Treasongate: Treachery by the Washington Post

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:59 pm

Here is the Washington Post article announcing the DoJ investigation and giving some background. Walter Pincus and Mike Allen believe the name of Brewster-Jennings was "public" at the time. So why didn't Mr Allen mention it? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media By Mike Allen and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01 At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday. The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim. The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law. The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials. Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq. "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak. Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife." A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game." The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls. It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility." Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest to him "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he knows of no leaks about Wilson's wife. "That is not the way this White House operates, and no one would be authorized to do such a thing," McClellan said. "I don't have any information beyond an anonymous source in a media report to suggest there is anything to this. If someone has information of this nature, then he or she should report it to the Department of Justice." McClellan, who Rove had speak for him, said of Wilson's comments: "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." McClellan was asked about Wilson's charge at a White House briefing Sept. 16 and said the accusation is "totally ridiculous." Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted. An intelligence official said Tenet "doesn't like leaks." The CIA request could reopen the rift between the White House and the intelligence community that emerged this summer when Bush and his senior aides blamed Tenet for the inclusion of the now-discredited uranium claim -- the so-called "16 words" -- in the State of the Union address in January. Tenet issued a statement taking responsibility for the CIA's approval of the address before it was delivered, but made clear the CIA had earlier warned the White House not to use the allegations about uranium ore. After an ensuing rush of leaks over White House handling of intelligence, Bush's aides said they believed in retrospect it had been a political mistake to blame Tenet. The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information. Members of the administration, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have been harshly critical of unauthorized leakers, and White House spokesmen are often dismissive of questions about news reports based on unnamed sources. The FBI is investigating senators for possibly leaking intercept information about Osama bin Laden. The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover. Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it." After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said. The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name. Wilson was acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. He was in the diplomatic service from 1976 until 1998, and was the Clinton administration's senior director of African affairs on the National Security Council. He is now an international business consultant. Wilson said the mission to Niger was unpaid except for expenses. Wilson said he believes an inquiry from Cheney's office launched his eight-day mission to Niger in February 2002 to check the uranium claim, which turned out to be based at least partly on forged documents. "The way it was briefed to me was that the office of the vice president had expressed an interest in a report covering uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger," Wilson said in a telephone interview yesterday. He said that if Novak's account is accurate, the leak was part of "a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward." Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson's report about Niger. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to investigate the disclosure since July, said yesterday that it "not only put an agent's life in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts." Staff writer Richard Leiby contributed to this report.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27¬Found=true">www.washingtonpost.com/ac...Found=true</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:12 pm

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover. Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it." Why hasn't Novak been indicted?

by **OnoI812** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:52 pm

Ono, was it Wilson who made those claims or was it Skolnick? is was Al Martin , but his article was dealing with the subject of Wilson's August 29 2003 speech in a symposium in Washington. But with this sept28 Priest/Allen piece....Wilson could have raised the issue on Aug 21 in Seattle and Martin may be referring to that...I can't check because I don't have access to Martin's archives. Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 10/29/05 9:28 pm

