http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4885100.stm

Didn't he say that he would accept the resignation of anyone found leaking classified information from the administration? I think he did indeed.

This horrifies me. It makes Watergate seem trivial in comparison. Our country is in the hands of an insane individual.

U.S. Ambassador Ambassador Joseph Wilson publically questioned Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program, a claim that was used by Bush as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs. Bush was infuriated, so to punish Wilson, Bush authorized the leak that exposed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a covert CIA operative. The outing ruined her career. Initially, Bush/Cheney denied all knowledge of the leak. Now with irrefutable proof that the leak was indeed authorized by the White House, they have to act like the leak was justified and that it did no harm. According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security," McClellan said.

Declassified? Think again. This was declassified by 10 days AFTER the fact. The information was released on July 8, 2003, at which point it was still classified. It was declassified on July 18, obviously a retro-active (and lame) attempt to justify authorizing the leak.

And how is outing the identity of a U.S. CIA operative EVER in the public's interest? This potentially could have put the lives of others in grave danger. Plame's cover was that she worked for a bogus company. Anyone else who might have allegedly worked there is undoubtedly involved with the CIA. Now their identities can easily be figured out.

Not that Bush had any right to punish Wilson, whose only crime was that he told the truth--but why Bush took the route he did is unconscionable. Weren't there other ways to express displeasure with Wilson? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. (The face, btw, is our country.) This president needs to be impeached--the sooner the better.

Patrick Fitzgerald is my hero. He got Scooter Libby for perjury, because there was no way to easily prove that Libby knew it was wrong to out a CIA agent. This sounds absurd, because who doesn't know? But you have prove malicious intent, which would have been difficult to do. Instead, Fitzgerald nailed Scooter on his provable lies before a grand jury regarding how the chain of the leak played out before its ultimate release to the public. Scooter repeatedly claimed that he was somewhere in the middle of the chain, when in fact he was virtually at the top.

That was me! So I'm re-copying it under my name.


This horrifies me. It makes Watergate seem trivial in comparison. Our country is in the hands of an insane individual.

U.S. Ambassador Ambassador Joseph Wilson publically questioned Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program, a claim that was used by Bush as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs. Bush was infuriated, so to punish Wilson, Bush authorized the leak that exposed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a covert CIA operative. The outing ruined her career. Initially, Bush/Cheney denied all knowledge of the leak. Now with irrefutable proof that the leak was indeed authorized by the White House, they have to act like the leak was justified and that it did no harm. According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security," McClellan said.

Declassified? Think again. This was declassified by 10 days AFTER the fact. The information was released on July 8, 2003, at which point it was still classified. It was declassified on July 18, obviously a retro-active (and lame) attempt to justify authorizing the leak.

And how is outing the identity of a U.S. CIA operative EVER in the public's interest? This potentially could have put the lives of others in grave danger. Plame's cover was that she worked for a bogus company. Anyone else who might have allegedly worked there is undoubtedly involved with the CIA. Now their identities can easily be figured out.

Not that Bush had any right to punish Wilson, whose only crime was that he told the truth--but why Bush took the route he did is unconscionable. Weren't there other ways to express displeasure with Wilson? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. (The face, btw, is our country.) This president needs to be impeached--the sooner the better.

Patrick Fitzgerald is my hero. He got Scooter Libby for perjury, because there was no way to easily prove that Libby knew it was wrong to out a CIA agent. This sounds absurd, because who doesn't know? But you have prove malicious intent, which would have been difficult to do. Instead, Fitzgerald nailed Scooter on his provable lies before a grand jury regarding how the chain of the leak played out before its ultimate release to the public. Scooter repeatedly claimed that he was somewhere in the middle of the chain, when in fact he was virtually at the top.

How can we be sure Scooter, charged with perjury and making false statements, is telling the truth in this case? How has the word of an accused liar suddenly become 'irrefutable proof'?

Assuming the leak was authorized, is it possible that the intent behind it was not to punish Wilson and Plame but was instead to discredit Wilson's opinion as biased? Isn't the whole issue here about the intent variable? If it was a reprisal act, Bush looks like a mob boss ordering a hit. That's a fairly bad intention. If it was an attempt to discredit Wilson's opinion about Iraq obtaining yellowcake, the intent would have been a matter of protecting the credibility of Bush's justification for war. If Bush really believed Iraq was attempting to obtain yellowcake, and that this was an important justification of war, Wilson's opinion might have been seen as a problem serious enough to deal with via 'nonstandard' channels. Thus, the leak could have been justified as necessary counter-propaganda.

