Wounding Wilson's Wife

Time Magazine has picked up on the story of the alleged BushCo attack on the wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, the whistleblower who blew the lid off the Niger-uranium scandal:

 

A War On Wilson?

 

Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat

who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection

 

Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 charging that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives.

 

Some government officials, noting that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intimate that she was involved in his being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, for the purposes of building nuclear devices. ...

 

A War On Wilson?

Time

July 16, 2003

 

Now, what's worrisome is not that the White House is charging that Plame was or wasn't involved in anything; it's that they blew her cover. Writes Robert Novak in his July 14th column:

 

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. ''I will not answer any question about my wife,'' Wilson told me.

 

So, why is this a big deal?  David Corn explains it all for you (bold emphasis mine):

 

[Wilson] will neither confirm nor deny that his wife -- who is the mother of three-year-old twins -- works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.

 

The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person -- and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her -- her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. ... Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

 

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. ...

 

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson's wife and had no reluctance about naming her. "I figured if they gave it to me," he says. "They'd give it to others." ...

 

So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate -- and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible -- perhaps likely -- that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security. ...

 

Stay tuned, folks -- this story is only beginning to find its legs. Contrary to Wilson's claim (in the final paragraph of the Time article) -- "Wilson... considers the matter settled now that the White House has admitted the Bush reference to Iraq and African uranium should not have been in the State of the Union address" -- Wilson himself knows this matter is far from "settled."

 

Incidentally, witness how Cheney's denial of any involvement in Wilson's mission has begun to deteriorate:

 

"In an exclusive interview, the Vice President's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, told TIME: 'The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction.'"

 

That's hardly a confession, but it's a lot more than Cheney's office was willing to admit last week.

 

Drip, drip, drip... Splash!

 

Posted 6:53:11 PM   Send comment

---

3ID Wives! Listen Up!

"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command.

 

General Unrest

ABC News

July 16, 2003

 

Listen, 3rd Infantry Division wives, girlfriends and interested bystanders: Don't let Abizaid worry you or intimidate you. It's all over the news how "unhappy" he is that your husbands have been ragging on Rumsfeld to the press, and threatening some sort of disciplinary action against them.

 

Well, guess what, ladies? Abizaid is talking through his hat. He's either messing with your hubbies' heads, or he hasn't read the rules very closely.

 

He does not have the right to discipline these non-comms for bitching the way they did.

 

Read this:

 

Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell, an infantryman stationed in Iraq... told a reporter, "You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building."

 

Why O'Dell's Comments Are Not Punishable Under the UCMJ

 

On first glance, Private O'Dell might seem to be imperiled by Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It prohibits "Contempt Toward Officials," and it's possible that O'Dell's comments could be read as contemptuous towards Rumsfeld.

 

But a closer look shows that O'Dell's comments fall outside Article 88, which states:

 

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

 

Fortunately for O'Dell, he's a private - not a "commissioned officer." He can be thankful for his lack of stripes, because there is no way Article 88 can be applied to him without them.

 

It turns out that O'Dell was wise in his choice of targets as well. For if he had "behaved with disrespect" toward a superior commissioned or non-commissioned officer - from Gen. Tommy Franks down to his own platoon sergeant,. he could have been subject to court martial under Articles 89 and 91 of the UCMJ. These articles apply to all soldiers, including enlisted men and women. But the civilian officials who are specifically protected from criticism in Article 88, including the Secretary of Defense, are not mentioned in Articles 89 and 91. ...

 

Dean G. Falvy

The Limits of Free Speech in the Military:

Can Public Expressions of Discontent by

U.S. Troops in Iraq Be Punished?

FindLaw

June 19, 2003

 

Read the whole article. You'll feel a lot better. "Empowered," even.

