Reply #48: Presumes purpose was warning. But there are many possibilities! [View All]

I keep pushing my pet purpose, but let me lay out the four commonly referred to:

1. Revenge on Wilson.

2. Warning to any others with similar information or gripes.

3. To indicate nepotism, and thus discredit Wilson.

4. To imply the trip was self-initiated (Wilson got wife to send him) and thus discredit Wilson.


These are not, as is often pointed out, mutually exclusive. But the primary one is #4. If the
administration could show that Wilson was chomping at the bit to get to Niger, they could paint him
and his investigation as partisan. The story would run: Here's Wilson yelling about the false
information in the President's speech, but no one could really believe his investigation in Niger was
objective since he was a Clinton man, got himself assigned to Niger the previous fall, then found
what he WANTED, and reported to the CIA. It is little wonder that the President gave no credence to
Wilson's report. We've seen him as a maverick all along.

The nepotism "take" (3) was thick-headed Novak's, who simply didn't "read" the leak in the manner
intended.

#1-2 are side benefits, only, not the primary reasons IMHO.

Once we see #4 as primary, we see another kind of mind working. One which is intelligent, cold and
dispassionately calculating, trying to substitute one narrative to undercut another. Not a mind given
to firebombing opponents (like Rove?), but one which tries to quickly and surely relegate Wilson to
the junkpile of history. Nothing personal; he's just gone. No credibility. No more editorials. Nada.

To my mind, this places it in Cheney's lap.


#1-2 (revenge and warning) make better stories, but they might draw us away from the true
leakers.

IMHO