How does outing a CIA operative who had done nothing wrong discredit anything the agent's spouse might have said? It doesn't. And it didn't. If Bush wanted to discredit Wilson, then presenting solid evidence to prove Wilson wrong would have done the trick. Of course, Bush couldn't do that because Wilson had told the truth. Note that no WMDs were ever found.

Bush, in fact, looks very much like a mob boss ordering a hit. This was obviously not done in the interest of the American people, but as a bullying tactic that backfired. Bush would be in a much better position right now if he had taken a different approach--or done nothing. It's frightening that he didn't realize how reckless he was being. It's frightening that he even thought of it or agreed to it. And what kind of a precedent has been set? Is randomly blowing the cover of a CIA agent an appropriate way to react to public criticism?

As for the irrefutable proof--I think the recent attempts of explanation and justification--after complete denial at the outset--speaks volumes.

Sigh. That was me again.

sigh...


Let's assume that Wilson and Plame had a political agenda concerning the justification for war, based on 'feelings'. When Cheney asked the CIA to check the Niger yellowcake connection to Iraq, Plame could have taken advantage of the situation by implanting an investigator biased in her favor (her husband). In such a case, she would have been taking advantage of the system in order to discredit Bush (a political ploy). It may not be true, but it is possible. Even given this worst-case scenario, it is still not acceptable that Bush deal with Wilson and Plame in the way he did. If he suspected fishy business, he should have taken the high road and just come out directly with his complaint. Of course, this could have been painted as rather nasty political underhandedness by his opponents regardless of its validity. Politics is propaganda because voters are tools.


Yes, it would have. However, what if Wilson were guilty of politics and yet there was no 'solid' evidence of this? It is possible.


This specific case wasn't about Iraq having WMD's in their posession, but rather about Iraq attempting to acquire extremely dangerous fissionable material. There is no doubt that Hussein maintained aspirations for future weapons programs, including nukes. He may have been holding off for awhile, but it stands to reason that he could have been making connections for future acquisition of the appropriate infrastructure and materials. Don't forget, Bush was not the only one claiming Iraq to have an active WMD program. This was a widespread belief of this in other nations. The difference was that these nations weren't interested in fighting about it or, in many cases, that they had an interest (financial or otherwise) in maintaining Saddam as head of state.


or, to others with less hysteria issues, like an inept and partisan politician.


I don't see this as obvious. I see it as one possible explanation among many. Perhaps it is only obvious (in either sense) to those who are partisan.


While I agree that this kind of behavior is highly unacceptable, I do not agree that it is a case of 'random' blowing of cover. This case is quite specific, and it deals quite specifically with the opinion of Plame's husband Wilson who was making claims contradictory to Bush. Bush saw a way to discredit Wilson's opinion via 'suggesting' a conflict of interest (Plame putting her own husband up for the job).


It is strong evidence for sure, but it is not 'irrefutable' as you stated. Your strong desire for it to be true is the only thing that is 'irrefutable' to me. Emotionalism of the electorate is one of the pillars on which political corruption rests (the other one being complacency). Irrational emotive reactivity of the voter is the fodder that allows dishonest politicians to gain power, who subsequently create new reasons for further 'emotional' voting. It's a vicious cycle. I don't care if you are on the hippy horny peace-loving side or the bible-thumping capitalist side, you have to maintain a sense of fairness regardless of your emotional state or you will only be a tool who serves to perpetuate the incompetence.

Pretty solid writing, Dan.

So what are all you Americans out there going to do about this?

In February 2002, Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA, to determine the validity of intelligence reports received by the Bush Administration from Italian government sources that in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase large quantities of "yellowcake" uranium compound, for the purpose of building nuclear bombs. After dozens of interviews with current and former Niger government officials and businessmen involved in the country's tightly-regulated uranium industry, Wilson determined that the story was false. In September, 2002, Wilson's findings were corroborated by a marine general sent by the Pentagon on a parallel mission.

After these findings, on Dec. 19, 2002, the U.S. State Department issued a "fact" sheet asserting that Saddam had covered up efforts to obtain 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger. Then in his State of the Union address on Januaray 28, 2003, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Okay, let's assume Bush/Cheney feared that Wilson/Plame had a political agenda and that Wilson might have been biased when he reported that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium. The rational way to handle this would simply have been to fire one or both of them, presumably after determining that Iraq had in fact, actively sought uranium from Niger. This dismissal could have been done without blowing Plame's cover. But this isn't what happened. It couldn't happen because Wilson had merely reported the truth. Outing Plame wouldn't necessarily remove the credibility or sting of her husband's report, and I should hope Bush realized this. The one thing the outing did for sure was to hurt Wilson and his family. The fact that it also could have hurt national security was disregarded. The fact that Bush could get himself into a terrible predicament if anyone ever discovered what he did was disregarded. This sure doesn't look like a rational or carefully thought-out political move, but rather the knee-jerk reaction of an angry man bent on punishing his antagonist.

