WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2016 — “It is startling,” said Maurizio Zifferero following the inspection of an Iraq nuclear enrichment facility. As head of an investigative team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Zifferero was impressed by the sophisticated factory, which is proof of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s “covert efforts to make fissionable material of potential use in a nuclear weapon … the factory’s existence was not previously known to foreign intelligence agencies or the IAEA,” said the Washington Post in an Aug. 9, 1991, article.
The story added that one of Saddam’s henchmen, after “intensive questioning,” said the factory could build several hundred nuclear-enriching centrifuges each year when fully operational, which could produce “sufficient enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs within a few years.”
That is worth repeating: the nuclear facility’s existence “was not previously known to foreign intelligence agencies.”
That’s a roundabout way of saying our Central Intelligence Agency was caught napping.
In 2007, the administration of George W. Bush was in the midst of controversy concerning a press leak that named CIA analyst Valerie Plame Wilson as having recommended, in an act of petty nepotism, her husband Joseph to investigate the claim by British intelligence that prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam had ramped up his nuclear weapons program and was in the market to purchase unprocessed uranium from Niger, Africa.
That charge was one of the many reasons the Bush administration gave to justify the invasion of Iraq, because there is no “weapon of mass destruction” quite like a nuclear one.
“They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip,” said the editorial board of the New York Times. Revealing the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, the Times insisted, “could have put her and all those who worked with her in danger.”
The Times fingered Vice President Dick Cheney, a boogeyman for the hyperventilating left, as the leak instigator who endangered the life of America’s Jamie Bond.
Valerie Plame was among the clueless agents at the CIA when atomic inspector Maurizio Zifferero stumbled upon Saddam’s nuclear centrifuge factory in 1991.
But when tasked with investigating the Iraqi regime’s attempt to purchase bomb-making uranium in Africa, Plame sent her husband, whose early diplomatic duties included “keeping the power on and the cars running.”
Valerie Plame was the CIA agent whose blown cover the New York Times feared put her and her fellow seat-warmers at Langley “in danger.”
However, when it was more recently discovered that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stored secret government information on an unsecured server kept in her home, the same New York Times editorialists saw it more as an archiving problem.
“The government is producing more classified documents than it knows what to do with. The National Archives is buckling under the strain and could collapse under an avalanche of electronic records … Clearly, archivists, and Mrs. Clinton, need new technology to process electronic records.”
But Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III said in a letter to the Senate chairman of two oversight committees that Hillary’s “homebrew” server contained top, top secret “special access programs” data. It also contained “HCS-O” information, which names “human intelligence sources in ongoing [overseas] operations,” said Catherine Herridge at Fox News.
Secretary Clinton mentioned the name of a Libyan intelligence source in an email to long-time pal Sydney Blumenthal, husband Bill’s bimbo intimidator.
In an interview with radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, President Obama’s former secretary of defense, Robert Gates, said “the odds are pretty high” that Clinton’s server was hacked by foreign intelligence services, adding that Pentagon servers suffer 100,000 hack attacks daily.
He added that when serving in government, “I never used email … I preferred dealing with people face to face and putting signatures on a piece of paper on matters of real national security and importance.”
The New York Times editorial board, and the rest of the mainstream media for that matter, has been oddly silent concerning Hillary’s burning of America’s real intelligence assets, putting “all those who worked with” them “in danger.”