|
|
July 7, 2005
Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill"As the judge said Judy Miller can escape her jail cell by finally choosing to talk, so could Novak restore his column and TV appearances by finally talking about his part in the story. Novak is said to have lots of friends in the press. Friends would let him know the time is here."
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me. — Robert Novak, “Mission to Niger,” July 14, 2003. I, for one, have had it with Robert Novak. And if all the journalists who are talking today about “chilling effects” and individual conscience mean what they say, they will, as a matter of conscience and pride, start giving Novak himself the big chill. That means if you’re a Washington columnist maybe you don’t go on CNN with him— until he explains. If you’re a newspaper editor you consider suspending his column until he explains. If you’re Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, you take him off the air until he decides to go on the air and explain. If you’re John Barron, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, you suspend your columnist (with pay, I should think); and if Barron won’t do it then publisher John Cruickshank should. If Novak says he can’t talk until the case is over, then he shouldn’t be allowed to publish or opine on the air until the case is over. He should know the rage some of his colleagues feel. Claiming to be “baffled” by Novak’s behavior may have been plausible for a while. With reporter Judith Miller now sitting in jail, and possibly facing criminal charges later, “baffled” is sounding lame. After the decision yesterday someone asked Bill Keller, top editor of the New York Times, if this was really a whistle-blowing case. Keller answered: “you go to court with the case you’ve got.” I understood what he meant, but that answer was incomplete. For in certain ways the case that sent Judy Miller to jail is about a classic whistler blower: diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. Those “two senior administration officials” in Novak’s column had a message for him: stick your neck out and we’ll stick it to your wife. (They did: her career as an operative is over.) Might that have some chilling effect? We’re not entirely in the dark about how the conversation might have gone. Yesterday Walter Pincus of the Washington Post posted this recollection: On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. (The Post article he did write months later.) Pincus didn’t take the “information,” Novak did. Why? Did it occur to Novak that this could be retribution against a critic of the White House? Pincus thought the leaker was “practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.” What did Novak think? The New York Times in an editorial today: It seemed very possible that someone at the White House had told Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame to undermine Mr. Wilson’s credibility and send a chilling signal to other officials who might be inclined to speak out against the administration’s Iraq policy. At the time, this page said that if those were indeed the circumstances, the leak had been “an egregious abuse of power.” We urged the Justice Department to investigate. Tell me: how can journalists say with a straight face that they are concerned for future whistle blowers if one of their own, Robert Novak, together with sources made possible an act of retribution against an actual whistle blower? We do not know enough to say of Novak, “he should be the one in jail.” But we do know enough to keep him off the air and the op ed pages until he makes a fuller statement. (Times editorial: “Like almost everyone, we are baffled by his public posture.”) It may be that he betrayed the principles for which his colleague Judy Miller is in jail. The editor who decides to drop Novak’s column until such time as he explains himself would be listening to the voice of professional conscience, in my view. As the judge said Judy Miller can escape her jail cell by finally choosing to talk, so could Novak restore his column and TV appearances by finally talking about his part in the story. Novak is said to have lots of friends in the press. Friends would let him know the time is here. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links Chris Lehmann in the New York Observer: Sentiment against Mr. Novak is now so heated that N.Y.U. journalism chairman and Pressthink blogger Jay Rosen recently called for the rather poetic punishment of a profession-wide public shaming of the alleged administration toady: declining TV appearances with him, pulling the plug on his syndicated column, and generally treating him like the Lee J. Cobb character in 12 Angry Men, loudly and ineffectually seeking to foist his boorish scheme of right and wrong on an indifferent world as his jury mates one by one turn their backs on him. He got my title wrong. I am no longer chair. And there is no legal prohibition against Novak telling us he made a deal and testified, then revealing what he said. “Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation …” Michael Isikoff gets a leak from Time, Inc. (July 10) It’s Matthew Cooper’s e-mail about his conversation with Rove. That it was leaked from Time to Newsweek (surely a first in the history of those two rivals) says almost as much as the contents of the e-mail itself. Miller is in prison to protect a right that Novak appears to have finagled. Writing at tompaine.com, The Nation’s David Corn takes you on a fascinating fact-filled (but ultimately conjecture-strewn) tour of what happened with Novak, Fitzgerald and his sources. “He leaves the door wide open for speculation,” Corn writes. “So let’s accept the invitation.” Also see his response to the Isikoff story. Tom Maguire has a response and more links: Just Say ‘No’ To Novak? Highly informative. Also informative is this Salon article by David Paul Kuhn on the Karl Rove connection. He notes that Rove was fired from the elder Bush’s ‘92 reelection campaign for leaking information to Novak. Atrios has more on Novak (and Miller) and says the shunning should have happened two years ago. “But why would they start now?” Doc Searls says about the outing of Palme: “That this was a political act, and not merely a journalistic one, is beyond dispute.” I agree. (True of Wilson’s actions too.) He also points to this potent Daniel Drezner post from two years ago, very relevant today. I highly recommend Matt Welch’s Shield Journalism, Not Journalists at the Reason magazine site. That is my view, as well. The press should not be granting itself rights the public does not have, but expanding its idea of who has “press” rights— card or no card. I am for solutions that protect newsgathering and expand the press. Explain please. No, I can’t. Bob Novak with host Ed Henry, CNN’s Inside Politics, June 29: HENRY: Bob, first, what’s your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case? Rest here. It gets pretty heated. See also the New York Times article where Novak’s colleagues speak. This Media Matters post on Novak—stonewalling the press—has many key links. Novak in an October 1, 2003 column returned to the events: During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA’s counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: “Oh, you know about it.” The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. Novak’s colleague at the Chicago Sun-Times, Carol Marin, on July 1: “Why in the world is New York Times reporter Judith Miller headed to jail next week while my Sun-Times colleague Robert Novak is not?” Arizona Republic editorial: Then there is this curious obsession among many commentators with columnist Robert Novak. Well, William Safire isn’t too thrilled either. On June 29 Safire wrote: “Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back.” White House Briefing columnist Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post site: Fitzgerald has been incredibly secretive about the case, where it’s going, and why he’s subpoenaing all these reporters. But being secretive is his job. He’s a prosecutor. And federal law is clear that authorities are not allowed to divulge grand jury testimony. Froomkin asks: “Why is everyone keeping Fitzgerald’s secrets for him? Enough!” He has more about who should start talking. Earlier PressThink: The Downing Street Memo and the Court of Appeal in News Judgment. (June 19, 2005) “News judgment used to be king. If the press ruled against you, you just weren’t news. But if you weren’t news how would anyone know enough about you to contest the ruling? Today, the World Wide Web is the sovereign force, and journalists live and work according to its rules.” Key exchange on the PBS Newshour: (July 6, 2005) STEVE CHAPMAN (Chicago Tribune): I think there should be a federal shield law that would limit subpoenas to journalists to cases where the information being sought is critical to the investigation and there’s no other way to get it, and if we had a law like that, it would protect 98 percent of the confidential sources that journalists use, and it would not protect Judith Miller, I’m afraid. Two days later, this editorial in the Boston Globe, and this columnby Paul Tash in the St. Petersburg Times ignore what Keller said: a Federal shield law would not have protected Miller, who is engaged in an act of civil disobedience. (Globe says: “Judith Miller carried an important journalistic tool with her to jail. Congress should protect Miller, and the national interest” by passing the national shield law. Wrong-o, Globe.) Daily Howler gets suspicious: “When the press corps’ interests and preferences are at stake, they will issue a blizzard of spin. If you want to know why average people see this gang as a perfumed elite, read through the ludicrous, one-sided work they’re churning about this complex matter.” Finally, Whiskey Bar’s Billmon (former journalist, now lefty blogger) wanted to “see if I could come up with something more substantial than moral disgust to justify putting Judy Miller behind bars.” But he couldn’t.
