September 30, 2003


Novak: Wilson's Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent (NewsMax, Sept. 29, 2003)

The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public.

According to columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Mrs. Wilson's name in his July 14 column, sources at the CIA expressly told him she was not a spy.

"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives," Novak told his audience on CNN's "Crossfire."

It could be a different Joseph Wilson, but someone of that name in DC is a Kerry contributor

Yup, it's him..

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 30, 2003 12:10 PM

The internet seems to think this is a non-story (of course the blogs I check are mostly non-idioterian) while the mainstream media thinks this is the next coming of watergate. We'll see what happens but it appears Bush is pushing for full cooperation (unlike previous administrations). I've got to think they know who was involved (if anyone) and wouldn't push for full cooperation if it meant a Rove or Rice or some else high up was going to get pushed out.

Posted by: AWW at September 30, 2003 12:28 PM

What's hilarious about this whole mess is that we could find out by the end of the day who leaked if a few of these press people (Mitchell, Novak, etc.) would come out and say who fed the information.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 30, 2003 1:10 PM

Why has Wilson waited until now to escalate his complaint and file suit? Take a guess.

What ought to be investigated is why he was chosen for the mission in the fist place. I understand he went there and asked: did you sell any uranium to the Iraqies? Assured that never happened he went on to be entertained by the African elite. They could have gotten Jesse Jackson to do that.

Posted by: genecis at September 30, 2003 1:42 PM

Will we see Kerry being questioned on the evening news? Doubt it. Will he return the money? Doubt it. Will Novak name any names? Doubt it.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 30, 2003 2:02 PM

AWW, liberal bloggers Brad DeLong, Josh Marshall, and Kevin Drum seem to think this is worse than Watergate and have said it verges on treason. Funny how none of the leaks of supposedly classified information that appeared in the New York Times have been scandals or worthy of prosecution.

genecis, I believe Wilson said he had 12 meetings, all in the US embassy, over tea. That was his investigation.

Posted by: pj at September 30, 2003 4:55 PM

Wow! They said it on NewsMax, so it must be true. Excellent source.

Mensch Ray McGovern says that Mensch Joseph Wilson's old lady was undercover ( has more). Others do too. Whom you gonna believe?

Also, one wonders why there's a criminal investigation if she isn't, er, wasn't undercover. That would seem to nip it in the bud pretty quickly.

In 1999,Wilson also donated a grand to the [technical] President's father, who's legacy, with the perspective of hindsight, grows as his son's diminishes.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 30, 2003 5:22 PM

PJ--you write, I believe Wilson said he had 12 meetings, all in the US embassy, over tea. That was his investigation.

So because Wilson had tea, the evidence cited in the SOTU wasn't bogus after all? You mean the neocons now have complete cred? Excellent. I'm sure the families with soldiers in Iraq will be relieved to hear that. On with the fully legitimate preemptive invasions!

Posted by: Jimmy at September 30, 2003 5:28 PM


No, the reporter who reported the story said it.

Posted by: oj at September 30, 2003 5:30 PM

Jimmy - Knock yourself out. Unlike everything else you say against the President, its not yet possible to show that this claim is made up from lefty fantasies and the dentritus of guilt for having supported Clinton.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 30, 2003 6:21 PM

Can some pundit or other explain something to me? Everyone seems to be in an uproar about whoever it was who leaked the information. But no one has uttered so much as a word of rebuke either to Novak or his paper for publishing the information.

It seems to me that the man who blabbed this information to several million people is at the very least as culpable as the man who confided it to one.

Posted by: Josh Silverman at September 30, 2003 6:56 PM

Josh - I made that point in an earlier thread here. We punish Martha Stewart for trading on IMClone information she'd heard from a friend, but not newspapers for trading on national security information they know to be classified. Something inconsistent there.

Posted by: pj at September 30, 2003 7:43 PM

Every time I see a Jimmy post I can picture a gallon of saliva spewing forth in bubbles from the corners of his mouth.

Gotta be a Phd student. I can even hear the tremble in his voice.

I think Novak should be forced to testify, as well as the WaPo reporters who spoke to their own anonymous source. Novak says he wasn't contacted. It sounds like his sources merely confirmed his information. But the WaPo source sites a "shopping around" by two senior administration officials. That source should be made to testify as to who those officials are.

If this is truly important, and I'm not saying it is, then give it the weight it deserves.

My guess is that media and CIA are playing fast and loose with the truth for politics.

Could be that this investigation is just a good way for Tenant to keep his job. How would it look if he finally received his so richly deserved (and too long in coming) walking papers at this point?

Posted by: NKR at September 30, 2003 10:27 PM


Novak is a bona fide paper, ink and photon peddler. As such, legal, ethical (hehehe) and moral (Bwahahahahaha) constraints are inapplicable.

Jornalists are appove our reach and our reproach, our petty concerns of legality and morality have no meaning in the lofty reaches of their abode. Their search for transcendental truth has freed them from all earthly concern as they continue to strive for the light.

And their employers buy paper and ink by the forest and barrel, wouldn't do to piss them off.

Posted by: RDB at September 30, 2003 10:30 PM


Are you at war with the First Amendment again?

Posted by: oj at September 30, 2003 10:40 PM

NKR--Hey, whoa, no need for personal attacks here. I'm not personally attacking anyone in the comments, just what they say. And I'm confident that our host(s) would rather not see personal attacks either.

You accuse me of being a PhD student. Well done! Now what am I studying? Where? Grant status? Historically a lot of ultra-conservatives loathed academics and intellectuals. Like Nixon. One of America's worst presidents, that guy hated smarty-pants types. Francisco Franco had a gross dislike for the well-educated too. Same with Pol Pot.

My guess is that media and CIA are playing fast and loose with the truth for politics.

Yeah, 'cause Karl Rove would never, ever lie for political gain. It's just not like him. Why, just ask John McCain's bastard, mixed-race child.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 30, 2003 10:52 PM


Let me guess that it is neither logic nor rhetoric. Their are numerous appropriate fora for the style of expression that you are utilizing. There are also other fora where the style of exchange is of a different charactor. If you seek to convince, selecting the style appropriate to the forum may be of benefit when stating your thesis.

Posted by: RDB at September 30, 2003 10:58 PM


Americans rightfully distrust intellectuals:

Posted by: oj at September 30, 2003 11:00 PM


I seriously considered taking up a Phd. before
deciding to grow up and get a job designing software. Listen, every graduate level seminar I have ever taken is just a bunch of whiny
upper-middle-class losers bitchin about the
third word.

Outside of the hard sciences modern Academia does
nothing to advance legitimate ideas that might
actually be good for society. It's a 30k a year
bullshit session.

I recommend you take up a trade or get an MBA.

Posted by: J.H. at October 1, 2003 10:21 AM

By the say, I think I mentioned in an earlier post
that I got the impression that Jimmy was regurgitating from the latest Chomsky/Said/Ehrenreich/The Nation/In These Times/MotherJones screed.

I had a lot of time to read that crap too when
I was in school.

Posted by: J.H. at October 1, 2003 10:23 AM


No profanity, please. And let's ease up on Jimmy.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2003 10:28 AM

Sorry O.J.
Sorry Jimmy

Posted by: J.H. at October 1, 2003 11:15 AM