Ray McGovern: "It is not altogether reassuring to learn that John Dion is heading the investigation. Dion is widely known in intelligence circles as one who does not feel he can go to the bathroom without first asking the Justice Department for permission. Sadly, we can expect the kind of "full and thorough investigation" that Richard Nixon ordered then-Attorney General John Mitchell to conduct into Watergate."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1003-11.htm
Published on Thursday, October 2, 2003 by TomPaine.com
Conscience Before Career
by Ray McGovern
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my
life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those
who betray the trust by exposing the name of our
sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of
traitors."
George H. W. Bush, 1999
What could have been going through the heads of senior
White House officials when they decided to expose a
CIA officer working under deep cover? Why would they
want to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of
former United States Ambassador Joseph Wilson?
What will the FBI find out? It is not altogether
reassuring to learn that John Dion is heading the
investigation. Dion is widely known in intelligence
circles as one who does not feel he can go to the
bathroom without first asking the Justice Department
for permission. Sadly, we can expect the kind of "full
and thorough investigation" that Richard Nixon ordered
then-Attorney General John Mitchell to conduct into
Watergate.
The important thing is not who-done-it, but why. What
ulterior motive moved White House officials to "out"
Ms. Plame when they knew full well it would burn her
entire network of agents reporting on weapons of mass
destruction, put those agents in serious jeopardy and
destroy her ability at the peak of her career to
address this top-priority issue?
Was it another preemptive attack, which like the
attack on Iraq seemed to the White House a good idea
at the time? It certainly fits that pattern, inasmuch
as little thought seems to have been given to the
implications, consequences and post-attack planning.
The objective was to create strong disincentive for
those who might be tempted to follow the courageous
example set by Joseph Wilson in citing the president's
own words to show that our country went to war on a
lie.
Administration spin doctors, having been able to dig
up nothing worse, are calling Ambassador Wilson a
"Clinton holdover," but no one was better qualified to
investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Niger for Baghdad's putative nuclear weapons program.
Wilson served with high distinction as President
George H. W. Bush's acting ambassador in Iraq during
the first Gulf war and also served many years in
Africa, including Niger.
After being sent to Niger in early 2002 at the behest
of the Vice President Dick Cheney's office, he
reported back that the story was false on its face a
finding reinforced when it was later learned that the
report was based on forged documents.
When, despite all this, President Bush used this
canard in his state-of-the-union address on January
28, 2003, Wilson faced a choice not unfamiliar to
just-retired government officials. He could sit
comfortably and smirk over brandy with friends in
Georgetown parlors, or he could speak truth to power.
Conscience won. In a New York Times article on July 6,
Wilson blew the whistle on the Iraq-Niger hoax, adding
that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's
nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi
threat."
The consummate diplomat, Ambassador Wilson chooses his
words carefully. He was fed up, though, with the
specious reasons adduced to justify the unprovoked
U.S.-U.K. attack on Iraq the same reasons that
prompted three courageous colleagues to leave their
careers in the foreign service in protest.
With the Times article, Wilson threw down the
gauntlet. At the same time, he permitted himself the
comment to Washington Post reporters that the
Iraq-Niger hoax "begs the question as to what else
they are lying about."
That went too far for the White House, which took
barely a week to react, using trusted columnist Robert
Novak to retaliate. There was little they could do to
Ambassador Wilson, but they were hell-bent on
preventing others from following his courageous
example.
There are, after all, hundreds of people in U.S.
intelligence and foreign service circles who know
about the lies. Worse still from the White House's
point of view, some are about to retire and escape the
constraints that come of being on the inside. And,
more often than not, the chicanery that took place can
be exposed without divulging classified information.
And so, White House Mafiosi decided to retaliate
against the Wilsons in order to issue a clear warning
that those who might be thinking of following the
ambassador's example should think twice that they
can expect to pay a high price for turning state's
evidence, so to speak. At least one reporter was
explicitly told that wives are "fair game."
So far the intimidation has worked. But a test case is
waiting in the wings.
Alan Foley, the CIA official in charge of analysis on
weapons of mass destruction, has announced his
retirement. His name hit the news recently when it was
learned that Foley tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent
the bogus report on Iraq-Niger from finding its way
into the president's state-of-the-union speech.
Foley's credibility was immediately attacked by the
White House which may come to regret having done so.
I have worked with Alan Foley. He is cut of the same
cloth as Ambassador Wilson. I am betting that the
White House's latest preemptive strike will not deter
Foley and other intelligence officials able to put
conscience and integrity before career from following
Wilson's example.
Things are likely to get even more interesting.
Ray McGovern (rmcgovern@slschool.org), a CIA analyst
for 27 years, is now on the steering group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Before
retiring, he led one of two CIA teams conducting the
most-secret daily intelligence briefings at the White
House.
Copyright 2003 TomPaine.com
###