Yet another White House incident that needs investigation
Yes, there's more illegal activity in the Bush White House, and this Independent is calling for investigation. The story so far (as I understand it): Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger in early 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium for building nuclear weapons. He did find one "Nigeran state document" of this supposed transaction - which was later found to be forged - that he discredited in his intelligence report. Because of the speciousness of the evidence, claims were removed from at least two White House speeches in late 2002. But, in the January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush used these now-infamous 16 words to justify a first-strike war in Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (copied from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html).
Now, this next paragraph is speculation on my part, based on how I would expect this guy to react.
"But, but, but," Joseph Wilson sputtered. "That report was discredited, as I listed it in my report last year! I suppose it's possible that some new evidence could have come to light. Let me see what I can find out." So he asks around, at the White House and the CIA, and finds out that no, no new evidence has been found. Meanwhile, on about March 9, which was before the war in Iraq had started, Niger protested these claims. "But then, why?" he asks. And he still got no answer to his inquiries. By this time, the war in Iraq is already in progress, in spite of this information being false and known to be false. And no one in the White House seems to care.
Now, back to more sure footing.
Finally fed up, Wilson published an article exposing the White House's lies in this matter. The CIA (in the form of George Tenet) accepted the blame for those 16 words remaining in the State of the Union address - namely that they just missed it - bad editing job, so sorry. Frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't blame it on the British - after all, they have an "out" right in those words, "the British government has learned". Probably that had been the plan all along, when the speech was written. But I guess this being 3 months later and the British the sole allies in Iraq, that path was unanticipatedly closed.
And then came the bombshell. Less than a week later, a Chicago reporter named Novak named Valerie Plame as a CIA undercover agent investigating weapons of mass destruction. What does this have to do with anything? Plame is Joseph Wilson's wife, and she recommended him for the trip to Africa to investigate the yellowcake claim. Um, so? You might ask. Well, don't you get it? She was an UNDERCOVER operative, and now she's been outed. This puts her in grave danger, and jeopardizes her informants and any future intelligence-gathering in her operating sphere. For these reasons, it is highly illegal.
Who could have done such a thing? Well, it is sad to say, but it seems to be our very own government, probably in the person of Karl Rove, White House advisor, if not George W. Bush himself. Or Dick Cheney, or Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld; who knows. But it smacks of that "hey... what's that over there?" distraction tactic, not to mention retaliation on Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. I'm sure as a CIA operative, she did not like the CIA to have to take the fall for that. What's more, the scuttlebutt is that this information (Plame's name and the fact that she was an undercover agent) was leaked to SIX reporters in Washington; only Novak named Plame. The other papers had the integrity to realize what exactly it would mean to out a CIA operative. And, the leaks came from "an unnamed White House official". Definitely from the White House. Not to mention that I'm sure this retaliatory out-ing is also meant to intimidate anyone else who might think of exposing the administration's lies and cover-ups.
It doesn't really matter who the voice on the other side of the phone belonged to. This whole administration is corrupt beyond belief, and in this particular situation, the activities are unconscionable. I personally am writing to my congressional representative to request a full investigation into this matter.
I wonder what would happen if Bush et al. were caught in this lie, a la Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton. How many conservatives would call for his impeachment? After all, they said their whole point on the situation was "It's not the sex, it's the lying. If our president would lie about this, what more would he lie about?" Well, folks, this is much bigger than that, and I personally want to write to each and every name of each and every official in each and every organization that used these words to demand impeachment of Clinton, to demand impeachment of Bush. Think that will work?
Here are some more links:
http://msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
Update: It seems the story is being investigated by the Justice Department:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030928_5.html
1:04:24 PM 
|
|
