You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front
Bigger than Watergate
2003-10-09
Mark Steyn says the CIA scandal is important not because it put an agent’s life at risk — it didn’t — but because it shows that US Intelligence is either obstructive or inept. Excerpt:
No, this isn’t Watergate; it’s bigger than that. The version of the story that still fits the facts is in that Bob Novak Sun-Times column from July. Novak wanted to know why Wilson had been chosen to go to Africa. It’s one thing not to be a card-carrying neocon, quite another to be as antipathetic to the administration and the war as this fellow. The White House asked the CIA, the CIA recommended Wilson, and their recommendation was accepted automatically. But what the original leakers told Novak was that it was Mrs Wilson who’d proposed her husband for the job. The Company responded that their counter-proliferation officials came up with Wilson and they only used the wife to contact him.

It doesn’t really matter which version you believe, because the end result’s the same: an agency known to be opposed to war in Iraq sent an employee’s spouse also known to be opposed to war in Iraq on a perfunctory joke mission. And, after eight days sipping tea and meeting government officials in one city of one country, Ambassador Wilson gave a verbal report to the CIA and was horrified to switch on his TV and see Bush going on about what British Intelligence had learned about Saddam and Africa. As I wrote in this space last July:

‘The intel bureaucracy got the Sudanese aspirin factory wrong, failed to spot 9/11 coming, and insisted it was impossible for any American to penetrate bin Laden’s network, only to have Johnnie bin Joss-Stick from hippy-dippy Marin County on a self-discovery jaunt round the region stroll into the cave and be sharing the executive latrine with the A-list jihadi within 20 minutes. So, if you’re the President and the same intelligence bureaucrats who got all the above wrong say the Brits are way off the mark, there’s nothing going on with Saddam and Africa, what do you do? Do you say, “Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day”? Or do you make the reasonable assumption that, given what you’ve learned about the state of your humint (human intelligence) in the CIA, is it likely they’ve got much of a clue about what’s going on in French Africa? Isn’t this one of those deals where the Brits and the shifty French are more plugged in?’

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.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by:Steve

#3  Did she accompany him on the trip? Was he contacting her sources?
Posted by: Superhose   2003-10-9 2:00:25 PM  

#2  The most reasonable conclusion that I am seeing is that the Wilson choice for the mission was the CIA's way of half-assing the request from the White House. The CIA and the Bush Administraion have been engaged in a mini-war from the beginning, and the sheer ineptitude demonstrated by both the FBI and CIA in the wake of the revelations about 9/11 clues has not helped.

So far, the only people benefiting from this story are Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and Bob Novak. The CIA looks like a bunch of idiots again, having failed to deny Plame's status to begin with, and having sent administration opponent and WMD naif Joe Wilson to drink tea in Niger for eight days. The White House looks inept, because the CIA's actions are viewed as those of the administration, and because Novak's leak was to no rational purpose.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2003-10-9 11:38:57 AM  

#1  The one responsible for the leak was Joseph Wilson. Was he not an employee of the CIA (or at least hired temporarily) for this assignment. Was he not going overseas to do an investigation for the CIA? He then choose to go on TV and out the entire operation, including his own name (in effect outing a CIA overseas operatives name). Why anybody would think they could go on TV and publicly call the President a Liar, state that AS A AGENT OF THE CIA HE WAS THE ONE THAT INVESTIGATED THIS NIGER INCIDENT FOR THE US AND HE FOUND NOTHING AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS A LIAR. It seems to me that either Joseph Wilson broke the law going public about this operation and/or the CIA broke the law utilizing somebody they could not control and was bound to expose the operation. If Wilson's wife is really in danger now this really compounds Wilson's crime.
Posted by: Patrick   2003-10-9 11:25:30 AM  

00:00