TreasonGate: First leaker's identity? Right under our noses.

[skip fox]

(Essay in progress, adding links at end &c. But it's all here in the 1st 3 short paragraphs.)


Reports originally said (erroneously, as it turned out) that Wilson was sent by VP. Who would Novak have called first?

Immediately after his July 6 op-ed in the _New York Times_, Joseph C. Wilson was thought to have been sent to Niger in February of 2002 at the behest of the Vice President (later vigorously denied by Dick Cheney September 14 th on Meet the Press, see link #1, below). Robert Novak, _Chicago Sun Times_ columnist and televison commentator, by his own admission "was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment" (link #5). Those are the facts. From those facts, can we deduce who Novak would have called first? The Vice-President's office, of course.

So Novak would have called Cheney or, more likely, Scooter Libbly, Cheney's Chief-of-Staff (or, perhaps a staff member directly below Scooter.)

How would the conversation have gone (using Scooter as the contact)? They would talked about Wilson's editorial, why the State-of-the-Union Speech referred to Nigerian yellow-cake uranium and why Powell didn't mention it at the UN, and how Cheney had never Wilson on any mission. Then Scooter explains, telling Novak that Cheney, the previous summer had asked the CIA to look into the reports of uranium sales to Iraq from Niger and that it was the CIA at the VP's behest who had sent Wilson. Then Scooter lets it drop, "Well, did you know Wilson's wife works for the Company? Let's see . . . yeah, right Valerie Plame. Word is that she was the one who had him sent to Niger." Novak's ears perk up (all he hears is "nepotism," missing the real insinuation: that Wilson put his wife up to having him sent because he had an anti-War agenda or because he was anti-administration and wanted to put the breaks on the rising crescendo of war rhetoric that fall). Novak checks spelling ("P-L-A-M-E"), thanks Scooter, hangs up. Checks second source, etc.

It's important to realize the purpose 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 bellicose rhetoric or make Bush pull back from his decision to invade Iraq.

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 NY Times op-ed piece, Scooter's plant was artful and effective, despite Novak's dull-witted interpretation (nepotism). It was clever without 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.


Coda: Wistful Thinking

I'm guessing Scooter Libby is spending the day with lawyers and staff, figuring out how to minimize legal and politial damage. Tomorrow he'll resign.

Link #1: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/1555209
Link #2:
Link #3: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/1555209


Link #5: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html







TIMELINE:

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.


2003

January: 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 in

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).

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?)

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

[cosmicdot]

1. add "sent"

"how Cheney had never (sent) Wilson on any mission"

[skip fox]

3. Hey, cosmicdot, you're out of the lounge!

thanks for coirrection

:toast:

[chiburb]

2. Yep, that all makes sense.

Nice work Skip. Scooter seems to be the whispered name, and it probably WAS there the whole time.

[BurtWorm]

4. Skip, I saw someone else name Scooter Libby in a piece

Actually, just type Scooter Libby Wilson Plame in Google and you'll see that all sorts of people are seeing what you saw. Here's an interesting link from a winger who says "They see darkness where I see light."

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/09/valerie_plame_w_2.html

[skip fox]

5. Thanks, BurtWorm. Yes, I'm seeing Scooter's

name attached to this all over as well.

The reason I wrote this piece is because I had an overlooked angle, yielding a deduction that points clearly in Libby's direction.

[BurtWorm]

7. Yes. Your deduction is irresistable. I'm convinced.

Do you think Cheney is in any danger over this? Or does Libby give him plausible--excuse me-- :puke: --deniability?

[TacticalPeek]

6. Cumulatively:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=457715

:)

[skip fox]

8. Yes, I looked at the additions this afternoon. Thanks

I'm revising and adding links. Cheney's denials of 14 Sept. are particulary interesting. As though he's TRYING to get it on the record that his office knows nothing about it. Didn't even know his wife was at CIA, etc. "Nobody in here but us chickens," &c.


Thinking More on Purpose; or, All we can hope for is political damage

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 three administration and was, even, labeled a hero 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. Perhaps not.

[TacticalPeek]

9. Agreed that sometimes they get some of the toothpaste

back in the tube.

But, I have heard conflicting opinions on the law(s); some have said much intentionality must be shown, others specifically none (Ben Veniste, I think?). Etc.

And violations of other laws may even come into play. If they 'follow it where it leads', hence the utility of independent investigation.

There's even private action.

Very interesting, will check back later.

:)

[skip fox]

10. Good to hear that it will not be THAT difficult

to prosecute. I had only heard one side: that prosecution has to prove the leaker had certain knowledge that the agent was under active (or somesuch term) cover, that the agent had to be out of the states on CIA business under this cover within the past five years (and with 3-year-old twins, that narrows the window), etc.

I was hoping for the least. But, hell, we'll always take more, right?

[skip fox]

11. I hadn't realized it, but the leakers kept leaking!!!

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."

[alcuno]

13. Weren't the names of the two Newsday reporters listed in the

memo to WH staff about the documents, etc., that they are supposed to turn over? Novak's name was there as well.

[skip fox]

14. What? ????? Sounds tantalizing, but I don't understand.

Do you have more? Or a link?

:toast:

[TacticalPeek]

15. Free press? Or freely impressed.

"The White House Counsel's office earlier this week ordered White House staff to preserve all information -- including written records, electronic records, calendar entries, telephone call records -- that relate to any contacts with Novak, Newsday reporters Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps or anyone acting on their behalf.

The same held true for anything relating to Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife or her relationship with the CIA.

"You are also directed to complete and return the attached certification by Oct. 7, 2003," the memo said.

The certification and/or documents must be turned hand-delivered to an office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. In signing the certification, the person acknowledges it is "for purposes of a federal criminal investigation" and that intentional false statements could result in criminal penalties.

The Justice Department has also requested employees at the State Department and Defense Department to preserve any relevant documents, but it was not immediately clear if they had also received notices to turn in any information."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031003-020826-9368r

Gonzales notice memo, or I should say, one of them. The timing of his notice memo(s) and the DOJ's notice(s) to him are, um, intriquing. Not to mention the timing of the CIA's request to DOJ for investigation and the DOJ's subsequent behavior and requests of CIA, and later initiation of the investigation. Practically a basis right there for an independent investigation.

[skip fox]

12. Updated and expanded, article parked in Editorials.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=14625

And I hope to continue to expand.