Defends Criticism
Of Plame-Wilson

May I respond to the letters of Mr. Costanzo and Mr. Best (Nov. 29) who were kind enough to comment on my letter the pervious week about the Plame-Wilson episode? They reminded us of the obvious yet very important practice in place to protect intelligence operatives even after the fact. Whether Ms. Plame-Wilson would have had any future clandestine mission is a moot point. Her identity was undoubtedly secure.

She proceeded to compromise her own security when she made herself known to those who did not have a need to know by involving herself in her husband's African mission, as noted by several political analysts including Robert Novak and Tim Russert among others. It remains a fact that the special prosecutor legally could not bring a charge of an "outing" because Ms. Plame-Wilson was not a covert agent at the time.

Ambassador Wilson's less-than-complete report on Iraq's interest in African uranium, his article in the New York Times, and Ms. Plame-Wilson's testimony before a Congressional witch hunt hearing were all parts of a terribly botched effort to counter the administration, and are given little credence. As someone has said, the whole episode was a "no brainer."

This is not the first time that elements in the intelligence community have disagreed with an administration. It happened several times during my tenure as an intelligence officer during the "cold war." But seldom has such a disagreement been taken so far in the public arena.

Whether the accurate findings of British intelligence should have been included in a State of the Union address is a whole other issue.

      Leigh Wright

      Randolph