right-wing fanatic Marc Thiessen: WikiLeaks must be stopped

[John Bull]

As I understand it, Valerie Plame was a desk jockey, not an undercover agent. She was quite political and most of their cocktail crowd knew exactly where she worked because she and Joe talked about it freely.

[I B Hankering]

At the time of the incident, 14 July 2003, Valerie Plame was a CIA field operative transitioning into a desk jockey role for the CIA. In 1997, she told Wilson, whom she was only “dating” at the time, that she was a CIA operative. She “outed” herself many years before Libby knew about her. There is circumstantial evidence, she had similarly “outed” herself to others; yet, she was not dismissed or arrested for violating the law or CIA regulations.

Joseph Wilson was not an innocent, private citizen criticizing his government as TexTushHog suggests. Joseph Wilson was a former government employee (State Department) hired by the CIA—because of his wife’s position and connections—to gather intelligence in Niger. Based on his lone observations, without the permission of his employer (the CIA) and without personal knowledge of or regard for other intelligence that existed, Wilson imperiously presumed to be the “only” expert on the matter. Using the information he gathered for the CIA’s, this nation’s primary intelligence agency, use (not his), he subsequently attacked those (notably Bush, Rice and Powell) who drew different conclusions (not lies) from the intelligence that existed: some of which Wilson was not privy to (unless his wife was serving as his private agent/informant? Hmm I wonder?).

I don’t believe Wilson acted with any altruistic motives. He threw a political hand grenade into the room and when, as a consequence of his own action, he and his wife were injured “politically”—not “mortally” or “financially”—they donned the costume of innocent martyrs. As mentioned earlier, Plame was on her way to a desk job, so her life was never in real danger. The Wikileak releases are a different matter; they are endangering lives.

Furthermore, Wilson’s attack appeared too coincidental and too orchestrated to ignore, so the Bush administration believed it had to offer a rebuttal. One man’s “rebuttal” is another man’s “retaliate.” “Slime and defend” was the way Wilson described it. It’s all semantics—in the mind of the interpreter.

It’s a parallax view if you will. If you always view the incident from the left, you will never share the same vantage as one who always views it from the right. It’s at this point the terms “right” and “wrong” cease to have meaning, and the only peaceful recourse is agree to disagree.

I still believe there is more to this story than has been told. At the time, I really thought that the Plame incident would balloon into another Watergate. I believe Libby may have been a scapegoat, like Haldeman, Ehrlichman, et al. However, I also believe Libby got off too easily; after all, he did break the law. Yet Libby’s good fortune should in no way mitigate the penalties imposed on Manning. Libby is a politician and Manning was a soldier. Soldiers are held to a higher standard.

[John Bull]

Word!

[..]

maybe most important facts first:

-- Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame. He like Sy Hersh and some other smart journalists noticed via their contacts, that CIA is interally crazy re. WMD's, State Dept. too and Bush admin too. So he connected the dots and sharply looked at the situation.
Smart thinking got him the clue

-- Libby "outed" in theory Plame to Judith Miller, but she never really had much common sense
(also "outed" is not fully correct as Libby -- at least at that point of time really didn't know what's going on, and feared someone wants to fuck him over.)

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

At the time of the incident, 14 July 2003, Valerie Plame was a CIA field operative transitioning into a desk jockey role for the CIA. In 1997, she told Wilson, whom she was only “dating” at the time, that she was a CIA operative. She “outed” herself many years before Libby knew about her. There is circumstantial evidence, she had similarly “outed” herself to others; yet, she was not dismissed or arrested for violating the law or CIA regulations.[/SIZE][/FONT]

all here so far mostly true. except for really minor details i agree. however i'm 100% sure you never worked for the CIA -- because anyone who has could not answer in this way. (really if you have the chance to know someone from CIA ask them about this!)

Joseph Wilson was not an innocent, private citizen criticizing his government as TexTushHog suggests. Joseph Wilson was a former government employee (State Department) hired by the CIA—because of his wife’s position and connections—to gather intelligence in Niger. Based on his lone observations, without the permission of his employer (the CIA) and without personal knowledge of or regard for other intelligence that existed, Wilson imperiously presumed to be the “only” expert on the matter.

The truth is actually more complex: WMD's were a really hot topic within CIA at that time, and CIA was actually not split into republican or democrat camps but in many camps which either thought WMDs exist or do not.

Apart from CIA, the State Dept. was also divided on this topic.

Bush administration itself was divided. But Condi Rice really believed.

Wilson himself did not know -- neither did Plame know it for sure at that time. But Wilson knew Bush administration mostly believes it, CIA is very divided and State Dept. skeptical.

So initially Wilson really wanted to know what is going on -- once he knew it, he thought Bush administration is making this up

[..]

BTW unlike George Tenet (who was in a horrible position due to the WMD's craziness), Dubya still does not really know what was going on.

In fact, a certain sentence from Dubya's new book pissed off Gerhard Schroeder so much that Der Spiegel got material from BND re. this causa leaked. Hence wikileaks could verify the quality of their leak once again

cf.: http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=b20c41c2

[I B Hankering]

@ .. - You are right. I’m not CIA, nor do I know anyone in the CIA—at least I don’t think I do – lol.

Originally Posted by ..

So initially Wilson really wanted to know what is going on -- once he knew it, he thought Bush administration is making this up

This part is unclear to me. Are you saying Wilson agreed to go to Niger because “he really wanted to know what was going on” regarding WMD (uranium in particular)? Or, do you mean something else?

Then, when you say “once he knew it,” I’m not sure what “it” is? Does “it” refer to the absence of intel regarding the unverified (unverifiable?) uranium acquisition attempt? If so, how did he know it?

