The CIA Leak

THE CIA LEAK

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Iowa, does it not show the depths which have been reached if someone in the White House is prepared to not only discredit but to disclose the identity of an intelligence agent, perhaps compromising their professional career, maybe endangering their life, in order to settle a political debt?

I ask the Senator from Iowa, who has a memory of this—as I do, as well—this is an echo of an enemies list of Richard
Nixon's era where they have decided at any cost they will go after their enemies, even in the commission of a Federal felony, to disclose the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife.

The Senator from Iowa is correct. It is true that the lengths to which this administration is willing to go to silence its critics harken back to an era that was one of the darkest eras in Presidential politics.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question.

Why was this name leaked to this columnist? It was to somehow discredit her husband. What had her husband done? He told the truth about the lack of any evidence showing Iraq had gone to Niger to obtain basically uranium or yellow cake. He had gone there to investigate, said there was nothing to it. So he told the truth. And now the administration, because a truth did not comport with their imagination about what was going on in Iraq, obviously put Mr. Wilson on their enemies list.

I say to the Senator from Illinois, this really does bring back memories of enemies lists. The administration will go to any length, to the length of breaking a law, to try to discredit anyone who tries to point out the truth about what went on in Iraq.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will continue to yield, this calls for a special prosecutor. Does the Senator from Iowa recall last year when there was a suspected leak of information from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, under Attorney
General Ashcroft, called on every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to submit to a polygraph—for every
Senator to submit to a polygraph? I ask the Senator from Iowa, what is the likelihood that Attorney General Ashcroft is going to ask the highest ranking officials in the White House to submit to a polygraph and then disclose to the public whether or not they have agreed to do so?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Illinois, I am not serving on the Intelligence Committee. I had heard and been aware, and now the Senator has validated that fact, the FBI did ask members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to take polygraphs. Again, it is a fair question the Senator asks: Will the FBI ask all senior members of this administration to sit down and take a polygraph test? If they asked Senators, why would they not ask the White House? I don't know. Will they?

Mr. DURBIN. Further questioning the Senator from Iowa, I don't believe in polygraphs. I never recommend them. Most State courts do not recognize the results, I don't think they are accurate. But it was a pressure tactic by the FBI to try to get Senators on the Intelligence Committee to say publicly whether they would submit to a polygraph. It is an indication of what they can do when they want to.

The question is, Will they do it? Would Attorney General Ashcroft's Department of Justice do that to the highest ranking officials in President Bush's White House? The answer is obvious. So I ask, does that not make the case for a special prosecutor?

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. The Senator from Illinois is correct. This points to the need for a special counsel, someone independent of the Justice Department. This is serious stuff.

I notice that the columnist, Mr. Novak, said, well, this woman is just an analyst for the CIA.

I don't know. I never met these people. But now I understand she was indeed an undercover agent overseas. She may be doing something at the CIA right now, but prior to that she was. Again, I have no knowledge of this. I only know what I have been reading in the papers.

It seems to me, in our war on terrorism, our best asset is not a missile; it is not a nuclear device; it is the information we get.
And if there is a chilling effect out there—that is what this is, a chilling effect—on getting information, it is a serious blow to our fight against terrorism.