Posted by Jay Rosen at July 7, 2005 1:23 PM
Comments
Doctors can lose their license, lawyers can lose their license, engineers can lose their license. Journalism is not a profession. When it is, then we can talk about confidentiality and whistle blower protection. Journalists heal thyselves. Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2005 2:09 PM | Permalink Finally, someone says it. Amen is my reply. Posted by: KC at July 7, 2005 2:17 PM | Permalink Of course it's a profession! I've been a professional since 1965. Journalists do lose their jobs -- and should when their work is inaccurate and sub-standard. But what's involved with Robert Novak -- and Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper -- is well beyond that. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at July 7, 2005 2:20 PM | Permalink David, I am not talking about losing your job, that's between your employer and you. I am talking about losing your license, and civil or criminal implications of that. I am talking about peer review, not employer review. Some of you take your occupation seriously. Too many it seems do not. Becoming a profession would help and it would make it clear just which bloggers and which TV heads and writers are journalists, and which are entertainers. Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2005 2:24 PM | Permalink Just how often do journalists lose their job when their work is inaccurate and sub-standard? Judy Miller, anyone? And please, no Jason Blair, Steven Glass references, they were just too obvious. Posted by: Peter O at July 7, 2005 2:26 PM | Permalink Didn't somebody last year recommend "shunning" Tucker Carlson over something he'd said? Sounds like a plan. Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog at July 7, 2005 2:31 PM | Permalink What I'm trying to figure out is why were these reporters censured by the prosecution when Novak is the one who wrote the story? Hasn't he been called as a witness? Posted by: chuck rightmire at July 7, 2005 2:43 PM | Permalink Hallelujah! Praise for Judith Miller's heroism is praise for the press as loyal bagmen and women to the Bush-Rove mafia. Challenging loyalty to this band of thugs is hardly a threat to democracy. Bush and Rove are themselves the threat to democracy. Can loyalty to thugs and tyrants and hagiographies of their co-conspirators really be a point of pride and moral principle? Is the Washington press really that far gone? The First amendment is designed to spread the truth and expose corruption. Judith Miller has become a martyr to the cause of spreading propaganda and shielding corruption. Shielding and enabling corruption is neither a moral imperative nor a constitutional duty. The same applies to Robert Novak with whip cream and a cherry on top. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2005 2:44 PM | Permalink Jay -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 3:11 PM | Permalink I have a thought about the Judith Miller aspect of the Plame thing. It comes back to the responsibility of the Journalist, in my opinion. I just finished reading _All the President's Men_ and one specific scene seems to relate to the present situation. After Bob and Carl are burned on the issue of testimony about Haldeman's control over the secret CReeP fund, they threaten to burn their source, becouse it looks like he knowingly lied to them. They feel that they should - because they were mislead. But their editor convinces them not to. Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of the journalist to expose a source if it is clear that the source is USING them as a conduit of bad (or illegal) information? I think so. If the motives of the source were clearly nefarious, in retrospect, it should be not just the right, but the responsibility of the reporter to identify the source. Of course if the reporter and the source are partners in a nefarious activity it should be the responsibility of the reporter's employer to terminate them. Using background and unnmed sources should not be just a reporters right, it should also come with responsibility. Posted by: Andrew at July 7, 2005 3:25 PM | Permalink Amen, Andrew. A promise of confidentiality has been construed in some courts to be a binding, if oral, contract. And for a contract to exist, both parties have to agree on its terms and conditions. If you're reporting and you don't include yourself an out for bad information, particularly when it's provided maliciously, then you're committing journalistic malpractice. This is a weird case on a lot of levels. Obviously, we don't know the half of what's going on here, or what the special prosecutor thinks went on. And questions of confidentiality aside, there are other issues here, as Pat Clawson, a friend of Miller's pointed out earlier today on the IREPLUS listserv: "The special prosecutor has filed briefs with the courts containing secret evidence to convince the judges of the need to have Judy testify before a grand jury. The Court of Appeals order directing her to testify contains several pages that are completely redacted. Neither Judy or her attorneys have seen the complete Court of Appeals decision, so it is impossible to know exactly what their reasons are for ordering her to testify. They have not seen or had an opportunity to contest the secret evidence. "Basically, Judy is going to jail for a story she never wrote because of secret evidence and a secret court decision that she is not allowed to see and is not allowed to defend against. "This should be repugnant to every American." If Clawson's facts are correct -- I don't know, and I am not a lawyer -- than anyone who aspires to commit some unsettling journalism has bigger problems than he/she knows. Bob Novak with host Ed Henry, CNN's Inside Politics, June 29. Watch how Novak invents an accusation so as to seem victimized, and then tells a colleague (Henry) that the colleague knows nothing ahout the case. HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case? Jay, Text">http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s340.html">Text is here. Posted by: John Dinges at July 7, 2005 4:13 PM | Permalink Ha. I was just finishing up a similar rant when Posted by: Scoop at July 7, 2005 5:02 PM | Permalink Oh, yes, I'd think it's time for Novak to start worrying. I've been wondering about the strange silence of Mr. Novak. He wrote the story. He named the name. And yet the grand jury subpoenas Miller and Cooper. A very curious thing. Is it because Novak has already spoken to the grand jury? Or because he's a target as well as the leaker? Whoever that may be (and Karl Rove looks better all the time.) As for shunning, has anyone really taken Robert Novak seriously as a journalists in years? Posted by: Dave Mclemore at July 7, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink "Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of the journalist to expose a source if it is clear that the source is USING them as a conduit of bad (or illegal) information? I think so. If the motives of the source were clearly nefarious, in retrospect, it should be not just the right, but the responsibility of the reporter to identify the source." Andrew, some reporters give any source seeking confidentiality fair warning of just that. Unfortunately, too many don't -- including, apparently, Judith Miller and Robert Novak. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 8:03 PM | Permalink Interesting - folks who follow the link to Pincus' story may wonder whether Novak had a similar experience: EXCERPT ... I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. Because of that article, The Washington Post and I received subpoenas last summer from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor looking into the Plame leak. Fitzgerald wanted to find out the identity of my source. I refused. My position was that until my source came forward publicly or to the prosecutor, I would not discuss the matter. It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation. (In writing this story, I am using the masculine pronoun simply for convenience). My attorney discussed the matter with his attorney, and we confirmed that he had no problem with my testifying about our conversation. END How about that? The source came forward, identified himself to Fitzgerald, and let Pincus chat to Fitzgerald as well. Now, suppose that same person was also Novak's source, and behaved the same way. Wouldn't it follow that Novak has also cooperated, and the source has been identified? Put another way, maybe someone can tell us why that is not possible. Posted by: Tom Maguire Jay -- It's time for Mr. Fitzgerald to put up or shut up. He said beforehand that his investigation was all but wrapped up. Now, he has Cooper's source; he has Novak's source; and he has Judy Miller in jail. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 9:56 PM | Permalink AS a former journalist, I care a lot about inside baseball. More than the average person. But I've gotta admit, I don't get it. Is it that Miller outed a CIA agent? Or could have? Or Cooper could have? Here in the heartland, this looks a little bit like, who cares? We've got state budgets that don't balance, people out of work, relatives on vacation in London who might be blown up. I know that sounds as though I am some kind of parochial bumpkin, but in fact, people's lives are made up of things that matter. And so far, I don't know why having Judith Miller in jail or not matters one whit to me. My one thought is that I don't like the idea of journalists outing CIA agents. God, it's bad enough to be a spy, or a journalist these days. Sorry to sound so dense, but sometimes it's good to get back to what my first boss called "bar stool" journalism. It meant, can you explain the story to the regular guy in the bar concisely enough so he'll care? How can you be so durn hard on Novak when few of us know what the facts are? On my church calendar the Feast of the Assumption is August 15th – it seems to be every day in your church. There’s a good reason that Novak’s lawyer won’t let him say anything about the investigation. Given Novak’s key role in the matter, it’s likely that he testified before the grand jury only after a fight over self-incrimination and was given immunity (transactional?) for his testimony. Granting of immunity is done in camera and not made public – see rules 17 – 19 here. Novak may have had to accept some sort of non-disclosure as part of the deal since grand jury witnesses are normally allowed to disclose their testimony publicly. Less likely but still possible, Novak’s lawyer may also be concerned that other information may appear that could make Novak a target despite the immunity. Also assumed is that Novak is the central issue, that the disclosure of Plame’s identity and role as a covert agent may not be the central issue before the grand jury. Miller’s problem seems to involve something else, as today’s WaPo reports: [U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic. "This is not a case of a whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller about "dangers at a nuclear power plant," Hogan said. "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct." What the heck does the evil Bob Novak have to do with that? Posted by: The Kid To the RH The Kid: Posted by: calboy at July 7, 2005 11:25 PM | Permalink In the Judith Miller case it looks like the grand third estate uses the work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a guide, when they are not following Franz Kafka. Good" leaks and "bad" leaks Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 7, 2005 11:28 PM | Permalink The Kid has a good point, though it's not the one he thinks he's making. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2005 11:58 PM | Permalink Honestly, Jay's argument makes no sense to me. Novak should be shunned or in jail because he published a leak that was damaging to someone in the public eye? Huh? In the end, Novak talked (apparently) to the prosecutor. Miller didn't. So Novak isn't in jail, and Miller is. So how is Novak responsible for Miller being in jail? Isn't Miller responsible for that? Doesn't she report her own stories and make her own decisions? Meanwhile, if it's true that Novak talked, then didn't he do his part in exposing the leaker while Miller's actions are protecting him or her? So shouldn't Miller be the one shunned, since Jay seems to think that it is the leaker who is the real danger to our society in attacking the great, innocent and apolitical man, Wilson? (Wilson of course may also be a liar or a nepotistic incompetent, but let's not worry about details.) Shouldn't Novak then be celebrated? As an aside, I don't see Cooper or Miller rushing to publish details about what's going on, what they know, and what their interactions with Fitz. have been. Why should Novak--can he even do so? What I get from Jay's column is..."I'm mad Miller is in jail. You, Novak, what do you know about this? Why aren't you telling all you know? You're not in jail so I'll blame you." I have no idea who the villains are and who the heros--though Wilson seems to be a doubletalker and Novak's behavior is strange--and all anyone can do is speculate, but I just don't get Jay's logic at all. Normally, I see this insight or framework for thinking beneath Jay's posts that's very useful. This one...what am I missing?
Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 12:17 AM | Permalink I think it's premature to be rendering judgment on Novak at this point, especially since I believe it's based on conflating two facts in Novak's original column about Plame as being from from the same source: Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.There are two distinct points in this paragraph: 1) Plame works for the CIA. 2) She arranged for her husband to be sent to Niger. Isn't it possible that the "two senior administration officials" only told Novak the second point and that he already knew (either from common knowledge as he says) or by some other means? What lends credibility to this scenario is the fact that Novak doesn't appear to be bound for the slammer in any way. This suggests (though neither the columnist nor the prosecutor will confirm it) that Novak did appear before the grand jury and revealed at least how he came to know Fact #1. As a man who's been probably the biggest success for the longest time, he's been on the beat since the 1960s, I highly doubt that Novak would have compromised a source who told him something in confidence. From this we may conclude that Novak either aquired knowledge of Plame's career through non-confidential means or that his source released him from said agreement. It's not likely that the second scenario occurred because a person who knowingly disclosed classified information has committed a serious crime and therefore has no motive to tell a grand jury (s)he did so. Having eliminated the second possibility, let's turn to the first one. Three possible scenarios flow from it: 1) Plame's career was common knowledge and Novak's source did not think that revealing this would be a criminal offense. Therefore, an administration source told Novak but not under a confidentiality agreement. Subsequently, Novak told the grand jury about this. 2) Novak obtained his information from someone outside the White House or from a fellow journalist such as Matt Cooper or Judy Miller. In the end, I think it's too soon to render judgment on Novak's actions. If, as I believe, Novak's knowledge of Plame's career and her alleged involvement with her husband's Africa trip came from separate sources, I'm not sure there's anything he could say that would have helped Cooper and Miller avoid jail, especially if Plame's identity wasn't privileged information. As for Fitzgerald, I find it hard to condone his prosecution. According to Ann Althouse, the judge in the case seems to be a jerk, too. Incredibly, he actually said this at Miller's sentencing: "That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip cookie and eat it. I don't care.'" Posted by: Matthew Sheffield at July 8, 2005 12:32 AM | Permalink Amen Jay. You too Steve Lovelady. As I wrote yesterday in Who's the real anti-hero here: Miller? Novak? Judge Fitzgerald? I think Safire has nailed it and and you all have too. Today I recommended Bob Ambrogi, who delivers terrific help with "The single-best resource on shield laws." Given Bob's desire to get the word out, I don't think he'll mind if excerpt the entire, brief post: "Yesterday's jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to disclose her sources heightens national attention on reporters' shield laws. For anyone wanting to learn more about reporters, subpoenas and shield laws, there is no better resource on the Web than The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Its special section, Reporters and Federal Subpoenas, provides in-depth and frequently updated coverage of efforts to enact a federal shield law as well as of ongoing legal controversies involving reporters' subpoenas. A separate section, The Reporter's Privilege, is a detailed examination, written in 2002, of the law regarding the reporter's privilege in every state and federal circuit. It provides statutes and cases and discusses both substantive and procedural issues." Here's my question: Where do Time magazine editors and Matthew Cooper stand in your estimation? Is Norm Pattis right to recommend a boycott of Time? He writes, "Judith Miller and The New York Times have taken a firm stand on principle; the same cannot be said of Time Magazine, my subscription to which, I am happy to report, will be cancelled today." Posted by: Lisa Stone at July 8, 2005 12:33 AM | Permalink Whoops - I left out the first link in my comment above -- here it is: Who's the real anti-hero here: Miller? Novak? Judge Fitzgerald? Posted by: Lisa Stone at July 8, 2005 12:35 AM | Permalink I inadvertently left out my third sub-scenario: 3) Novak obtained information on both Plame's identity and her alleged role from administration officials who were actually passing on information they heard from Miller, Cooper or someone else. All of this is to say simply that we don't have enough information to render judgment on Novak, Miller, or Cooper. Posted by: Matthew Sheffield at July 8, 2005 12:36 AM | Permalink Matthew: "I think it's premature to be rendering judgment on Novak at this point..." Render a judgment? To whom are you speaking, Matt? I said Novak should get the big chill until he explains. At that point, we can perhaps begin to judge. The (anonymous) kid: "Also assumed is that Novak is the central issue..." Who said anything like that? I wrote a post about Robert Novak because I had something to say that wasn't being said elsewhere (today). There is no claim that he is the central anything. You invented it so you could disagree with it. The (anonymous) cal boy: "Dont you see that all the 'openminded' journalists on this thread have already convicted Novak..." No, "boy," I don't see that at all. I said Novak ought to explain his part in this fiasco. I made no attempt to speculate on what he did or did not do. You should be more careful. Lee Kane: "What I get from Jay's column is...'I'm mad Miller is in jail. You, Novak, what do you know about this? Why aren't you telling all you know? You're not in jail so I'll blame you.' What column are you reading, Lee? I didn't blame Novak for Miller being in jail. The prosecutor is the one who put Miller in jail. You're over-reaching by a mile. Pincus's recollection raises an interesting question. He recalls that he got his tip about Wilson's spouse from a source ""who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities...'' Posted by: Pete Carey at July 8, 2005 1:36 AM | Permalink Jay: How can he explain? If he testified, it would be a felony to divulge what he said or even if he appeared. Posted by: Matthew Sheffield at July 8, 2005 2:42 AM | Permalink 'It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.' The most fundamental of the Chinese fifth century general Sun Tzu's principles for the conduct of war is that "All warfare is based on deception". The Age of Down Under Fame shares a generic wisdom in relation to government deception. Crudely, it notes that political spin is 'just bullshit by another name.' 'Princeton University philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his recent book On Bullshit, points out that bullshit is a bigger enemy of truth than lies. The truth-teller, he argues, is guided by the "authority of truth", while the liar refuses to meet the demands of that authority. But the bullshitter, he argues, simply "ignores these demands altogether", making bullshitting a worse crime than actually lying...' Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 8, 2005 4:51 AM | Permalink I think the key here may lie in a comparison of Pincus and Novak's accounts. Pincus says that Plame was identified as a CIA "analyst" -- Novak described her as an "operative." It may well be that Novak decided to irresponsibly "sex up" his story by using the word "operative" instead of "analyst." Novak's silence is a way of delaying the inevitable admission that his irresponsible and unethical behavior lead to the outing of a covert CIA agent.... Posted by: ami at July 8, 2005 7:14 AM | Permalink "For in certain ways the case that sent Judith Miller to jail is about a classic whistler blower: diplomat Joseph Wilson. " The case did not sent Judith Miller to jail, she volunteered. That's true, Tim. Matt: you are misinformed. There is nothing illegal about talking about your own testimony before a grand jury-- no felony. See Froomkin. In fact, Pincus tells us what happened with the prosecutor in his deposition here. Novak never says the prosecutor or court or law prevent him from talking; he says his attorney told him he can't til the case is over. To say that this case sounds the death knell of the free press is a bit premature and pure bullshit. All the shrill media hysteria is either a red herring or merely reflects a misinformed media. Critics would do well to read (heaven forbid actually having to research something) Prosecutor Fitzgerald's compelling bruef urging Millers imprisonment. It is clear that under the universally admitted "bad facts" of this case, no foreseeable federal shield law or any existing state shield law would ahve insulated Judith Miller from her present fate. Go read the appellate court's opinion also. Given the overriding national interests involved, the gravity of the criminal activity alleged. the waiver of confidentiality allready in place (albeit a matter of debate as to whether a nebulous potential aspect of coercion might negate its effect, at least in the mind of the journalist), the fact that The Supreme Court has given legal finality to the issue, as well as other distinguishing factors set out in the prosecutor's brief,would have compelled the same result with or without a shield law. Even an eminent attorney, ex president of an ACLU chapter, Mr ..... Stone, (cited in the prosecutor's brief) agrres with this assessment. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 11:41 AM | Permalink Don't be such a wimp! If you want readers to act, supply contact info, i.e. John Cruickshank's e-mail address is, not surprisingly, jcruickshank@suntimes.com. Come on, be aggressive! Posted by: trblmkr at July 8, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink Talk about "chilling". I was rereading Jay's intro and something struck me about Walter Pincus' recollection of why he didn't act on information given him about Wilson's wife. He said he didn't act on the information because he didn't believe she had arranged the trip. I guess this means he didn't think it was a boondoggle even though she did in fact recommend him for the trip, or was he speaking literally. Does it mean he didn't know she had recommended him, and even though he was a logical choice, did it without compensation, and was more than qualified, had he know of the recommendation, he would have done the story. Either way it is insightful into how the media thinks today. Hopefully, since Pincus is one of the few journalists left that I believe has high ethical standards and integrity, this was not the only consideration. Otherwise, it would be clear that he didn't give much thought to the havoc it could wreak on our national security or even about the fact that it could endanger the lives not only of Plame but all her sources and even casual contacts, especially in the Middle East. Otherwise, if in his subjective opinion, Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 12:35 PM | Permalink Don't be such a wimp! If you want readers to act, supply contact info, i.e. John Cruickshank's e-mail address is, not surprisingly, jcruickshank@suntimes.com. Come on, be aggressive! Thanks for the pep talk. But I don't do that, trblmkr, although I don't mind if you do in the comments section. I have a different kind of blog, I guess. My focus is on getting people to think, and providing (aggressively!) lots of links to help them know more, and see the several sides at work. They act (if they ever do act) on their own initiative, not mine. But this points up why Dan Gillmore honor tag system, or something like it, makes sense. It's not only that I don't do activism, but I am frequently trying to complicate press issues and slow down rather than speed up people's conclusions. A successful PressThink post will sometimes leave a reader more informed but less certain about what she or he thinks, which is not a bad outcome from my point of view. If you're running a war room, or operate an activist blog, that's a terrible outcome. The web is an ecosystem. It needs variety. Nick: go to the "After" section of this post, and you will find most of your points made. It's true, though, that journalists do not seem well informed about the nature of Judith Miller's action. It would not have been covered under the national shield law, and it's hard to imagine a law that would not have the exceptions (disclosure of an intelligence agent) that have made for this case. That is why she believes she is engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Keller described it: when "you run out of legal protection but you still feel like you have a moral obligation to stick by your promise." I do not understand the criticism of Robert Novak. He did his job as a reporter and reported that Wilson got his job because his wifey recommended him. Maybe you as a "journalist" don't think nepotism in government is newsworthy, but as a news consumer, I do. Posted by: Jeremy Brown at July 8, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink No, Jeremy, Novak didn't do his job as a reporter. Otherwise he would have investigated the tip. Instead, he acted as a shill for the White House.
Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Permalink My own opinion of Miller's actions, for those who want to know, is akin to the argument in David Ignatius, Bad Case for a Fight. The priesthood's reply to this--you don't get to pick your cases--is misleading and an attempt to close down discussion in my view. The fact is Miller (and only Miller) "picked" going to the wall among the options she and others had. Ignatitus: For months it has been clear that this case was likely to make bad law: appellate rulings that would erode journalists' ability to protect their sources. That's one reason why some prominent reporters -- including ones with The Post and NBC News -- let their lawyers work out arrangements that would provide Fitzgerald with information he wanted, without compromising the confidentiality agreements the reporters had made with their sources. These negotiations were delicate, involving sources' consent that reporters testify about their conversations. But they allowed both sides to preserve the essential points of principle -- and avoid the train wreck that obviously lay ahead. A key point comes later; he argues that the press has to think about where and when the public interest is served by the reporter-source privilege. "That's what makes the Plame case so vexing: It's hard to see the larger principle in this particular set of facts." This of course was an observation I made in my post. How can journalists say with a straight face that they are concerned for future whistle blowers if one of their own, Robert Novak, together with sources made possible an act of retribution against an actual whistle blower? I believe (I certainly don't know it, and I could be wrong, so let's call it a hunch..) that Judy Miller, a dramatic person, was uninterested from the start in these subtle negotiations and their essential muddiness. She is the kind of person (and professional) who would see that option as the one weaklings take. It would be a kind of treason against herself to pick it. I further believe that for avoiding what Ignatius called the train wreck it was up to someone capable of cooler judgment--Keller or Sulzberger or someone--who might see that by pushing hard on unfirm ground (which is what this case is) you do not necessarily advance the ball. You can slip, and move the ball back. Which means you don't have the high ground at all. Ultimately the explanations for Miller's act, couched in principle, are equally psychological in my view. Institutional psychology (the Times from Ellsberg to Blair to WMD), professional psychology (First Amendment PC in the press) and individual psychology (Judy Miller's self-image) are involved, and inhibit clear thinking. I hope this explains better, Lee Kane, where I am coming from. PressThink writes: It's not only that I don't do activism, but I am frequently trying to complicate press issues and slow down rather than speed up people's conclusions. A successful PressThink post will sometimes leave a reader more informed but less certain about what she or he thinks, which is not a bad outcome from my point of view. If you're running a war room, or operate an activist blog, that's a terrible outcome." Wait a minute, if you are calling for Cruickshank to suspend Novak (albeit, with pay), how is providing a link to Cruickshank, or, more generally, the Sun Times e-mail list ( http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/email.html) activism? By providing a link, you are not forcing readers to their keyboards. You say you want to "...complicate press issues and slow down rather than speed up people's conclusions...", but you are clearly entreating Cruickshank and others to drop or censure Novak in various ways. That seems the opposite of complicated and slowed down to this humble reader. Posted by: trblmkr at July 8, 2005 1:56 PM | Permalink Based on the Honor Tags descriptions, especially the amplification, the tag with which I would most nearly self-identify is "Journalism". And, in my opinion, a lot of the folks that many people regard as "journalists" wouldn't seem to qualify. Interesting. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 8, 2005 2:01 PM | Permalink Jay -- My main point is that you seem to be calling for a punishment to come down on Novak. I don't understand why, based on the logic of your column. You are blaming Novak for something--it's just not clear what or why. For talking to the prosecutor? For not talking to him? For talking or not talking and then not writing about it? For publishing a leak? What is he guilty of...perhaps something but I don't understand what from your piece. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 2:28 PM | Permalink I think the "crime" that I am getting after re-reading and thinking about it is that you accuse Novak of allowing himself to be used as a tool to stab at an apparent whistleblower and that, you believe, now the time has come for him to tell all he knows or be put, metaphorically speaking, in jail, just like Miller, though for different reasons--in this scenario Novak's press peers are his prosecutor and his Fifth Amendment rights and reporter-source privilege and any deal he made with Fitz. be damned--talk Novak or "go to jail." Is that about right? I'm not sure I can totally agree that Wilson was in fact a whistleblower. To make such a judgement requires not only "prosecuting" Novak (per above), but serving as judge and jury over the whole case too. What if Wilson is the partisan hack and Novak merely exposed him? The truth seems muddy and it's by no means clear that Wilson is whistleblower hero and that there is a leaker who sought to "destroy" him. If I had to bet, I'd bet it won't come out that pat when all is known. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 8, 2005 2:44 PM | Permalink Jay, thnx for sending me to the After section. There was some good stuff there. Just an afterthought on something that I have only seen alluded to elsewhere. The fact is that Judith Miller, and perhaps Novak and Cooper, was in effect a witness, or probably a witness to a crime. At the moment that a source related Valerie Plame's secret identity, that source was commtting a crime, assuming the knowledge and intent factors can be proven. That's to me the essence of what makes this case different. In order to have the factual content to prove a crime, Fitzgerald has to have all the first person details, not hearsay (she said that he said). I've stated the legal reasons in a previous post why Miller could be jailed with or without a shield law. But to me, other than the factor of covering up for a lowlife traitor, this is the most compelling reason that Miller should spill the beans and why she may be in for much rougher sledding if she remains silent. It's clear to me that she is in for an obstruction of justice criminal charge if she doesn't fold her hand. We got a hint of that when Judge Hogan, in speaking to Cooper as he was about to say he would testify, mentioned in passing something about obstruction of justice. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink Miller is in prison to protect a right that Novak appears to have finagled. David Corn takes you on a fascinating fact-filled but ultimately only speculative tour of what may have happened with Novak and his sources. A point to remember in our discussions of Mr. Novak. This is why what Novak knows is important. "Some high level staff member(s), most likely close to the Pres of the US, for political gain and totally without regard for our national security (something about which the neocons rapsodize as their sole concern), and endangering the safety and very lives of many more people than just Plame, outed Plame." This is worth repeating for all those either obtuse or merely pretending to be online. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 8, 2005 4:28 PM | Permalink Politicians doing something for political gain...no way...you cant really believe that David...it would almost be like a President "accidentally" obtaining hundreds of FBI files on political opponents, but I guess he was doing some "investigating journalism" in hopes of becoming a ""whistle blower"". Posted by: calboy at July 8, 2005 5:26 PM | Permalink Before hurling insults and trying to label people, calboy, why don't you look at my post two above Dave Mc's for some context. The Valerie Plame situation should not be a liberal vs. conservative issue. I would think every rightthinking American would want this issue to be resolved. The fact is that Novak said, in print that Valerie Plame was "an Agency (CIA) operative on weapons of mass destruction". Novak then said that "two senior administration officials" (firmly established as White House staff, even acknowledged by Bush) had told him that Plame had suggested sending her husband to Niger to find out if Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there. Wilson came back and said there was no evidence of this and that's where the apparent vendetta started. If in fact high level White House staff committed a crime by outing Plame, we need to know. Many Posted by: Nick Perez at July 8, 2005 7:35 PM | Permalink I forget, calboy, who's lives were endangered and which CIA agents were outed by by those 'hundreds of FBI files?" Posted by: David McLemore at July 8, 2005 7:44 PM | Permalink Nick-First of all, none of my comments dealt with patriotism or the lack thereof so I dont get that part. I do agree with the majority of your post-it is not a Lib/Cons issue but somehow Novaks name is conjoined with some of the terminology I mentioned above(do we read or hear "judith miller, a hard left anti war reporter with the Liberal daily, NYT...." No we do not and that is my point ie the journalists convict with their categorization and terminology; surely you can see that. Posted by: calboy at July 8, 2005 9:58 PM | Permalink calboy, in a word: bull. You're 'it's the liberal media, stupid' rant is as insipid as it is wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion. And, of course, Ms. Miller was so leftist and anti-war (she works for the NYTimes, right?) that she authored a series of Chalabi-sourced