This whole thing centers around Novak's column where he states that Wilson's wife is
“an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”
If you read that carefully and Novak's entire column.. nowhere does he state her name or does he say that she was a "covert" operative. As a matter of fact the only person who used that word was the Hack that wrote the piece that started this whole investigation. and who was his source? there was only one named in the article and that was Wilson. Wilson never says directly that his wife was NOC "covert" but from that article it is more than suggested.
Another fact is that the Bipartisan "Senate intelligence commitee found that the Bush administration was not looking for revenge but was trying to set the record straight that it wasnt Chaney who sent Wilson to niger as Wilson claimed in his article but was sent as a suggestion by his wife who worked for CIA.. again nothing stating about her COVERT status..
thoughts?
2007-02-11
21:40:22
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I want to add in here why this whole thing stinks to me. Why would Wilson state in his article that Chaney sent him to Niger? Why didnt he just say that he either A. was sent by the CIA? or another agency. Obviously he was trying to lend credibility to his findings by saying Chaney sent him. But this was a falsehood (a lie). If you were Chaney and read this article what would you do? The administration that you work for was just handed an explosive by Wilson and it was your name that was used (falsely) to do it. Does this give an excuse to break the Law? no. but that is the question isnt it? was a law broken? The law in question states that the person breaking it has to knowingly state a person as a covert operative to someone that does not have the credentials to know that information. and we know from Novacks article that what was said by Libby or Chaney or whoever wasnt that she was covert.
2007-02-11
21:54:34 ·
update #1