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:58 pm

The "damage assessment" is becoming a hot topic, and it sounds as though we may have another mini-scandal on our hands. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>either woodward's lying, or there's a new leak scandal ... or both. I've confirmed with national security expert Larry Johnson that Woodward couldn't possibly have the security clearance needed to read a CIA damage assessment on the Plame case, yet he claimed to know its contents on CNN the other night. Furthermore, Woodward asserted that the outing of Plame caused no serious damage, a statement Johnson and others in a position to know disagree with strongly. Either Woodward's part of a major security breach - one that rivals Plamegate itself - or he's lying. Either way, he owes the nation an explanation. Let's be clear: Had Woodward said "Sources tell me that ...," he would be guilty of simply passing on a lie, rather than lying. That's why reporters often use these qualifying sentences, even when they're carrying water for their government cronies. But let's look at what Woodward actually said: They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment. There's no other way to read it: He's saying he knows the contents of the report, without any doubt, ambiguity, or possibility that his source is 'spinning' its contents. There is only one way that statement could be true, and that's if he'd read the report himself. But uh-oh, there are some problems with that ... As Larry Johnson told me in an email: "He does not have clearances and no one in their right mind at CIA is going to "show" him the damage assessment." And Atrios links to a Washington Post article this morning which says, "The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." So there are only a limited number of possible explanations for Woodward's behavior: A) Woodward's lying: There has been no damage assessment, but he's claiming that there has been - and that he knows its contents. B) Somebody Lied to Woodward, And He's Repeating It As Fact: One of Woodward's crony/sources lied and said the damage report existed, and that these are its conclusions. Even in this scenario, Woodward's still lying - at least by implication. He doesn't say "I've been told that ..." or "My sources say ..." He states as fact that the damage assessment exists and says there has been "minimal damage." Repeating a lie - without any qualifiers - is telling a lie. C) The Report's Been Written, Woodward's Read It, and That's What It Says: This is the only scenario under which Woodward is not a liar. That's the good news for him. The bad news? He is now implicated in a major security scandal, one's that as big as (or bigger than) the original Plamegate scandal. He's been given access to a highly classified document for political purposes. That's conceivably ... dare I say it? ... bigger than Watergate. My money's on A or B. Of course, it's possible that the truth is a combination of two or more scenarios - for example, that the report's been written but that Woodward's still lying about its contents. Or that somebody lied to Woodward but he repeated it knowing it was a lie. Or that somebody in the CIA - maybe even Republican hack Porter Goss, who Bush made CIA Director, or one of his lackeys - decided to make these off-the-cuff statements to some reporters and describe them as an informal "damage assessment." But that's just nuance. I remain convinced that there is no such report - yet - and that the Plame outing caused substantial harm. As Larry says, "there was damage done but this will never be proved in public because it would expose things that just don't need to be put out there." If true, and I believe that it is - that means that Woodward is - there's no nice way to put this - a liar. I realize that's an incendiary thing to say, and I'll be happy to retract it if clarification is provided. The important thing is that Woodward must be held accountable, and his fellow journalists should insist that he provide a full explanation of this extraordinary statement. Personally ... if journalists wore uniforms, I'd want to see Woodward stripped of his epaulets while a drum-and-bugle corps played mournfully in the background. But that's just me. What matters is our nation and its security. Woodward owes his country some answers, and fast.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2005/10/either_woodward.html">nightlight.typepad.com/ni...dward.html</a> Can anybody see the parallels with the statement that started all this....."The British Government has learned..." Artful lying. It's a required qualification.

by **rapt** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:18 pm

O yes anti and it goes back much beyond that. Surely you remember that our man Woodward was the one who fuked Dick Nixon. He's still at work for the reptiles. Just in the last couple of years he has suddenly become more important - one sees him more often on Larry King now. His word is respected because of the book and movie his name was attached to. And every word he utters is a lie to further the reptiles' agenda whatever that is. Thanks for catching him hi and dri. Plz make sure this latest fukup doesn't get ignored under the rug as is usual. The muttafukka needs real bad to be drawn & quartered, or at least indicted by da Fitz. I have come to see Woodward's face as one of those which peels back after dark to reveal scales. Seriously.

by **rapt** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:24 pm

Little add-on: After seeing the movie (and the book?) starring Woodward & Bernstien and then knowing what the Woodster turned out to be in his middle & later years, one KNOWS that the reptiles have us over a log; those lizards are chuckling in their beer at how gullible the human race has become.

by **AnnaLivia** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:49 pm

"...links to a Washington Post article this morning which says, "The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." " how on earth could they not conduct a damage assessment in a case like this? why would that wait until legal proceedings have finished?

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:29 pm

woodwars has been rumoured as a USN intell asset and the whole alien thing is not at USAF but USN. wood pecker the wife beater got the info from ghwbush of USN/CIA S.& B. fame { ya know him as the guy who ditched his plane in WW II killing his 2 crew men} Ultra TS people Its all in Brantons books :'Universal seduction"

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:53 pm

wood pecker the wife beater???????