articles that virtually supported Bush's WMD argument single-handed. Too bad for her (and the president) none were found. Zip. Nada. I guess that was Clinton's fault too, huh? But your sad whine that conservatives have to work so hard to get their message out is hilarious, given the topic of our conversation. Robert Novak. Ever hear of him. I certainly have no interest in dredging up the nine-year-old conservative plaint about Clinton and the FBI list. Nothing came up of it at the time. But equivalency to outing a CIA agent? Posted by: David McLemore at July 8, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink Oh, you don't have to take my word on the FBI files. Take Ken Starr's. "The Final Report in the FBI Files matter concludes that there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") background reports of former White House staff from the prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan." Posted by: David McLemore at July 8, 2005 11:03 PM | Permalink Now it is official, great investigators don't need to bully fourth estate ... Lawrence E. Walsh, independent counsel in the Iran-Contra probe of Reagan administration officials, says he never considered taking action against reporters and couldn't imagine a justification for it. I felt it was up to me and my associates to conduct our own investigation and not force a reporter to do it for us A Prosecutor Who Didn't Back Down Posted by: Jozef Imrich at July 8, 2005 11:14 PM | Permalink Dave: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 8, 2005 11:33 PM | Permalink Yep. Makes you want to break out the folding chairs, pop some corn and just lay back and watch. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 9, 2005 1:43 AM | Permalink Dave-I was simply making a point on how journalists/columnists who veer politically right are described with certain terminology ie "right wing columnist Bob Novak". I was being facetious when I described Judith Miller. I just dont see Left wing jouranlist/columnists described as such. Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 1:45 AM | Permalink You started with the name calling again Lovelady...dont you ever learn! Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 2:05 AM | Permalink "mad dog prosecutor"--as usual Steve Lovelady stumbles to his computer under a load of heavy drinking to let us know what fools think. Sad really that he thinks his drivel here is somehow burnishing his image. I sense someone with Jack Shafer-like self-esteem problems. Steve, actually, if we really wanted to go to tinfoil-hat land, Judy should still be a hero to LGFers -- because she's valiantly protecting Karl Rove. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 9, 2005 12:06 PM | Permalink As someone who has worked a good deal for the New York Times as a free-lancer and studied the issues under discussion here as an academic, let me make a couple of humble points. First of all, for those who missed the link before in previous Press Think posts, you might want to review my study on whether journalism is a bona fide profession. IS JOURNALISM A BONA FIDE PROFESSION? What the literature and the law reveal. Second, I have a theory for why the management at the Times' is handling the Judith Miller case by allowing her to go to jail. I have not fully fleshed out my thoughts on this at The Locust Fork blog, in part because I am keeping some of my powder dry in hopes of continuing to help a great newspaper that obviously needs some serious help right now. But here's the deal. Remember when Bill Keller sat down with Karl Rove back during the presidential campaign? And remember what Keller said recently about the Times needing to move beyond its liberal, urban base? Then, read some of the Times' coverage of the fraud trial of HealthSouth's Richard Scrushy. I think Keller was deeply affected by the tenor of Rove's harangue. And I think the lack of access by Times' reporters to the Bush campaign, mentioned in the same New Yorker article linked above, hurt the paper's ability to cover national politics. And this was a serious problem for a paper that has always enjoyed access to the highest levels of government and a reputation as the national newspaper of record. So the Times has gone to great links since to try and demonstrate to the Bush administration that it can be "fair and balanced." Read the coverage of the recent Billy Graham crusade in New York, and this recent guest op/ed column with a sympathetic nod to the dangerous patrician of the Christian Right, Pat Robertson. I am not privy to the discussions about the future of the Times as a business/profit center - but someone up there has decided that it is all about the money. What does this have to do with Judith Miller? It is pretty obvious at this point that she is protecting Karl Rove, who may have committed a federal crime by outing a federal agent. If loyal Times readers - who have a tendency to be educated, liberal folk - found out the depth the Times' would go to to restore its access to what many of us consider to be a highly corrupt administration, well you get the point. There goes the readership and the money. By going to jail, Miller can come off as a journalist hero. Unfortunately, the joke is on the Times. Karl Rove could care less whether the Times has access or public credibility. In fact, I suspect he is laughing all the way to the bar as Ms. Miller sits in a New York jail. The MSM has yet to figure out just how cynical and corrupt this administration can be. The Washington Post, oddly enough, is no better in these times. I was struck by Bob Woodward's comments recenlty on NPR, when he talked about Nixon as a "criminal president." So when will we figure out that Bush is also a criminal president? With a criminal for a political adviser? Keller described the judge's action in the case as "confounding." It is not confounding to me. The point is to destroy the credibility of the press before they have a chance to bring on the second term investigation that will doom the Republican Party's chances of holding the White House in 2008. If the Times and Post won't take the bastards on, then there are some of us in the blogosphere who will - whether we have the requisite recourses or not. The press should stop pandering to these people to try and restore their access. In the old days when the press had real power in this land, we would have just pounded the hell out of the politicians, day in a day out, until the truth came out. Thomas Jefferson had it right more than 200 years ago. But we seem to have forgotten his sage advice. "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press...that cannot be limited without being lost." So forget the limits. Tell the damn truth. A couple of points, calboy: 1: I don't care if Robert Novak goes to jail. I want to know who fed him information that led to a covert CIA agent's identity being revealed so that THAT person can go to jail. 2. Clinton didn't do it. And he isn't president anymore. If you won't take Ken Starr's word that there was nothing to the FBI files allegations, I can't help you. 3. If you're not seeing liberal columnists/reporters/etc. referred to as 'left-wing' or whatever epithet you wish to throw out, you're not paying attention. Posted by: David McLemore at July 9, 2005 2:18 PM | Permalink GW- now you may be correct on the NYT selling themselves out for access ala CNN in Baghdad and in Cuba. Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 2:29 PM | Permalink David- I do believe if the shoe was on the other political foot you would be trying to shield the journalist in question over 1st amendment rights or some such reasoning(or so i believe). I am sure you are still pursuing with vigor the forged TANG documents so the people responsible will be jailed also....Right... Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 2:35 PM | Permalink "I, however, do not know all the EVIDENCE so i will curtail my judgement until facts come out." - calboy Why would you want to start now? Posted by: David McLemore at July 9, 2005 2:43 PM | Permalink Not sure about the media, calboy, but the press was surely just as "even handed" when it went to great lengths to make Clinton into a bad president for allowing an intern to give him oral sex. The problem was he lied, right? Well there is a HUGE difference between lying about sex and lying about secretly and illegally bombing Cambodia. Get it? The press, and the media, also had a field day with conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's death. So, why is it a problem going after a president who we now know cooked the intelligence books to trump up the reason to go to war in Iraq? Since I was cryptic before about the connection to the Times coverage of the Scrushy trial, here's another clue. Any common sense analysis of the trial coverage will reveal a bias for guilt - even without the benefit of all the conversations I had with reporters and editors. So if Scrushy should go down for cooking the books, shouldn't Bush? Would it not be an "evenhanded" thing to ask why Bush shouldn't be tried for war crimes along with Suddam Hussein? GW wins the award for the wackiest moonbat conspiracy theory on this thread so far. I'm very sure many of you can do better. The people who consider NYTimes-Democrat the Bible are not the people who support GWB. Pinch made the decision early on that the Times-Democrat would cater/pander to the narrow Central Park West crowd and their wannabees. No matter what you think of the Times-Democrat, Keller and Pinch are not stupid. To alienate their "base" even as they strive to be a "national" paper would be suicidal. Look at the move they made to put their columnists behind a paid subscription wall---Keller/Pinch know very well that no one beyond the CPW crowd will pay to read these one-trick ponies. Come on, moonbats, you can do better than this! Posted by: kilgore trout at July 9, 2005 2:52 PM | Permalink Thanks for the compliment, trout, but it was not a conspiracy theory, just a theory, based on empirical evidence. You are the anonymous moonbat. Come out of the closet and maybe we could consider taking you seriously.
