Two years ago, after reading a Bob Novak column, I called former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and asked, half-jokingly, "Why didn't you tell me your wife was in the CIA?" In a somber voice, Wilson said, "I can't tell you that now." When I first read that Novak column outing Valerie Wilson (a k a Valerie Plame) as a CIA officer and citing "two senior administration officials," I didn't immediately comprehend the leak's seriousness. But as I spoke with Wilson, I could see the potential harm. And I realized the leak was no accident. At the time, the White House and its allies were mounting a fierce campaign against Wilson, who had revealed in a New York Times op-ed that on a 2002 CIA-sponsored trip to Niger he had gathered information undermining one of George W. Bush's justifications for the Iraq War: that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Africa. And as we discussed the Novak leak--that is, talked around it--it occurred to me that the leakers might have violated an obscure law that prohibits government officials (not journalists) from knowingly disclosing the identity of an intelligence officer. I mentioned this to Wilson; he was unfamiliar with the law. I said I might write about the leak and this law. He didn't encourage me. He was hoping that somehow this story might blow over and was not eager to draw more attention to it. He was in partial (though understandable) denial. Two days later I posted a piece that first raised the question of whether this leak was evidence that White House officials had committed a crime.

Initially few in the mainstream media cared about the leak. But liberal bloggers and other Internet denizens howled. A handful of Democratic Congress members complained. Two months later, the news broke that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak, and there was a flurry of media coverage. Then the story receded, as the investigation generated little news (i.e., few leaks). But through the early stages, the White House claimed Bush wanted to get to "the bottom of it"; that leakers would be punished; and that Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Elliott Abrams--three White House officials linked to the leak by Washington's rumor mill--had not been involved. Next the case came to be dominated by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's zealous pursuit of reporters--particularly Time's Matt Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller. But now that the Cooper and Miller cases have been resolved--with Miller imprisoned--and evidence implicating Rove has emerged, the focus has returned to the original sin: the leak itself.

Because of Fitzgerald's (appropriate or inappropriate) hounding of Cooper--which led to Time's surrendering Cooper's e-mail and notes--Newsweek's Michael Isikoff was able to obtain a damning e-mail that Cooper wrote three days before Novak's column appeared. That e-mail noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." This was the first documentary evidence that Rove had been involved in the leak. His lawyer's immediate spin was that Rove had not mentioned Valerie Wilson/Plame by name. (This was a thin defense; a Google search would have yielded her name.) The White House stonewalled, absurdly refusing to answer any questions about Rove or its previous statements on Rove and the leak. Angry White House reporters accused the White House of having misled the public.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.