I’ve been following the Wilson “affair” as closely as possible of late, perhaps too closely. (Which does not mean that I’m not missing something obvious here.) Of the blogs I’ve been following (along with Seamole’s Log), the Minute Man has the most extensive commentary and links on the subject. Tenacious TM’s Ooops Theory strikes me as fairly plausible, but leaves a few questions, to me, unanswered. Furthermore, while TM’s a very thoughtful fellow, his theory is insufficiently contrarian for my tastes.
The prevailing wisdom in the press and in the blogosphere seems to be that a senior administration official leaked the identity of the employer of Wilson’s wife either to discredit Wilson after he published a largely irrelevant opinion piece in the New York Times, or to discourage any future leakers.
In order to discredit Wilson, administration officials could have simply provided the press with a transcript of this talk by Wilson (given a month prior to the Novak article in question) which led Charles Johnson to label Wilson, properly, it seems to me, as a “moonbat.” And, as many others have noted, the leaked information, if anything, would seem to bolster Wilson’s credibility, not harm it.
If the goal were to discourage future leakers, making Wilson a hero to the press would seem to have the opposite effect.
While many on the angry left regard Bush as “stupid,” he and his senior supporters have managed to win three major elections and two impressive battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. How could they have been so foolish in this instance? Rather than obtaining a benefit they allegedly sought (either a discredited Wilson or a reduced likelihood of future leaks), they’ve instead caused Wilson to be a press (and leftist) darling who jokes about movie deals, and they’ve reaped nothing but an alleged scandal.
Who has benefited from the leak of the identity of Wilson’s wife’s employer?
Perhaps the answer is no one but those opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq, at the cost of Wilson’s wife’s career, the identity of her CIA front-company employer, and, possibly, her contacts.
BLITZER: "He asked me not to use her name saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment."NOVAK: Yes. That was not anything -- whether I wrote anything or not, he said she would never be given a foreign assignment. That was a fact that she had moved on to a different phase of her career.
If Novak and his CIA correspondent are correct, perhaps the only danger to the CIA, Mrs. Wilson (apparently now, and perhaps since her marriage to Wilson five years ago, working in the Directorate of Intelligence, not Operations), or her former contacts, was the potential for difficulties in Mrs. Wilson's traveling overseas. If that is the case, perhaps the only entity to suffer as a consequence of the leak is the Bush administration itself.
Who benefited?
· Well, Mr. Wilson did. He’s raised his profile to at least that which followed his earlier adventures in Iraq; he’s a new darling of the press, able to joke about movie deals. In addition, in writing the New York Times piece, he may have disclosed information confidential to the CIA and opened himself to an investigation. But any investigation now would raise calls of “retribution” and mire the Bush administration further in the scandal. Neat trick.
Jed Babbin discusses some of the anomalies in regard to Wilson’s “investigation” here. Excerpt:
Everyone who works for the CIA in everything having to do with intelligence or foreign governments is required to sign a secrecy agreement that provides the Agency the right to approve and censor what the employee may wish to say or write for public consumption. In Wilson's famous July 6, 2003 NYT op-ed, he said, "The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses, (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government." It is unheard of for anyone to not be required to sign a secrecy agreement. So did Wilson get that article approved by the CIA?I asked the CIA, and a very testy spokesperson refused to answer. I asked if Wilson ever signed a security agreement, and she sounded about to burst from stress, but she'd give no answer to that question either. Maybe she was just having a bad hair day. Or maybe the CIA is feeling some well-earned heat.
A senior intelligence-community source told me that no one as vocal as Wilson could possibly be bound to the usual security agreement. So Wilson wasn't required to sign one. Why? The fact that he was paid only his expenses is no explanation. That's Anomaly Number 1.
· The CIA did. As Mark Steyn writes:
If sending Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger for a week is the best the world’s only hyperpower can do, that’s a serious problem. If the Company knew it was a joke all along, that’s a worse problem. It means Mr Bush is in the same position with the CIA as General Musharraf is with Pakistan’s ISI: when he makes a routine request, he has to figure out whether they’re going to use it to try and set him up. This is no way to win a terror war.
What a stroke of good fortune that the press and the public are not focusing on this!
· Those that opposed the war in Iraq, inside the administration and out, did. What luck for them that, when it became clear that Wilson’s yellowcake-gate was going nowhere, a scandal erupted that cast doubt on the administration’s national security reputation.
Could this explain why the scope of the search for the alleged leaker has gone from Karl Rove to, maybe, someone in the White House, the State Department, the Defense Department or the CIA? Could this explain the administration’s relative nonchalance?
Is this an exercise in blame-the-victim? Well, Mr. Wilson is a rather ebullient “victim.” If it is determined that intentional harm was done to Mrs. Wilson, her employer, or her contacts, they will be true victims and those involved should pay dearly for this. But cui bono? Where’s William of Ockham when you need’m?
Where have I gone wrong?
Posted by oscarjr at October 9, 2003 11:28 PM | TrackBack