Your comments and reasoning is exactly why the public, including myself, have no trust in the media ie Saddam=Bush and Bush=Hitler..I love the relativism and nuance GW! Ghandhi beliefs also led to people dying..can we try him as a war criminal! Ghandi=Hitler!! Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 3:06 PM | Permalink I just handed you the evidence for equal vigor. Choose to ignore evidence at the peril of your own credibility. And wasnt it the paper of record, that unbiased NYT who demanded and investigation of the leak...maybe you should read Ward Churhill's "The Justice of roosting Chickens". Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 3:13 PM | Permalink GW-conspiracy theories as evidence...interesting..i will have to try that out! Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 3:15 PM | Permalink Read the links boy . . . you Christian righties obviously wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the nose . . . I see that with the advent of the weekend we've veered off the tracks and into wingnut land Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2005 3:33 PM | Permalink But you do take me seriously, GW, otherwise you would not have responded. I'm not buying your "out of the closet" gambit either. Unless you demand that the lefties who comment here anonymously out themselves, why should I? Our (un)congenial host and Lovelady are attempting to marginalize and discredit some of us who comment here by branding us as "ideologues" and denouncing our anonymity, but where is the denunciation for the "ideologues" and "anonymous" who adhere to the lefty ideology? Will you vote us off the island, like Bill Quick, or will you purge us like Kos? Either way, if Jay doesn't want me to comment here, he just has to say so. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 9, 2005 3:50 PM | Permalink You have a little trouble with focus, don't you calboy? It's no longer the '90s. I'm not even sure Scaife still obsesses about Clinton. And, Kilgore, what specifically do you find so troublesome with GW's theory. Outside the fact it runs counter to your theory that the NYTimes is Leftwing Central. That would be the NYTimes that led the charge on Clinton and Monica and helped push Mr. Starr's investigation along, right? The same Times that unquestioningly published Miller's Chalabi soliloquies? That Leftwing rag? I'm not saying I buy GW's theories myself. Market penetration is often more important to media executives than ideology. But you know my views on the bankruptcy of name-calling. So I'm assuming you, unlike calboy, have something more. Posted by: David McLemore at July 9, 2005 3:57 PM | Permalink Really Lovelady,this whole thread has been "wingnut" territory. Nobody here knows the facts, but still everyone has their pet theory. You'll notice I haven't commented about the Plame/Miller business. That's because I'm waiting for the final report to be issued before I decide---unlike you, and just about everyone else on this thread. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 9, 2005 3:59 PM | Permalink Kilgore- I agree and because we refuse to jump to conclusions and convict we are somehow Cristian
Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 4:27 PM | Permalink Dave, I can only assume you are a product of USA public schools and therefore have low reading comprehension skills. Read my comment again and you will discover what I consider "specifically troubling" about GW's theory. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 9, 2005 4:29 PM | Permalink Could it be that the news media has become far more interested in ENTERTAINMENT and should be more fairly described as NewsCreators? Novak skips the light fantastic, unthreatened and aloof. While Judy Miller will go to jail until her 'source' comes forward or the Grand Jury expires in October. No BIG deal, she will be the 'Darling of the talk show circuit' money in the bank for standing tall, for the collective media's 'principals?' How could anyone not a COWARD permit a woman go to jail for his TREASON? Where is the Presidents sons outrage over this? His anger, displeasure, and frustration? Why is Bush not turning over every rock in the White House searching for this despicable creature? Should the "MEDIA" have 'outed' the ambassadors wife? What responsibility does the MEDIA have as a citizen of AMERICA? Was that the "BIG STORY?" or was the "REAL STORY" the Treasonous actions of the LEAKER?! Posted by: PAULi at July 9, 2005 4:54 PM | Permalink Jay, I really do like the fact that you tried to respond reasonably to Lee Kane--but as Lee said, you seem to be calling, prematurely, for punishment for Novak -- because Novak was willing to testify and Miller wasn't. You had a nice profile of Ms. Miller, who was in favor of Iraq invasion because of WMDs -- totally believing 1998 Clinton; and prolly pretty opposed to fascists like Saddam and Saddam's lousy human rights (OK, Amnesty didn't call his Abu Ghraib a Gulag, but they did say it was terrible). C. Hitchens makes a pretty strong Bush-hating pro-Iraq war case. (Another argument is that the Left's opposition to booting Saddam is killing the Left.) Other than Iraq, is there any Miller position not hard Left? When the facts finally come out, and I've been eating a lot of popcorn so far with more on the way, I'll be able to more intelligently judge. So far: Miller is stupid not to testify. Nixon the liar had to deliver the tapes, after a court fight. I doubt that her time in jail will make her a martyr. I think the NYT is too far gone in discrediting itself to ever get access to BushCo; by 2008 there will be a more balanced press.
Genocide. The consequence of no invasion of Iraq? Saddam stays as dictator, but stronger -- having "won" against the US/UN/West again. The consequence of Clinton policy in Rwanda? Genocide. The consequence of UN/Leftist policy in Sudan, today, this week, this month, this year; last year? Genocide--in slow motion, nearly unmentioned in Live8 'aid' for Africa. Genocide. [now, back to your regularly scheduled psychoses] Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 9, 2005 5:13 PM | Permalink Wow, Kilgore. You got me pegged. Not only did I go to public schools as a youth, I graduated from a land grant college. Was it the bib overalls and straw hat that gave me away? But I assumed you had something deeper to say about the New York Times than it's 'liberal' and elitist. That's such a narrowly drawn cliche. Say, are you a product of private schools? Not that the Times can't be parochial as any small-town weekly. It can. But in its drive to be "America's paper", it's base is far wider than Central Park West. The Times speaks to power, where ever it fits on the political/corporate spectrum. Not some mythical liberal cabal. But if that's what comforts you, fine. Aside to calboy: Now, see. Once you step away from the cranky ol' fart pose obsessing over those danged liberals, you become a little more real. I'd say the media have treated both Clinton and Bush equally. Equally mediocre, that is. Rather than look at significance of their leadership, the media focused on the inane and irrelevant. Or played 'inside baseball' and cozied up to the powermakers. The true sin of the media, I believe, is they are far too concerned with being players on the scene. Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. But I must add, you have me mistaken with someone else: your religious views or lack of them is irrelevant to me. And, frankly, I don't care if you or kilgore show up under your real names or not. You'll always be calboy to me. When I get to Colorado, I'll bring a six-pack or two of Tecate. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 9, 2005 5:17 PM | Permalink Tom- if the UN doesnt categorize as a genocide then it is not a genocide..how many times do I have to tell you that! We must call it by its proper name: Massive Post Natal Abortion.. Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 5:23 PM | Permalink Tom -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2005 8:10 PM | Permalink A covert CIA agent was outed as the result of Bob Novak's column. Those are the facts. Whether this act involves a serious federal crime depends on the motives and knowledge of the parties involved. Every other fact necessary to trigger the law at issue was established when Novak's column ran. All that remains to be determined, then, is whether the info was leaked by govt. officials subject to the law, and whether those persons were aware of Plame's covert status. David Corn's analysis, linked by Jay above, spells this out much better than I do. And he provides a very plausible scenario for Novak to have escaped the contempt charge by agreeing to answer Fitzgearld's questions with his source's (Rove's?) permission, without implicating the sources in criminal conduct. But I think David's theory falls short in failing to consider that Fitzgerald would not likely ask the court to jail reporters if all he had was a suspicion that Novak and/or his sources were lying when they claimed they did not know Plame's covert status, and that it is unlikely the court would jail the reports on such a speculative showing by Fitzgearld. Rather, Fitzgearld most likely has some strong, but not sufficient, evidence that Plame's covert status was intentionally disclosed, that the whole purpose of outing her was to destroy her covert status. Otherwise, I doubt the court would jail miller. Consider what the motive would have been for outing Plame. Was it really just to discredit Wilson (a whistleblower)? There's other ways to do that without potentially committing a serious crime. But if the motive is to punish and ensure against any future damaging leaks from people who have lots of very damaging info, then intentionally outing Plame would serve that motive just fine, and might even warrant the risk. "Don't fuck with the President or you'll get your head chopped off." I bet a lot of people heard that loud and clear. (And recall they had a problem, they had to stove-pipe raw info to Cheney for a reason.) And where might this evidence of criminal intent that Fitzgearld must have come from? From some other witness who testified before the grand jury, probably. But their knowledge is an insufficient basis for prosecution standing alone. Hence the need to get testimony from miller and cooper. Fitzgearld probably has no choice in fulfilling his duties as prosecutor but to go this route based on what he knows, and the court probably feels so compelled as well. Novak is the guy who provided the vehicle for this probable crime to have been committed. He may even be a willing participant if it was criminal (although he is not subject to prosecution under the disclosue law). Jay is right. Novak should put up or be shut up until he does put up, especially with another reporter sitting in jail. It's unseemly as hell. