advanced industrial nations to challenge US leadership or upset the established political and economic order, and precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor (7). These immodest recommendations were made at the height of the "unipolar moment", shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the war with Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. Translation: "They did it, but screw you if you think we're going...
to let you touch King Rove"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. White House Rules Out??
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 11:36 AM by leftchick
Is it not the job of the Justice Dept. to rule people out and not the White house? Sheesh, what a freakin headline....

edit to say: I don't expect a different conclusion from the JD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. Oh, well, then that settles it! (/sarcasm off)
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. Well, I wonder what the CIA will leak next?....
...Every time the WH tries to deny responsibility, the CIA, and/or some other organization, will leak another bombshell.

Heck, we haven't eve reached the top of the first big hill on this roller coaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JewelDigger Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. A treasonous act was committed and
"He left open the possibility the leaker would never be found."

Well, we might as well just rip up that Patriot Act right now. It obviously serves no useful purpose in going after the really 'big crimes'.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. It is treason only if...
committed against one of his favorite buddies or companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. So the leaker may never be found?
I guess we know what the WH's game plan is, don't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. What? Elliot Abrams or Karl Rove liars?
Abrams ran an illegal, off-the-books war for the Reagan administration, then lied repeatedly to congress about it.

Rove...where do we start?...only when his lips are moving.

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
12. We Cannot Trust the Admin. W/ the Security of this Country
If they cannot find the traitor in their midst, they all must be fired. It's that simple.

When your roof leaks and you can't find the hole, you tar the whole thing. If they can't find the traitor, then everyone must go. The security of this country is too important and obviously these people cannot be trusted with top-secret classified information.

The Dems better be prepared for this white wash. The strategy is two-fold. 1. Divert attention by smearing Wilson and hanging Novak out to dry. 2. Make a big show of conducting a phony investigation. This can be counter acted very effectively by the Dems by seizing upon my points in the first two paragraphs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. I'm surprised Reuters published such a slanted headline.
"White House Rules Out Three Aides in Leak on CIA" gives the impression that the White House is the objective arbiter in this matter, and the impression that they are conducting the most important investigation. Of course, that's what they'd like you to believe. But nothing could be further from the truth.

So the fox says he's cleared 3 of his den-mates from eating those chickens. Well, whoop-dee-doo!

I'm really surprised that Reuters, which is usually pretty objective, chose that headline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoneStarLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. The Headline Says It All
The headline says everything about why we need an independent counsel.

You, THE PERSONS OF SUSPICION, do not tell us, THE PUBLIC, who can and cannot be investigated.

Arrogant assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
17. lol... didn't Eliot Abrams lie under oath to congress?
Ya, I would take his word on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. Larry, Moe, and Curly
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 12:07 PM by BeatleBoot
Which leaves Shemp and Joe remaining...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. No crime, and these three guys are not guilty of it ,either...
Too too funny....this is at least as wonderful as Rose Mary Woods doing public contortions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
21. Oh, Rove and Libby denied it. Case closed then, I guess. That seals it!
FUCK THEM!! GET A FUCKING SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (AND I DON'T MEAN KEN STARR OR HENRY KISSENGER!!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. Why should we expect Dumbya to find the leakers. . .
since he's been a failure at everything else he's tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. Remember up is down with these creeps. If they say someone didn't do
something then rest assured that is exactly who did it. The exact opposite of what they say is most often the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maeve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. Bushwah!
But while he's at it, he can ask Cheney. Not that he'll get a straight answer...these guys are so far from straight, if they swallowed knitting needles, they'd cough up corkscrews.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peterh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
25. And the press just nodded and said okthat works
And defense attorneys across the country will now be able to just have their clients say I didnt do it and request dismissal. What say you asscroft?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ByeDick Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. Once Again, What McClellan Says Is ABSOLUTELY TRUE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. Put them under oath!
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 12:48 PM by skip fox
that's the way it'll begin unravelling.

Logic points to Libby or, yes ByeDick, to CHENEY:


The argument: Robert Novak, troubled as to "why a high-ranking official (Joseph C. Wilson) in
President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this (Niger)assignment" (link #5),
immediately went to who he believed (because of mistaken reports) send Wilson in the first place: The
Vice President's office. Therefore, the most obvious first place for him to receive the first leak was
from someone in that office. Simple as that.

Mistaken reports (June 6-14) that indicate or imply Wilson was sent directly at behest of Vice
President's office: Ray McGovern reflects this common misconception in a July 14 open memorandum
to Bush: "There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of
Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but
to others as well." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4107.ht... . As does Will Pitt when
he writes on July 11: "Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to
investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence."
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030711_pitt_bush_you... . Ian Macpherson writes,
similarly, "Now it appears that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of none other than Vice President
Cheney's department" http://www.netnacs.com/downunder/archive/du-0026.htm . Steve Perry
continues the error even at the end of the month: "It was Wilson who traveled to Africa in 2002 at Dick
Cheney's behest" (PLEASE HELP BY PROVIDING MORE LINKS)
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/stor... .