Wilson’s NY Times article was entitled “What I Didn't Find in Africa.” His argument was that he found no proof that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger. That’s not the same as saying he had proof that Iraq did not seek uranium from Niger. Sometimes, the absence of information is attributable to superior counter-intelligence measures. Ironically, the CIA agreed with his findings, but did not conclude—as Wilson did—that Iraq had no WMD program. The CIA had already determined that Saddam Hussein didn’t need to acquire uranium because he already had enough uranium stockpiled to proceed with a weapons program. The CIA internalized Wilson’s findings and did not send his report to anyone in the Whitehouse. So, de facto, the Whitehouse did ignore his report, but Wilson was not the “be all” HUMINT source he thought himself to be.

This brings me back to the political hand grenade. How could Wilson be so presumptuously arrogant as to claim that the “Bush administration was making this up” when he (Wilson) didn’t have incontrovertible proof otherwise? Wilson, as a former ambassador, had to know there were sources, other than himself, out there providing HUMINT even if he didn’t and shouldn’t have known who these people were personally. Even his wife was not in a position to view the whole picture.

British Intelligence sources reported (and still maintain) that Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was relying heavily on a German Intelligence source which claimed the same thing. The U.S. Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center incorrectly determined that the aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq had to be constituent parts for an enrichment facility and not for rocket production. A CIA analyst came to the same conclusion. Later, it was determined that the tubes were, in fact, to serve as rocket bodies. The U.S. Department of Energy also believed and advised that Hussein had reinitiated his nuclear weapons program.

How could he presume to "know" and then dictate policy to the President of the United States? Am I right to conclude that Wilson was an arrogant SOB who had a political axe to grind?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by John Bull

As I understand it, Valerie Plame was a desk jockey, not an undercover agent. She was quite political and most of their cocktail crowd knew exactly where she worked because she and Joe talked about it freely.

Here is an exhibit from the Libby trial, sentencing phase, that states otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/131682/Unc...they-outed-her

[TexTushHog]

Interesting article on just a few of the myriad problems with prosecuting Assange or WikiLeaks:

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/..._espionage_act

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ..

BTW Dubya still does not really know what was going on.

In fact, a certain sentence from Dubya's new book pissed off Gerhard Schroeder so much that Der Spiegel got material from BND re. this causa leaked. Hence wikileaks could verify the quality of their leak once again

"this causa leaked" - not clear, please explain - and which leak?

Der Spiegel International
22 March 2008
by Erich Follath, John Goetz, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

An 'Invaluable Asset'
The reactions around the UN Security Council table on that day just over five years ago were primarily characterized by diplomatic reserve -- including that of the man who chaired the fateful session: Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister at the time. The German delegation had set up a secure line from New York directly to the BND intelligence offices in Berlin, where the agents followed Powell's speech on a big screen.
Like Powell, who made certain that then-CIA Director George Tenet was visible behind him on the world's TV screens, Fischer had also brought along an important intelligence official. But Hans Dieter H., the BND's proliferation expert, was not seated near the foreign minister. Rather, he was positioned diagonally behind Tenet and Powell. The seating was little more than chance; the UN had to set up several additional rows of chairs to accommodate the large audience. The result, though, was that Germany's intelligence representative was seated together with those who supported the war.
As is now clear, the seating was auspicious. The German secret service actually had more to do with providing justification for the US invasion of Iraq than it would now like to admit. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder -- like his colleagues in Paris and Moscow -- was a vehement opponent of the war. But of all people, his own agents provided Washington with the key bit of “evidence” which helped fuel the war hysteria: the story about the mobile biological weapons laboratories. It was information that helped justify a war that has cost more than 500,000 lives and plunged the Middle East into chaos. And this information came from just one man: “Curveball.”
He was, as Tenet said then, an "invaluable asset." Today, it is clear that "Curveball" is an imposter, a fabulist, a man who, in the US, is referred to as the "con man who caused the war." "Curveball," writes spy-thriller author Frederick Forsyth, is responsible for the "biggest fiasco in the history of secret intelligence."
Germany's BND is the agency responsible for this man. And the most important question surrounding "Curveball" still hasn't been answered to this day. Why does German intelligence remain loyal to its source?


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...542840,00.html

[John Bull]

Interesting piece TTH. More detail than I've seen in the press up to this point. I'm still left with wondering how it was that, as reported in the press, her friends all seemed to know of her employment?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Interesting piece TTH. More detail than I've seen in the press up to this point. I'm still left with wondering how it was that, as reported in the press, her friends all seemed to know of her employment?

Biased, right wing corporate media, obviously. Judith Miller and her ilk were no more than transcriptionists for what the administration wanted printed. Journalism in American is in a horrible state of decline. So called journalists are lazy and are becoming nothing more than partisan hacks, even at formerly prestigious news organizations. There is no television "news" program not on PBS that even deserves the name "news" any more. It's all just a waste land of shit.

[..]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Interesting piece TTH. More detail than I've seen in the press up to this point. I'm still left with wondering how it was that, as reported in the press, her friends all seemed to know of her employment?

Yes, but they did not know it was a cover. That she worked for the agency was a shock and surprise for many of her friends.

[..]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

So called journalists are lazy and are becoming nothing more than partisan hacks, even at formerly prestigious news organizations.

Very true! In so far good to see that currently NYT and Guardian have a very good, clear and actual coverage of Putin-Land.

Interesting also with a critical, but fair reporting on Russia thanks to Wikileaks, Russian state-controlled media starts to mock Wikileaks in an attempt to discredit them.

[TexTushHog]

A very good article about the hypocrisy of many who are making such a big deal out of this leak:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[TexTushHog]

More on the legal difficulties of prosecuting Assange.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/wo...legal.html?hpw