You said it.

Sure, but could Bush have made much of a case via such a "high road" if no fishy business had transpired?

Even if the Wilsons were guilty of politics, in your words, "...it is still not acceptable that Bush deal with Wilson and Plame in the way he did."

I was using Iraq's lack of WMDs as supporting evidence that Wilson's report is likely true. After all, he was investigating whether Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium back in the 1990s. If Iraq had been actively seeking yellowcake that many years ago, then I suspect that an active Iraqi WMD program would have been well under way and uncovered when we invaded.

Agreed.

When I said random--I was trying to convey that Plame was targeted and made to suffer--not because she did anything wrong, but merely as a pawn to achieve Bush's political ends. That being said, I sure don't see this as politics as usual. It's not like Bush merely fired somebody who spoke out against him. While doing such a thing would be unethical as well, outing an intelligence agent working for one's own country seems almost inherently reprehensible. We're talking about doing something that is arbitrary and unnecessary that could potentially undermine our national security. You just don't do this! Even if nothing bad directly came of this particular incident (and we may never really know), I think you might agree that resorting to this sort of "politics" is playing with fire.

Was Plame, a Republican, an outspoken opponent against Bush's policies regarding Iraq at that time? If so, then maybe a case could be made that Bush was suggesting a conflict of interest as a reason to blow her cover. Even so, well, you know my feelings.

Fair enough, but I sure haven't heard any good explanations yet from the Bush camp. I mean, saying this was done in the public's interest with no explanation as to HOW the public has benefited is as good as no explanation at all.

Whether or not I'm an emotional, hysterical, hippy, horny tool is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the facts. Bush made false claims that Iraq had actively sought uranium from Africa for the purpose of making nuclear weapons, and then used this fabrication as one of the principle justifications for invading Iraq. He subsequently outed a CIA operative after her husband exposed the lie. And now he's trying to backpedal. I don't see these things as the work of a noble and honorable person worthy of being our president.

Move to your country?

Here's a related quote (from Elizabeth de la Vega on Common Dreams.com) -Shawn

"We now have sufficient information to frame the Final Jeopardy! question. This is it:

Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected -- as well as false and misleading -- portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a "former Hill staffer" to a single reporter, intending that reporter to publish such false and misleading information in a prominent national newspaper?

The answer is obvious: No. Such a misuse of authority is the very essence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States. It is also precisely the abuse of executive power that led to the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. "

--Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation magazine, the L.A. Times, Salon, and Mother Jones. She writes regularly for TomDispatch. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net

Thanks, Shawn. I totally agree with de la Vega that the leak was an egregious abuse of executive power.

Dan, I've been thinking about this. I can see how maybe Bush and his people could have felt uncomfortable sitting around openly chatting about outing Plame strictly to punish Wilson. So maybe instead they discussed blowing Plame's cover as an effort to conjure up an impression of possible nepotism. Even so, I can't imagine that the punishment factor wasn't foremost on their minds. I mean, it certainly appears that they didn't think the whole thing through--at least, I hope not. Had they been thinking rationally, I'm sure there were many other ways to do damage control without risking a possible breach in national security. This was a rash and idiotic move, exactly the sort of reactive thing you'd expect from someone trying to get even. Note that Bush had just put his prestige behind the uranium story in his State of the Union address. The fact that Wilson then announced (basically) that Bush had knowingly lied likely infuriated Bush. And so he reacted, using his executive power to retaliate--just because he could.

Either way, Bush blew it. He comes off looking like a thug if his intent was to punish Wilson. Exposing Plame solely to stir up thoughts of collusion isn't much better, because there was no collusion. Wilson had told the truth.

Hes such a joke his new scam is "i didnt leak any classified information, i declassified it" "so theres nothing illegal about that" mmahhahahhahhahah

Next he'll be saying, "...and even if it IS illegal, I can't be held accountable for blowing the cover of a fictitious person. It's not my problem that people jumped to the conclusion that Valerie Flame is Joe Wilson's wife."

From this I infer that Dan doesn't vote, but is merely a bemused bystander to history.