No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

The Washington Post on the Plame Affair

The article below is a sidebar in addition to the article published by the Washington Post October 12, 2003.
Read this overview (below) first, then go to the main article on the Washington Post website.

For Kevin Drum's comments on the article, go to CalPundint.

For Josh Marshall's comments go to Talking Points Memo.

The Washington Post is doing really good reporting on this issue.
====

The Leak and Its Consequences
A Guide to the Scandal
The Washington Post

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 1, 2003; 2:31 PM


Why is the story breaking now? Why didn't the story become news when Robert D. Novak wrote his July 14 column?

Some reporters did report on the exposure of Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a CIA operative back in July. For example, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, reporters for Newsday in New York reported on Novak's column They quoted Wilson as saying that he regarded the mention of his wife as an effort to "intimidate" him for his criticism of President Bush's claim that Iraq had attempted to buy nuclear material from the African country of Niger.

Novak's original column, entitled Mission to Niger, also stoked critical commentary from liberal columnists such as The Nation's David Corn and the New York Times' Paul Krugman.

But the story, in the judgment of Washington editors, did not generate much follow-up coverage because they did not yet know that CIA Director George J. Tenet had asked the Justice Department to look into the matter for possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The story turned a corner on the evening of Sept. 26, when MSNBC.com. and NBC News broke the news of the CIA's request to the Justice Department.

In the opinion of Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, "The truth is, the press blew it on this one. The story was out there and very few picked up on it."

Could the leaker go to jail? What does the law actually say?

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 reads as follows:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Is Novak criminally liable?

No. The law says no person other than the one accused of leaking the information can be prosecuted, a provision that would protect journalists who report leaked classified information identifying a covert agent. The only exception is a journalist who make a practice of exposing undercover CIA operatives.

What did the source or sources of the leak hope to gain by exposing that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Sources familiar with the conversations told The Post that the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, a former ambassador who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the mission to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Niger partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an Sept. 29 interview that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

Why did The Washington Post publish Novak's column with Plame's name?

Novak is a syndicated columnist whose work appears in more than 300 newspapers. The Post was one of the newspapers that published the July 14 column. Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz that "in retrospect, I wish I had asked more questions. If I had, given that his column appears in a lot of places, I'm not sure I would have done anything differently. But I wish we had thought about it harder. Alarm bells didn't go off. . . . We have a policy of trying not to publish anything that would endanger anybody."

Incidentally, washingtonpost.com does not have online rights to Novak's columns which is why they do not appear on the Web site.

Why is the Washington Post publishing Plame's name?

An intelligence official told The Post on Sept. 27 that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.

Do we know what kind of damage disclosure of Plame's name has done to U.S. intelligence operations on weapons of mass destruction?

No. The CIA is now conducting an assessment of the damage. Wilson has said, "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."

A Post story quoted a senior administration official as saying that six journalists have been called. Why don't those journalists come forward now and identify the source?

Journalists do not typically reveal the identity of sources to whom they have promised confidentiality.

Isn't Joseph Wilson a critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy?

Yes, he is. In an opinion piece for the New York Times on July 6, Wilson criticized President Bush for including in his State of the Union address the claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in the African country of Niger. A former ambassador to that country, Wilson had checked out reports on such activities in February 2002 on behalf of the U.S. government and came away convinced they were not true. In an interview with The Post that same day, Wilson said, "It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"

Why was White House political adviser Karl Rove initially thought to be the leaker as opposed to someone in Vice President Cheney's office or the National Security Council?

Wilson initially said he thought Rove had told Novak about his wife's undercover work, although he has since backed off that assertion. He now says that he believes Rove "condoned" the leak. Asked about the accusation, a White House spokesman responded on Rove's behalf by saying, "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true."

Has there been any reaction from former president George H.W. Bush?

Several commentators have noted the elder Bush's remarks at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence at the CIA on April 26, 1999. According to a text available on the CIA Web site, the president's father said, "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."


© 2003 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Washington Post
posted by Richard at 11:44 AM