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.<hr></blockquote> Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media By Mike Allen and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01 <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday. The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign. After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons. The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.<hr></blockquote> Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:14 am

Woodward Lying-Ass Operative interview: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/woodward.html">www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...dward.html</a>

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:17 am

its an ole scandal he beat his wife not that I would EVER indulge in gossip WHo needs gossip with this long evrlasting cast of villains? How about his book Greedspan as the Maistro?? OH PLEASE

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:18 pm

How heartwarming to enjoy some corroberation from the horse's mouth... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who disclosed Plame's CIA job on July 14, 2003, said in a brief interview that he had hoped to write about his role yesterday but could not because Fitzgerald "left something on the table. I hope they take that off the table and I'll do it." He was referring to the indictment's failure to identify "Official A," one of Novak's two sources on the Plame story who told Libby of his conversation with Novak on July 10 or 11. In the meantime, Novak said, he cannot comment, on the advice of his attorneys. The indictment does not mention whether Novak testified before the grand jury.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/28/novak-still-wont-talk_n_9785.html">www.huffingtonpost.com/20..._9785.html</a> Sothat piece of information, that identity shared by Novak and Libby, is the identity of "Official A".

by **Watchful Citizen** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:36 pm

Old news: In 1971 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were horrified that Nixon was using backchannels to make diplomatic overtures to China and Moscow. So they spied on him to see if 'the Kennedy problem' was back, president's acting as if they could run things instead of the Secret Team. <a href="http://prorev.com/hoff.htm">prorev.com/hoff.htm</a> So the JCS, who were being briefed by Naval Intelligence officer Bob Woodward (communications specialist on 'the floating Pentagon') at the White House regularly were delighted when clever Bob got a job as a 'cub reporter' at the Washington Post covering the pumped-up-to-biggest story of the decade, Watergate. Numerous FBI officials fed Woodward dirt to take down Nixon with and CIA team members hoped the stink of their Vietnam War, and Kent State would go with him and the peace movement would go back to invisible in the eyes of competing governments. "Uncle Sam can control his kids. Now about your economy..." . It worked. The left went to sleep with the boogey-man and 'his' war out of the headlines and video choices opening up to generate a whirlwhind of psy-op messages meant to erase the 1960s. New news: Interesting that when Mark Felt was being IDed as Deep Throat earlier this year, Woodward wrote his obligatory now-I-can-elaborate article which I noticed touched on many of the points in the below 1996 article's side-bar story about problems with the mechanics of how Woodward supposedly arranged meetings with Deep Throat. It is as if Woodward was aware of this article and was writing directly to it in an age when many know he is a US intelligence operative and that the mainstream media Woodward works for is run by the CIA for psychological operations on the collective American mind under the heading 'Stability Operations.' (We are occupied by the most successful class of criminal in human history.) <a href="http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html">www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html</a>

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:06 pm

oil soaked spy ridden american media its all a scam to protect their millionaire salaries and those luv-ins at Marthas Vineyard every summer.. competing govt agencies using the media to dumb down the population with the lifestyles of the rich and infamous while they continue to LOOT nation after nation and disguise it with words like democracy,free trade and global economy.. CONTROL FREAKS!!! And its all comin down to how many lemons will fit in the squeeze machine owned by DA Fitzgerald. Had dinner with a senior citizen last nite at a Fall fund raiser..they said their great grandfather was . .drum roll please named Patrick J. Fitzgerald so I gave a brief speech about the corruption of modern politics which was well received ...and pointed out that 4 asassinated US Presidents had Irish ancesters..

Treasongate: Treachery by the Washington Post

Brewster-Jennings

Re: Brewster-Jennings

Re: Apropos el Presidente

Re: Brewster-Jennings

Woodward the liar

bit more on Woodward

Re: say what?

Re: say what?

Re: say what?

The Washington Post and Bob Woodward: Artful Liars

Re: The Washington Post and Bob Woodward: Artful Liars

Re: The Washington Post and Bob Woodward: Artful Liars

Novak

Woodward is Naval Intelligence and running Pravda.

many more birds of prey in the mockingbird

Who is online