Opinion: Nasty Internal Politics   

by Ted Weaver

Sept. 30, 2003

When this story first broke, I immediately thought about the possibility of the D.I. of the C.I.A. somehow was totally responsible for all of this. But now, it seems that there may very well be other players involved in the total sum. 

I was always one to believe that whenever a new administration takes over from an opposite party, it is wise to remove any outward appearance and possibility of any conflict of interest. Why? because simply put, there is the potential. 

Then we come to the questions of what Director Tenet knew and when he knew it. I'm under the impression that Director Tenet did not know of the so-called fact finding mission to Niger until after the fact. But if Tenet really didn't know, then why didn't he just come out and admit as much and put this baby to bed? It would have been much easier to publicly admit that this was an unauthorized fact finding mission, one where there was a conflict of interest on how the choice of the investigator was made and the lack of completeness of the investigation undertaken without any controlled guidelines. Rather than have this turn into more than what it should have. 

Ironically, the British still stand by their Niger claim and have again reaffirmed this. British reporting claims the Wilson fact finding mission was flawed. The British dispute his finding and methods. 

Then to further this, why wasn't there a report filed by Mr. Wilson himself and why did he air his findings in such an unclassified manner? In an Op-Ed piece, Via, the New York Times. Isn't that  what this is suppose to be all about, classified leaks? Wasn't Mr. Wilson bound by the same rules since he was hired by the C.I.A. wife? Wasn't Mrs. Wilson bound by the same rules too? How can the Wilson's claim what they do when I'm in the opinion that they are just as guilty for breaking classified information rules as the ones who and if someone did, disseminate her name as an employee of the C.I.A. for a purpose of strictly revenge. Which I personally don't think was intended by any administration official..

Just because one doesn't agree with the administration on any single point or points, nowhere should anyone who works in a national security position of the government take it upon themselves to proactively take steps to discredit the administration in the name of a policy dispute. I am sure there is a way to have vetted out differences of a single fact in the compilation of many facts pertaining to a single point in a much bigger picture through their proper channels and in the name of national security.

Strangely, Veteran journalist of 45 years Robert Novak is in a very precarious position. Mr. Novak is widely being seen as the messenger with a motive. It is well known fact that he was not in favor of the war in Iraq. And became embroiled in a major policy battle with elements of the Republican  party, which include locking horns with a former speech writer of the Bush administration named David Frum who accuses Robert Novak of "Hating America" and suggest the he also "excuses and denies terror" and claims Mr. Novak and others of "hating the Republican party and this President".

The most interesting of this all is this timeline. On July 13, 2003, AM according to Condi Rice on Fox News Sunday, she states on the show that The British affirm that their intelligence on the attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger is valid. This made the Presidents 16 words in his state of the union speech technically correct. Niger is still in the continent of Africa, is it not?  Interestingly, on the very next day, July 14, 2003 Robert Novak publishes his article titled: Mission to Niger which discloses the name of the CIA employee married to Mr. Wilson. 

The questions then becomes, when did Mr. Novak write his article and when did he get his information. Can he prove when he wrote it? Can he prove when he got the information? Did he write it after the Fox News Sunday show with Condi Rice? The answer to these important questions could be very revealing in terms of intent. If it was wrote after the show, it could be possibly construed to show that Robert Novak may have been complicit in revealing the name for revenge towards the Bush administration after the revelation and announcement confirming the British stand by their intelligence which discredited Mr. Wilson's report. It could also be a possibility to think it may have been done with one or both of the Wilson's permission or suggestion. After all, Mrs. Wilson isn't really a spy, just an employee with the C.I.A.. And if she was ever an operative at any point, she and Mr. Wilson compromised themselves or put themselves in that position to be compromised when Mr. Wilson went public.

I find it hard to believe that after 45 years of writing on all things political including sensitive issues and having access to the top politicians of the country, that Mr. Novak wouldn't know better than to include a name of a C.I.A. employee. After all, he has been dealing with these government agencies for 45 years and surely knew the rules of the road. 

All of this fuss could very possibly emanate from the Presidents famous 16 words which Mr. Wilson and his wife vigorously tried to discredit. Of which has come back to haunt them in the form of British claims that they stand 100% behind their intelligence. And quite possibly, haunt Robert Novak too.