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 9, 2005 8:27 PM | Permalink To blame Pol Pot's genocidal terror simply on our pullout or our blanket bombing misses the mark wide. I would gather Pol Pot himself, his warped ideology(that would be communism in any form) and his henchmen are to blame. Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 8:38 PM | Permalink Fortunately, I'm not running for election, calboy. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2005 10:08 PM | Permalink Lovelady: First- there is no disputing the idiocy of coverage in this country. However, when it comes to POLITICAL coverage then yes there is Leftist bent through analysis and terminology. Second-there is a vast gulf and difference as to what the followers of Al-qaeda do to women and homosexuals ie take them out to the ballpark for a hotdog and bullet in the head as opposed to people in this country(Christian Right and 60% of Californians) who simply are against gay marriage or the ERA ie those women and homesexuals never feel the scratch of the bullet. Sure, there are idiots on every side...thats human nature and to be expected. Whats also to be expected is for the views and actions of those groups to be denounced ie KKK, the Weathermen et al. But one Matthew Shephard doth not make an Al-Qaeda. Posted by: calboy at July 9, 2005 11:31 PM | Permalink Sorry, boyz 'n girls, but I had to leave the circus for a while to do some, ummm, actual work:
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2005 11:56 PM | Permalink Frankly I wish you would go away, cal boy. You can post several paragraphs of, "Jay, you only want to hear from those who agree with you...," the usual boilerplate parting shot, but then just leave. You add nothing but gratuitous insults and culture war cliches, and people who should know better respond to them. When called on something truly outrageous (Judy Miller, left wing hero) you say, "I was just being provoactive," and then it's on to the next accusation. This is troll behavior. I don't care for it. So please, draft your obligatory parting shots about me squelching dissent, post it, and be on your way. Go deface someone else's blog. Jay -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 10, 2005 12:51 AM | Permalink Novak Surely Ain't A TruthMonger; He's a shill, a tool and totally professional Posted by: Surely Smurf at July 10, 2005 12:53 AM | Permalink OK. That should read "totally UNprofessional" Posted by: Surly Smurf at July 10, 2005 12:55 AM | Permalink One Mo' thing: About this entire Plame leak case: Ashcroft recused himself shortly after it was announced that the CIA wanted an investigation by Justice. At the time, it was speculated-and speculated only- that Rove might be one of the investigated. According to David Corn, Newsweek is set to report it IS the Red Rover who leaked to Cooper Posted by: Surly Smurf at July 10, 2005 1:06 AM | Permalink Jay- I think you have me mistaken for someone else; Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 1:13 AM | Permalink AT the end of my post, I meant to write, "I guess that passes for History in journalism today." Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 1:23 AM | Permalink Where are these posts going? I thought the issue was about Novak and his professionalism or lack of. Did he reveal confidential information about the identity of a C.I.A. operative? Did this expose the operative and others to risk? Was he a willing tool of a White House revenge? Was Novak's intent informative or punitive? Are Novak's actions ethical? Posted by: Alph Williams at July 10, 2005 1:34 AM | Permalink Oh threads have a life of their own Alph Williams, but if you scroll up a couple of posts, apparently David Corn of the Nation magazine has it that Newsweek will break the story that Rove was the leaker to Cooper of Plame(Rove being of prior Leaker Fame that is). Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 2:14 AM | Permalink I gave you my advice, cal boy. My very best advice. I don't need to explain nuthin'. Alph Williams had a point: Where are these posts going? So, according to the David Corn newsweek rumor, it appears Fitzgearld does indeed have independent evidence that Rove outed Plame. But really, Rove has probably already admitted as much to Fitzgearld, given his lawyer's comments, he just denies "knowingly" disclosing her status. Nonetheless, the only element still remaining to ne established for criminal liability to attach to Rove is whether Rove knew Plame was covert when he disclosed that she worked for the CIA. What evidence could there be (other than Novak's use of the term 'operative,' as covered by josh marshall)? It is doubtful, but not impossible, that Cooper will provide such evidence. knowing Rove, he likely would have been careful to take advantage of an ironclad defense when one was so readily available, as it was. All he needs is plausible deniability about knowing her status. But then how did Novak know Plame was covert? If Rove told him, did he lie to Fitzfearld about that? He may have. Josh convinces me he knew. According to Corn, Cooper's e-mails contain info that Fitzgearld said stregthened the need to question Cooper. Since all that's left to prove is Rove's knowledge of Plame's status, maybe Cooper himself discloses Plames status in the e-mails to his editor. Or maybe not. It should become apparent pretty soon how far this is going. In normal times, Rove would soon be facing forced resignation or criminal charges or both. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 10, 2005 2:58 AM | Permalink Isikoff's new story may be the first time ever that a Time source leaked a story to Newsweek. "Isikoff's new story may be the first time ever that a Time source leaked a story to Newsweek." Boy, ain't that the truth. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 10, 2005 1:43 PM | Permalink Besides wanting Jay to agree with me and wasting my day away by squelching dissent on this thread...Why would Time Magazine leak a story to Newsweek and are there any future implications to this? Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 2:09 PM | Permalink I could never tell Time and Newsweek apart. The Dumb and Dumber of newsweeklies. Still, where else are you going to find out how to pick the right dentist for your dog or answers to important questions like, "Who was Jesus?" I think leaks which enlighten the public on how the press does its job are the best thing to come out of this. Let's see some more dirty laundry, people. Novak from Sept. 29, 2003 Crossfire program: 'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'... It appears that this scandal has the potential to be bigger than watergate. The judges in the appellate court see the crimes at issue as being extremely serious. The CIA agents who testified on 10/24/03 before the Senate see it that way. They claim this was the only time in US history that the govt. has outed one of its own agents (see pages 8, et seq.) http://talkleft.com/plamehearing1.pdf And some are speculating that the operative crime here is espionage, not a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That makes some sense given that the WH denials have been couched in terms used in that statute as opposed to the IIPA. And it all goes back to fixing facts around the policy in order to justify/force a war. Scary stuff. If it's as bad as it looks it could be, 4-6 people in the WH could be facing prosecution. If so, Bush will follow poppy and parden them all, no doubt. And the players know that. But one can still dream: http://billmon.org/archives/trial.html Posted by: steve schwenk at July 10, 2005 3:18 PM | Permalink For anyone wondering why someone from Time would leak to Newsweek, you only need to look at the Isikoff article, where this little tidbit appears: "(The email was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.)" It appears people at Time are pissed about Time's capitulation to legal authority, and the leakers will have their revenge. Unfortunately for the anti-Bush forces, this does not appear to be the "smoking gun" that will run Rove out of DC, or force impeachment of GWB. But this will not deter The Froomkins who are hell bent on impeachment. I have every confidence they will trump up some other newsbit (i.e. Guckert/Gannon, DSM, etc.) to get the job done. I can't wait. When Clinton was impeached at the urging of right-wing crazies (who ultimately didn't have the cojones to pull the conviction trigger) the public opinion of the press fell and the public opinion of Clinton rose. Live and DON'T learn, seems to be the motto of our beloved MSM. Howlin' Bob was too generous when he characterized the MSM reaction to Miller/Novak/whatever as "spin". We're talking mass hysteria here. The Times-Democrat draws a direct line from Miller to The Boston Tea Party, the Underground Railroad, Rosa Parks and MLK (among others). Shouldn't the Times-Democrat show some of the "humility" they demand of others? Also James Pinkerton's over-the-top column where he wishes we could go back to three networks who slavishly followed the Times-Democrat so the press could better fight the government. Hey, James, some of us want information from the press, not combat. Sheesh! Yeah, we all want Uncle Walter to tell us "that's the way it is". Clueless. Spin doesn't even come close to how the press is playing this. I can't imagine there is much public support for a Federal Shield Law either. Nevertheless, the powerful Congress will grant these powers to their friends in the powerful press because it is in the best interest of both. "The public" here, are just pawns in the ultimate power play. