• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Treason? Did Bush & Co expose undercover CIA operative as revenge on Wilson?

Bowfinger

Bowfinger

Lifer
Here's another potentially explosive story. We'll have to see how it plays out.
Fron The Nation, A White House Smear
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

In a recent column on Nigergate, Novak examined the role of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV in the affair. Two weeks ago, Wilson went public, writing in The New York Times and telling The Washington Post about the trip he took to Niger in February 2002--at the request of the CIA--to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Niger. Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

[ ... ]

Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.

Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."

So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.

[ ... ]

"Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

[ ... ]
Click to expand...
Would Bush-lite and his minions really stoop this low? Would they really jeopardize national security for revenge? The next election may set a new standard for nastiness.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here's another potentially explosive story. We'll have to see how it plays out.
Fron The Nation, A White House Smear
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

In a recent column on Nigergate, Novak examined the role of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV in the affair. Two weeks ago, Wilson went public, writing in The New York Times and telling The Washington Post about the trip he took to Niger in February 2002--at the request of the CIA--to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Niger. Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

[ ... ]

Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.

Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."

So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.

[ ... ]

"Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

[ ... ]
Click to expand...
Would Bush-lite and his minions really stoop this low? Would they really jeopardize national security for revenge? The next election may set a new standard for nastiness.
Click to expand...



Well we don't know that she is an undercover operate as you so eloquently put it. I would seriously doubt that they would compromise a field operative.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Well we don't know that she is an undercover operate as you so eloquently put it. I would seriously doubt that they would compromise a field operative.
Click to expand...
Also from the article, "If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer."

I agree, that's the crux of the story. If it was publicly known she worked for the CIA, then this is, at worst, a cheap attempt to undermine Wilson. If she truly had a cover as "an energy analyst for a private firm" as this article states, then this is treason in my opinion.

 
The Bush history is revenge and vengance, minor disloyalties have always been met with slash and burn retrobution.
All you need do is look at all he has done, he leaves a path like a tornado, past business ventures, campaign tactics,
Pro-War Texas BarBQue Posse, the economy stupid,

I listened to him blither through the news conference with Tony Blair, he could hardly talk.
er - ahm - dah - well - eh - um gorp, illeterate mumblings from a man who knew too little,
while at the same time knowing too much but not knowing how to articulate around the issue.
He sounded like an idiot, he said nothing of substance and it is clear that he is not in control.

We are looking at a showpiece character that some comittee tells what to say and sits back
and hopes that he will remember enough to get by, or get away with it.
I pity our future for what this man has brought to it. It will continue to deteriorate.
mark this time in history for all to remember - the worst Administration in our history.
And they're not done yet, and they don't think that anyone can or will stop them.
 
This was covered on the NBC national news tonight. They repeated the claim that Wilson's wife was an undercover operative. If true, someone should go to prison.

Somewhat unrelated, but NBC also reported that Wilson was the third person asked to review the Iraq-Niger link. The first was our ambassador to Niger. She was followed by a military office, a major or colonel I believe. All three reported that there was no evidence Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Note that this was almost a year before the SOTU.

We'll see if the Whitehouse starts smearing these two as well.
 
Oddly enough none of the Bush fanboys are stepping up to his defence on this one.

Whatsamatta? You Bushies can't stomach your fearless leader turning over his own operatives? Doesn't sound like the patriot you neocons have been painting him out to be.

Just another Bush out for his own self interests at everyone else's expense.

Leader of the free world - LMFAO.
 
it just says someone in the white house leaked the info. if so, then bush shouldn't be held responsible. how can he be responsible for every little thing his staff does? is that the job of the president of the united states, to be responsible for anything? why not just blame everything on george tenet, or the cia, or the british intelligence? the president shouldn't have to live up to these kinds of responsibilities, even if he were man enough to. 😉
 
Oddly enough none of the Bush fanboys are stepping up to his defence on this one.
Click to expand...

Has it been established that Mrs. Wilson was an undercover field operative yet? No? Well, that's what I'm waiting for.........
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Oddly enough none of the Bush fanboys are stepping up to his defence on this one.
Click to expand...

Has it been established that Mrs. Wilson was an undercover field operative yet? No? Well, that's what I'm waiting for.........
Click to expand...

Her husband was on NBC's Today Show this morning. He confirmed the story and the fact that his wife has been outed by the Bush administration.

Still going to defend these traitors? Where are all your usual accomplises, Corn?
 
I am going to ask again if Mrs. Wilson was (until she was supposedly "outed") an active undercover field operative for the CIA.

If she was, than without a doubt I would expect Novak to name these "senior Adminstration officials" so they may face their due punishment. It is his duty to his country to do so.
 
That's what I like about Corn. Real principle. If proved, Corn, what do you think the chances are that someone will be held accountable?
 
If proved.....
Click to expand...

If proven, I would hope that the responsible parties would be held accountable. The proof is in the pudding and I'm sure we'll find out at some point.

I'll leave the jumping to conclusions to Bush hating tin foil hat crowd.....
 
I asked you what you thought the chances were if proved, not about the best wrap for BBQing corn or your personal wishes..
 
I asked you what you thought the chances were if proved, not about the best wrap for BBQing corn or your personal wishes..
Click to expand...

Since your hypothetical question happened to be devoid of any hypothetical details, I answered as appropriately as I could: I'll leave the jumping to conclusions to the Bush hating tin foil hat wearing crowd.
 
All the jumping to conclusions can be attributed to the oiling up their privates to the sounds of Limbaugh crowd.
 
<< If proved, Corn, what do you think the chances are that someone will be held accountable?>>

That's devoid of details? What details do you want?
 
Originally posted by: Corn
If proved.....
Click to expand...

If proven, I would hope that the responsible parties would be held accountable. The proof is in the pudding and I'm sure we'll find out at some point.

I'll leave the jumping to conclusions to Bush hating tin foil hat crowd.....
Click to expand...

Apparantly, this forum is a court of law. We can't possibly form an opinion on something without the requisite proof. Wow, my mistake
rolleye.gif
 
What details do you want?
Click to expand...

Looks like Captain Obvious needs to pay Gaard a little visit. Probably the most interesting of details would be who would ultimately be the responsible party for divulging this information, what the circumstances were, and it's ultimate intent for being divulged.

 
We can't possibly form an opinion on something without the requisite proof.
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is that you are fine with having an opinion on something even though you have no facts to actually back that opinion up. Check.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
We can't possibly form an opinion on something without the requisite proof.
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is that you are fine with having an opinion on something even though you have no facts to actually back that opinion up. Check.
Click to expand...

Well, we've got people well-connected to the current administration talking. But hell, I guess that doesn't matter, does it? Geeze, people can say anything, right?

 
....people can say anything, right?
Click to expand...

Yep, and you're willing to believe anything someone may say if it fits your preconceived notions. I reserve my judgement for substance, not the word of unnamed "senior" officials who don't have the balls to come forward and stake their reputation and names on thier claims.

But you'll believe anything so long as its what you want to hear. Believe me when I say, I completely understand that, but you'll have to excuse me for not taking your opinions seriously......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top