Dear NYT, Get it Straight. Miller and Cooper are Protecting a Possible Felon.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

I sent the following letter to a reporter at The New York Times after reading: http://tinyurl.com/a7qhg. The Times changed the heading of the article after I wrote the letter.

A BuzzFlash Reader

* * *

RE: "Spy at Center of Leak Case Still in Shadow" [July 5]

Dear Scott Shane,

You write: "the investigation into the leak of a covert C.I.A. officer’s name has unfolded clamorously in the nation’s capital, with partisan brawling on talk shows..."

The only ones "brawling" are the right-wingers; Ambassador Wilson has handled himself with intelligence and dignity throughout. In this article you seem to display an "attitude" about Mr. Wilson.

Furthermore, let’s get it straight about whom Judith Miller and Matt Cooper are protecting. They are not protecting a "whistleblower" who was giving reporters information about government corruption or criminality; the reporters are protecting a possible felon who purposely divulged the name of a covert CIA operative, who was working on nuclear proliferation. The "two senior administration officials" the reporters are protecting are CULPRITS and possible felons, not heroic whistleblowers.

Then you write: "her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, has become a highly visible critic of the administration and promoted his memoirs"

Why the gratuitous remark: "and promoted his memoirs"? Isn’t it enough the president lied after being told he would be lying if he made the uranium assertion in his State of the Union speech? Isn’t it enough Valerie Plame’s many years of work went down the drain thanks to two "senior" administration officials? Isn’t it bad enough that Valerie Plame’s contacts and sources — gained over a period of many years — became useless to our intelligence efforts, and some of the contacts and sources were later murdered as a result of the "outing" of Valerie Plame’s identity. But we had to read this sneering remark about "and promoted his memoirs" — why?

Does it matter to you that Valerie Plame’s job was to halt the spread — to terrorists — of Weapons of Mass Destruction, nuclear weapons? That was her assignment. That’s what we supposedly went to war to protect us from — the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists. But that seems to be of no interest to you; maybe it’s just important to the rest of us.

You give us the name of the company Ms. Plame used as her CIA cover, but that CIA "cover" company — which took years to set up so it could be believable — is now kaput, thanks to the Bush administration "leaker" and Bob Novak.

Furthermore, the leaker and Bob Novak have put Valerie Plame’s life in danger; she can no longer travel abroad, because agitated characters from terrorist groups might try to kill her.

You tell us of Ms. Plame’s friend at the CIA who said, "With something like this, her career will never recover."

Exactly, you see the Bushites weren’t born yesterday; they knew the way to "get" at Joe Wilson was by destroying his wife’s career and endangering her life. It was a warning shot across the bow to anyone else who might contemplate telling the truth about this Bush administration

Then you sneeringly write — as if whatever parties one attends discredits one’s word — that "they were honored in late 2003 at a dinner at the guesthouse of the television producer Norman Lear, with guest list that included Warren Beatty."

What was the purpose of that sentence? It was nothing more than your attempt to make it look like Joe Wilson and his wife are just Hollywood types and not serious government officials. He was a career ambassador, and she worked under cover to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. What relevance does it have to their professional lives if they were at a party attended by Warren Beatty? Does that make them less serious people? Does that make it okay that "two senior [Bush] administration officials" outed a covert CIA operative?

You further write: " All agree that Mr. Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002 at the C.I.A.’s request to assess reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium there. There the agreement ends."

No, that is NOT where the agreement ends. The White House acknowledged, after Ambassador Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared in The New York Times, that they had been WRONG to put the 16 words in the State of the Union speech. CIA Director George Tenent had told the Bushites, the previous October, to remove the allegation from an earlier speech in Cincinnati and they had done so, because the information was bogus and based on a clumsy forgery that any idiot could have detected. Two other people, besides Joe Wilson, had told the Bushites the allegation was wrong and the information should not be used.

You give importance to the Bushites’ assertion that "Mr. Wilson’s trip was a junket orchestrated by his wife."

Hmm, first prize was a three-day trip to Niger; second prize was a two-week trip to Niger. In addition, Valerie Plame, following the birth of their twins, had been suffering from post-partum depression; I hardly think she would have been eager to have her husband leave her to go overseas. The care of young twins is never easy and when one factors in post-partum depression, it’s not a good time to be left alone with their care.

You give emphasis to the assertion that Mr. Wilson is a Democrat.

How does that square with the fact that the first President Bush had nothing but praise for the ambassadorial work Mr. Wilson had done during his administration? Wilson was in the diplomatic corps; he was a nonpartisan ambassador with an expertise in that region of Africa, he was not political. Until the Bushites declared "war" on him.

A little less gossip and a little more real news in your article would have been welcome.

Sincerely,
(name and address withheld)

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05224.html