 

Posted 3:18:25 PM   Send comment

---

Visual Aids for the Thinking-Challenged

Print and pass these out the next time that moronic co-worker or relative of yours (you know the one I mean) just can't get it through his/her thick skull that:

 

BUSH = TANKED ECONOMY

 

Posted 2:32:25 AM   Send comment

---

Who Voted Away Your Right to Know

The vote to table the establishment of the National Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq was -- to no one's surprise -- split right down party lines.

 

These are the 51 Republicans who voted to cover Bush's ass -- for the time being:

 

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)

DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)

McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

And where the hell were you, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and RINOs Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller -- who didn't vote?! So, it might have been 51-49, and we still would have lost.

 

But you had a duty to be there. You had a duty to stand up for principle. You had a duty to fight for the people who trust you.

 

I wouldn't have expected any less from Miller, Graham, and Holy Joe.

 

But Kerry?

 

Hey, John, you've really lost me now.

 

You had a duty. You failed us.

Posted 2:06:45 AM   Send comment

---

Hey, Republi-Cons! You Can't Stall Forever!

Senate Republicans have defeated calls by Democrats for an independent commission to examine intelligence President George W. Bush used to justify the Iraq invasion, and to force him to disclose costs and plans to stabilise postwar Iraq.

 

On the same day that CIA Director George Tenet was grilled in a closed Senate hearing on prewar intelligence on Iraq, the Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected 51-45 an amendment to set up a commission to probe whether the administration manipulated information to build momentum for the invasion. ...

 

Senator Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat who pushed for the commission, said the issue goes beyond questions about a discredited claim Bush cited that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. "It's about whether there was a full and fair presentation to the American people" on Iraq's alleged illegal weapons and links to al Qaeda, Corzine said.

 

But Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, accused Democrats of trying to "start the campaign of 2004" and called it "an attempt to smear the president of the United States." ...

 

U.S. Senate rejects Iraq intelligence commission

Reuters

July 17, 2003

 

 

It's not a "smear," Stevens! I put up with Bush the Elder. I put up with Reagan. I didn't like either one of them, or their policies, but at least I didn't wake up every morning praying to God that today wouldn't bring the end of the world as I knew it.

 

I could have put up with Bush Junior if he hadn't screwed this country up the ass without so much as a kiss.

 

It's not a goddamned personal vendetta! If John F. Kennedy himself were to rise from the dead, move back into the White House, and commit the sort of atrocities that are only now coming to light, I'd be screaming for his impeachment too.

 

You're so full of it, Stevens, you and all the rest of you cowardly Repukes, protecting this power-hungry, unelected Little Emperor who will do or say almost anything to have his way -- and damn the fact that he has sent this country into a flaming freefall, straight to hell!

 

We, the people, will not be denied our right to know -- nor will the United States be denied her right to have the Pretender to the Throne impeached, and, if at all possible, indicted.

 

How dare you betray the public trust? How can you do such a disservice to your country? To your God?

 

How can you sleep at night?

 

So you've stalled the investigation, you cowards.

 

But you've only stalled it.

 

The truth is catching up on Bush's ass. And we won't forget how you aided and abetted the coverup.

 

If there's nothing to hide, you would welcome an investigation.

 

And you're the ones constantly crying "bipartisanship!"

 

You are so transparent.

 

Posted 1:54:48 AM   Send comment

---

Revenge by Exposure: WH Jeopardizes Wilson's WIFE?!

I'm sort of shell-shocked at the moment. I believe it, but I'm going to have to re-read the entire piece just to digest it.

 

Dear Reader, read it yourself, take it in, in its entirety, and then chew on it. I mean, really chew on it:

 

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

 

David Corn

A White House Smear

The Nation

July 16, 2003

 

That "U.S. intelligence officer" is the wife of Joseph Wilson, the ex-ambassador who blew the lid off the Niger-uranium scandal!

 

All of a sudden, I need a cigarette, a drink, a long drive, and a swim in the ocean, just to clear my head.

 

This is mind-blowing stuff, folks.

 

My God.

 

Posted 12:23:16 AM   Send comment

---