Oh my god, I'm srtarting a thread on CE. Ohhh. I have chills. Exciting. Nostalgic.

This Wilson affair has me quite puzzled. Obviously, the Lim-Brosz-es of the world are hopping up and down screaming about Bush Hating, and the Paul Begalas of the world are screaming 'indict, impeach, treason!' at to top of their lungs. The minions of Conservative Vents are in rare form on this one.

I have read most of the Novak pirece, but not all- since I can't find the original. I have also seen interviews with Mr. Wilson and read statements by the administration.

I simply cant believe that anyone would be so stupid as to intentionally and blatantly shop this information around to journalists, as it is claimed- as this will be easily proven with any well aimed subpoena. Phone records are phone records. Having said that, the most intelligent president of the century did the nasty in the oval office, and one of the other most intelligent presidents of the century tape recorded himself giving orders to cover up a crime using presidential powers. Smart people do dumb things all the time.

I also simply don't see how Mr Wilson is discredited by the exposure of his wife. This makes no sense. On the other hand, Mr. Wilson seems to believe that this was simply example-making at its most bloody. No CIA operative, even a penny-ante one in a dull position, wants to be outed. If operations is your training and career path, it ruins you. Even if you just care about your contects in a professional sort of way, it burns them and makes them useless. Even if you are small fish- you will never get any bigger or better if you are outed. Even if you are not deep cover, it makes your family a target. So the claim Wilson makes is this was done to keep others in the Intelligence community silent. An example.

I find that difficult to believe that any administration would be so casual and sinister to the folks that lay their lives on the line for the good of their country. However, if my perspective on the whole GWII thing is correct (and I see no evidence, no WMD or terrorists, that convince me it is false), then this administration did just that to the service men and women of the united states- sent them on a fools errand for false reasons. However, it seemed they really believed in what they were doing with Iraq (doesn't excuse it, but explains it). Its hard for me to see how anyone could rationalize the outing of an operative, no matter how small-time. Any way you slice it, it is damaging to some degree to your country.

We are unlikely to get a special council under a republican congress that has seemed unwilling to dissent from the administration in any significant way over all matters Iraqi. We are also unlikely, IMHO, to get a vigorous prosecution of this case from the Justice Dept without at least the threat of one. Its just not believable that any 'in member' of the administration in any administration is going to be a zealous investigator of their boss, leader and appointer.

Interestingly, though, this may be all false fire. I have a very low opinion of the impartiality of Bob Novak. In debate, his views are right-down-the-line predictable, and his method of defending them is akin to the bullshit rhetoric that has been dominating CE as-of-late: ad-hominem, slippery slope, strawman, appeals to patriotism and red-herring (yesyesyes of course, the average Begalla tirade is no better, but that does no alter the facts about mr. Novak)

I doubt he would publish anything that hurt this administration. And I doubly doubt he would do anything to harm this administration.

What I do know- What is a fact here, what is incontrovertible, is that whoever outed a CIA operative, if Mrs Wilson was a CIA operative, is a traitor and deserves probably more than what is coming to them. No matter whose political agenda is being serviced, anyone who endangers a covert operation, covert sources, or the operators thereof deserves a bullet in the head. This goes for anyone, laft or right. If you do not agree with this premise, you are beneath contempt.

So no matter what line of crap you adhere to, my fellow CE mavens, keep this in mind. This may not be what it is cracked up to be, but ti is not simply a matter of 'bush hating'. This is an issue of treason. This is serious. This deserves to be looked into even if you disbelieve it top to bottom.

In parting, though, this can't really be solved or explained away by Novaks little Jig today to try to displace the blame or appear a victim (yes, the venerable conservative claiming it was someone elses fault. hehehe). I direct your attention (caps emphasis added, CIA expanded):

Novak from crossfire: "According to a confidential source at the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Mrs. Wilson was an ANALYST, not a spy, not a covert OPERATIVE, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing? "

Yet, to throw out another quote beside it

Novak from his very own pen, from his original piece: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency OPERATIVE on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior ADMINISTRATION officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

Any good reporter knows the differtenc between analysts and operatives- especially when said operative is the wife of a high-level diplomat with access to governmental resources and diplomatic positions. Nobody says 'Senior Administration' and means CIA.

My Novaks jig here is about as impressive as that of a 300pound scottsman in a under-size kilt. This I find telling. Perhaps Mr. Novak may be teakettle for the tempest.

I, in brethless anticipation, put on my rainsuit and wait for feces to fly....

Davin L.