So . . . Novak would have called Cheney or, more likely, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's
Chief-of-Staff (or, perhaps a staff member directly below Scooter). To find out "why a high-ranking
official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment," Novak would
have gone to the presumptive "assigner."


It's important to realize the purpose of the leak ("his wife at CIA sent him") was to discredit Wilson as
a maverick-with-an-agenda, getting his wife to send him on a mission the results of which would
undercut Bush's designs on Iraq.

Paul Krugman, as he so often does, gets to the marrow: "both the columnist Robert Novak and Time
magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been
chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative."
( http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg... ) The purpose, therefore,
was NOT revenge, NOR punishment, but to undercut Wilson's credibility. (To be fair, Krugman later,
inexplicability concludes: "So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson,
but also to send a message.") IN the July 22 Newsday item (see link in Timeline) Wilson also admits to
befuddlement: "They were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There
are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was
cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

Given the circumstance of the following summer (2003) when everyone was questioning the existence
of WMDs, considering that someone who had investigated one of the claims Bush made in his
State-of-the-Union Speech just undercut him in a July 6 NY Times op-ed piece, Scooter's plant was
artful and effective, despite Novak's dull-witted interpretation (nepotism). It was clever about crushing
anyone (Libby is more circumspect and pragmatic than Rove). The purpose was not primarily to inflict
revenge upon Wilson, nor was it necessarily a warning to others who might take similar public stands,
but to undercut an opponent who had momentarily risen in their midst. Bloodlessly, swiftly.

I know that if the purpose of the leak was revenge or a warning to others, the political damage to the
administration would be worse. Since no one is likely to go to jail since bar for conviction under the
operant law is rather high, all we can hope for is political damage. But mistaking the motive may well
lead us in the wrong direction and allow the entire story to gradually dissipate in the short-shelf life of
public attention. As it is, the administration will have to account for a coordinated attempt (2 leakers)
to discredit a man who has ably served five administrations and was even labeled "courageous" by
George Walker Bush. Perhaps those charged will tell investigators who else was in on the meetings
where the strategy to discredit Wilson was hatched. (It was certainly coordinated and continuous, as
attested to by the July 17 and 22 similar stories in Time and Newsweeksee timeline, below) Perhaps
not.




TIMELINE:

ca. 2001

Wilson: "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this
subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium
business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked,
'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that
time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to
me and said, 'yes, we want you to go'" (qtd. in link #2).

2002

February: Joseph C. Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate rumors of sales of yellow-cake uranium to
Iraq. His trip lasts eight days: "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current
government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium
business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken place" (from NY Times, 6 July 2003, qtd. in http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm ).


2003

January 28: George W. Bush's State of the Union Address.

June 12: Walter Pincus reports in the _The Washington Post_ that an unnamed retired diplomat had
given the CIA a negative report concerning uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

July 6: Joseph Wilson publishes his Op-Ed in _The New York Times_ and is quoted by _The Washington
Post_. Both items criticize the administration for allowing Bush to make the Niger-uranium claim in the
State of the Union Address. (Link #4 for the Op-Ed.)

July 13: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ in which Valerie Plame is
identified as a CIA agent. Novak writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame,
is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his
wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him" (qtd. in link #3).

July 17: Time magazine publishes the same basic story, also attributing it to "government officials."

July 22, Newsday also confirms "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass
destruction issues in an undercover capacity." Link:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-uscia07...

Sept. 14: Dick Cheney on Meet the Press denies knowing Wilson and seemingly goes out of his way to
say "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea wh hired him and it never
came..." Russert interposes: "The CIA did." And Cheney responds, "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
(Link #3) (Why is Cheney going out of his way to volunteer this information? Wilson seems similarly
perplexed; in an interview with Ann Goodman, also in link #3, after Goodman says "He (Cheney) also
said that he didn't know who had sent you, raising questions about the whole legitimacy of your
mission to Niger," Wilson says, "I heard that. I don't know what the Vice President was trying to get at
in that. )

Oct. 1: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ recounting the entire story
from his vantage. (Link #5)



* * * * * * Laws * * * * *

1917: Espionage Act (thrice amended since).

1982: The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act

Both are discussed by John Dean at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html




* * * * * * Links * * * * *


Link #1: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #2: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3...
Link #3: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #4: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
or http://truthout.org/docs_03/100203B.shtml
Link #5: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.ht...



* * * * * Bibliographies * * * * *

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm (a bibliog. of articles criticizing the admin.)
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 Nov 21st 2014, 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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