Outing a CIA Operative Is a Crime by M.P. Prabhakaran

Outing an undercover intelligence operative is an egregious crime. But not under The Wall Street [Republican Propaganda] Journal’s scheme of things. The law of the land doesn’t apply if the person outed is a Democrat and those who did the outing are “senior [Republican] administration officials,” the Journal seems to be saying.

Its lead editorial on October 1, 2003, entitled “Political Intelligence,” begins thus: “We’ve been knocking our heads trying to figure out how a minor and well-known story about an alleged CIA ‘outing’ has suddenly blossomed into a Beltway scandal-ette.”

If the story is so “minor,” how is it that the paper has already devoted two lengthy editorials to discussing it? The second one appeared on October 3 under the title “'Stupid' Intelligence.” And one can safely bet that it will come out with many more editorials on the same topic and still continue to say that it is “so flimsy” and a “pseudo-story,” as it does in the October 1 piece.

The person outed is Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph Wilson IV, a former career diplomat. Joseph Wilson became a bete noire of the Bush administration, because it was based on his report that the C.I.A. disputed the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger to foster his nuclear weapons program. It needs emphasizing here that an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction was the main reason President Bush gave for going to war with Iraq.

Wilson’s report was the product of his week-long investigation, conducted in Niger itself. The investigation, commissioned by the C.I.A., took place in February 2002. But the report had no effect on President Bush and others in his administration who were determined to go to war anyway. The President repeated his pet Niger uranium story in his state-of-the-union address to the nation in January of this year – that is, about a year after Wilson’s report discrediting it. One wonders whether the Bushies were blushing when they finally admitted that their story was based on faulty premise. But what difference would it make? By then, they had already done the damage.

Their hatred for Wilson intensified when he published an article on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on July 6, 2003. Wilson said in the article that he had “little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Outing Wilson’s wife was the Bushies’ way of getting back at him. They did it through Robert Novak, a Washington-based syndicated columnist. In his July 14 column, Novak identified Wilson’s wife as a C.I.A. “operative on weapons of mass destruction.” That confidential information was leaked to him by “two senior administration officials.” Novak also quoted the same officials as telling him that it was Ms. Plame who “suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate” the report relating to uranium.

President Bush might have hoped that the revelation in Novak’s column would go unnoticed. He expressed outrage only when he was put on notice by the Justice Department that the White House was being investigated. And the Justice Department, it may be added, chose to act only when the C.I.A. demanded such an investigation. Democrats and many political commentators in the country have already questioned the integrity of an investigation of the President’s men conducted by a department headed by the President’s bosom pal, Attorney General John Ashcroft. Democrats in Congress have demanded that it be done by an independent counsel. Many of them also share the view expressed by Paul Krugman in his October 3 column in The New York Times: “let’s be clear: we already know what the president knew and when he knew it.” Is Krugman equating the present scandal with the infamous one involving the Nixon White House?

Though the Journal pretends to dismiss the episode as a “scandal-ette,” it is outraged by it. The October 1 editorial makes it clear why: “The reason this is suddenly a story is because [suggestion to the editorial writer: replace ‘because’ with ‘that’] Mr. [Karl] Rove, the President’s political strategist and confidant from Texas, has become the main target….

“The media, and the Democrats now slip-streaming behind them, understand that the what of this mystery matters much less than the who.”

The fact is the who in the story matters more to the Journal than to anyone else. None in the media have definitively concluded that it is Karl Rove who is behind the leak, though many have speculated. Somehow the Journal believes that it is he. It fears that the person who made Bush President may be sent packing when the truth ultimately outs.

The Journal’s sarcastic reference to “the media, and the Democrats now slip-streaming behind them” makes one think that it doesn’t want to be called part of the media. Maybe it prefers to be called a “right-wing slime machine.”

Why does the paper think that only the media and Democrats are upset by the leak? Hasn’t it heard about the anger expressed by many in the intelligence community? They are angry because the what in the story has endangered the life of one of their own. They have begun to fear that the same fate may befall them if their political views are at variance with those of the administration. The outing of one of them has done irreparable damage to the morale of all of them.

A former CIA recruiter who appeared on ABC News’s “Nightline” on October 3 said that it would be very difficult to get competent people to work as undercover operatives hereafter. “We are going to take care of you” is the usual assurance recruiters give to aspiring operatives, he said. They “won’t trust us” any more, he added.

“This is not politics,” said another former CIA operative who also appeared on the same program. He said he was “a registered Republican” and he appeared on the show mainly to express his solidarity with Ms. Plame.

In saying that Ms. Plame “is ensconced at Langley headquarters” of the C.I.A., the Journal may have succeeded in showing its contempt for her. But to say that “she was not an agent in the field” is to show contempt for truth. The truth is that she was in the field before and, but for this criminal leak, she could as well be back there again. The Journal can rejoice over the fact that, thanks to the leak, her career as an undercover operative has virtually ended.

“It remains far from clear,” says the editorial, “that any law was violated.” That’s why an investigation has become necessary. Its purpose is to find out whether any law has been violated. It is sickening to see the Journal attempting to block the investigation with cheap shots like: “We trust that Mr. Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill understand that if they throw Mr. Rove over the side, the blood in the water will really be theirs.”

I visited your Web site. Let me congratulate you for the way you write and the many interesting things you handle. The stories are knowledgeable and wise thinking has gone into them.

Margarita Barquin, Col. Polanco, Mexico

October 9, 2003