Oct 02 2006
New Plame Twist
Fred Barnes is making some interesting observations in the Plame Game and possible deliberate misreporting by the WaPo which allowed the outing of Plame to take on a life of its own and lead Fitzgerald to run amok for years while he knew who leaked Plame’s name to the press. Here is the stunning new revelation on the “1-2-6” claim by a administration figure (which many believe is Marc Grossman):
But there was a huge problem with what’s become known as the “1-2-6” story–one source, two leakers, six journalists–a problem exposed only recently. Hubris, the new book on the Plame case by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, discloses that the six calls to journalists almost certainly came after Plame’s name had been revealed by Novak. A Washington Post editor had inserted the words “before Novak’s column ran” in later editions of the paper, according to Hubris.
Is this true? Did hubris report that this one last thread of contention by the anti-Bush crowd was all along an error (possibly even a distortion)? How is it Fitzgerald missed this? The article is a good one on trumped up charges and smearing people. But this revelation is interesting. Someone who is willing to read Hubris might be able to confirm this claim.
Maybe that somehow explains why an entire live thread was removed from the Washington Post website, completely deleted. The host of that thread was Mel Goodman and the date was October 1, 2003.
President Bush’s aides promised Sunday to cooperate with a Justice Department inquiry into an administration leak that exposed the identity of a CIA operative. An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, will be online Wednesday, Oct. 1 at 10 a.m. ET, to discuss the intelligence leak, the misuse of intelligence and the need to protect CIA operatives.
Missoula, Montana: This incident has the smell of a White House dirty trick, but isn’t the significance of the leak being overblown? After all, lots of people in Washington and elsewhere must have known of Ambassador Wilson’s wife’s connection to the CIA.
Mel Goodman: The incident is not being overblown because it is a violation of a federal statute and it reveals the essential cynicism of the Bush administration. There was no need to leak this name; it was done only as an act of political revenge to make sure that other critics did not come forward. Very ugly!!
Mel Goodman: Novak was not used in the classic sense….he was quite willing to cooperate and was certainly called because the White House knew he would cooperate. At least half a dozen journalists refused to play this terrible game. President George Bush (the father in this case) called such leakers the “most insidious of traitors.” Novak was merely what the Bolsheviks used to call a “useful idiot” in this case.
Washington, D.C.: Why isn’t this the most obvious, no-brainer, “refer-to-special-counsel” case in the book? It’s clear that the leak took place, that it was intended to punish the dissenting Amb. Wilson, and that the White House sacrificed his wife’s career (and maybe life, if she was in fact an Operations Officer) to silence him.
Mel Goodman: I believe that this matter will eventually be referred to a special counsel because it is obvious that the White House has circled the wagons on this issue. The administration is resorting to a policy of plausible denial, a hallmark of any covert action.
Easton, Md.: I don’t think any American needs to be “told” by a former CIA operative that we need to protect the identity of our clandestine agents whose success and safety depends on our ability to protect their identities! What we need to talk about is the process of turning over the investigation to the Justice Department and whether it is, which I believe it is, another violation of ethics to have Justice investigating the White House, where Justice’s top official is directly appointed by the President of the United States. This is a clear and absolute violation. We should talk about previous investigations and compare the DOJ as investigative body vs an independent counsel. Bush should not be given free reign to decide who investigates his staff; it should be turned over to a non-partisan investigator with broad powers to do the investigating.
Thanks!
Mel Goodman: I agree….and the fact that Karl Rove was once a consultant to Attorney General Ashcroft makes it imperative that a special counsel be appointed as soon as possible.
Charlotte, NC: Some Bush apologists claim that the status of Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative was well known in Washington. Do you have any specific information on this? Do you know of other instances where other operative’s identities and work was well known?
Mel Goodman: I’ve worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA…and I know Ambassador Wilson….and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let’s face it….this was targeted information as part of a political vendetta….a pure act of revenge…again, no more and no less.
SBD
SBD
Goodman’s last quote is worth your whole post!
If he knew Joe for that long, how could he trust him with walking out of the room and not worry about ashtrays disapearing off the coffey table?
And this guy is in a high placed MSM position.
If he doesn’t get it with a source of 38 years, what is the possibility of any credible analysis of a 2 – 3 hour source contact for a blockbuster.
Be scared, be real scared.
On reviewing that, I see he did not specify for how long he had known joe, but as a reporter if he had any extended contact with joe it should have raised red flags, unless of course it fit his world view.
Just another point, a person who had such a long history of years with the CIA couldn’t recognize the wife of someone he know was with the CIA.
Ask DaleinAtlanta how long it took him to recognize a neighbor.
Credibility lacks a little here.