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 10, 2005 4:19 PM | Permalink That brilliant interpreter and all-around culture war wit "Jeff Gannon" has this comment on my post: True to form, the liberal media elites want to reserve freedom of the press for those who share their political beliefs. I published "Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill" on Thursday. It was linked to by Romenesko, Media Bistro, Fishbowl DC, Atrios, MSNBC's Best of Blogs, Jeff Jarvis, Howard Kurtz, Dan Froomkin, Dan Gillmor, among others. So far not a peep or a hint about anyone in journalism actually following my advice, although I got a number of grateful e-mails from journalists for suggesting it. My best guess is that my suggestion will be ignored. That is, no one will suspend his column or take any "cold shoulder" action whatsoever against Novak. Dang!I can't find it now, but the James Pinkerton column in Newsday says the same thing Jeff Gannon says. Pinkerton says we need a monolithic press (east coast liberal elite, of course!) to fight the government. He says that the press today is "too fragmented" (Gaia forbid we should have actual "diversity" in the press) so that "the government" (code word for Bush=Hitler) can pick off "the press" one by one. Pinkerton proves that you don't have to be a right-winger to be paranoid. In my view, Pinkerton's rants were far too representative of the press in general concerning the Miller-In-The-Slammer story. I'll look some more for the article. Jeff Gannon channeling James Pinkerton! Priceless! Posted by: kilgore trout at July 10, 2005 5:09 PM | Permalink Sorry to get off topic, but as a Texan and a Vietnam era veteran, I must address calboy's comment on the TANG "forged documents", mainly cause Schrub's calculated cowardice makes me puke, and I don't believe that I would qualify under the labels tossed around as being all that liberal. I believe that those documents were planted by the Schrub machine, probably Rove instigated, because they knew how lazy and eager for a scoop the liberal and conservative MSM are. There was a fair chance that the information in those documents would sometime during the campaign be revealed with substantial corroboration, along with a minute analysis of the numerous documents related to Schrub's non transfer from Texas. The factual substance of those documents has never been disproved, and in fact was confirmed by several sources, including the secretary who in honesty said those precise documents were forgeries. But in the face of a media frenzy, the discredited and gutless CBS did not pursue the inquiry and the issue died. Interesting that some of the details of Schrub's nonservice were confirmed by some members who served, oops, didn't serve with him because he wasn't there for much of the time. And calboy, if you are so supportive of the war in Iraq, why aren't you over there emailing us to send you adequate body armor, or to petition the Pentagon for adequate protection for your vehicular transport, or for Congress to stop cutting veterans' benefits. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 10, 2005 5:43 PM | Permalink OK, here's the Pinkerton thing. And really Jay, did you expect people to shun Novak? Some have contractual agreements with him that cannot be broken(at least without financial cost). Novak says his lawyer told him not to talk---isn't that a legitimate reason? Novak promised to "tell all" when the case is completed. I'm sure Judy Miller will get a book deal out of this too. You stand on shakey ground here demanding Novak spill his guts. Why? Why did you choose to focus on this aspect of the Miller/Plame/Novak case? Inquiring minds want to know! Posted by: kilgore trout at July 10, 2005 5:54 PM | Permalink OK, GW, you have to relinquish your Moonbat Award and hand it over to Nick. Nick, you really knocked one out of the park with your "I believe that those documents were planted by the Schrub machine, probably Rove instigated..." It's official---PressThink is the new Kos. Kilgore Trout: Proud Member of the Wavering Cloud Community Posted by: kilgore trout at July 10, 2005 6:07 PM | Permalink Did I say I expected it? No. I said: "My best guess is that my suggestion will be ignored." Does that sound expectant to you? Careful, culture war may be rotting your brain. Frankly, if I were Robert Novak, and a colleague went to jail for a story I did? I would suspend myself (take a vacation) until she returned. It would be the only way I could handle the situation and create some rough equivalence. By the way, Novak has said that putting Miller in jail is deplorable, and he deplores it. Lest there be any doubt, we are not re-trying the TANG story in this thread, so don't even think about it. kilgore, you can sneer and erect straw men all you want, and try to characterize this as Bush hatred. But if you read what some Republican CIA agents (both Bush voters) had to say about the seriousness of outing Plame in testimony before the Senate, you come away with a different view. And when you consider the context, phony intelligence used to force the country into a war, it's hard to imagine something more serious. I read James' piece. He believes that a strong and independent press is an essential check on (federal) government power. What a radical idea! You seem to disagree. And you sneer that he is a liberal (oh horror!). But you're wrong again: James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns. Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 10, 2005 6:31 PM | Permalink So, Kilgore, are you saying it's a good thing for senior staffers in the White House to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent? Or just those married to critics of the Bush Administration? Wait, that's right, you don't want to rush to judgment about Bob Novak. When might that notion start applying to people and institutions with which you disagree politically? Seriously. How dependent on 'getting all the facts in first' would you have been had the exposure of a CIA agent been made by a liberal president? Posted by: David McLemore at July 10, 2005 6:59 PM | Permalink Iv'e reconsider one part of my post, Kilgore T. Perhaps I should wear the label Moonbat proudly, its better than kneejerk liberal or neocon. Maybe I'll change my handle to Conservative Moonbat, or is that a contradiction in terms. Whatever happened to real conservative values: fiscal conservativism as apposed to blatant greed for the few, what happened to less government, what happened to wanting more than a modicum of social justice as advocated by even , gasp, Richard Nixon, what happened to freedom of the individual, especially with regard to intrusion by government on our privacy, to just name a few issues. I'm just getting warmed up, but I dont want to use up another 300 words. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 10, 2005 7:03 PM | Permalink My apologies for posting yet again, but this is too good not to share. It's the US version of the Downing Street Minutes disclosure that the WH was fixing the facts and intelligence around the policy objective (of invading Iraq). This is testimony before the US Senate given on October 24, 2003. VINCE CANNISTRARO, CANNISTRARO: I think that the jury is still out, in terms of how good the CIA intelligence was on the subject of Iraq and its capabilities. And I'll leave that the intelligence community to look at in detail. What I do know, however, is there was a pattern of pressure placed on the analysts to provide supporting data for objectives which were already articulated. It's the inverse of the intelligence ethic. Intelligence is supposed to describe the world as it is and as best you can find it, and then policymakers are supposed to use that to formulate their own policies. In this case, we had policies that were already adopted and people were looking for the selective pieces of intelligence that would support those policy objectives. Plame Senate Testimony (pdf) at pp.13-14 So maybe it is old news after all! Posted by: steve schwenk at July 10, 2005 7:13 PM | Permalink Posted by: Nick Perez at July 10, 2005 7:20 PM | Permalink I said were are not veering into TANG, got it? Now let me cool it down and make a request: I would appreciate staying on topic and that vast subject (Bush military service and investigations of it) is not. It's flame bait, and culture war theatre, so please, honor my preferences as you might the guy whose backyard is the site of a big barbeque. I kill posts that do exactly what I said not to do. And if you persist, I will close the thread which is past expiration date with 100+ comments. I kill posts without explanation or notification too. From the point of view of the person whose post is gone, I never have a good reason. In my view I always have a good reason. Jay- it is your weblog and obviously you are the controls but deleting posts makes the thread disjointed because others await responses and others come onto the thread at different times and such. Granted we veer off thread message but we always manage to veer back and tie up loose ends. Plus, sometimes "unmentionable topics" may actually tie into the current thread....thats all Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 7:37 PM | Permalink Yikes! I was wrong. That was not Senate hearing testimony, it's testimony from a hearing held by the senate Democratic Policy Committee on: The National Security Implications of Disclosing the Identity of an Intelligence Operative Sorry about that. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 10, 2005 7:42 PM | Permalink Steve: thanks for that Cannistrano testimony. I may use that in a post, so consider this your digging credit. Jay,I apologize. It's your site, but I didn't see your posted prohibition against the xxxx topic. Just replying in the heat of combat and looking at the relevant posts. Missed your reference. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 10, 2005 8:15 PM | Permalink Well,back on topic. Novak is at best incompetent and stupid, or at worst either a willing participant or facilitator in the commission of a traitorous cowardly crime. He used the word "operative", not employee,and that implies that he should have known that his information would compromise vital national security interests and likely endanger the safety and even lives of many more people than just Valerie Plame. This is in spite of a disclaimer that he checked with someone at the CIA, another anonymous person. I have to disclose that I'm a retired attorney, so I have a bias. However, scumbag that he might be, maybe Novak should be shunned by his peers forever, but not for not talking. Attorneys are very conservative and cautious when even the word "crime" is mentioned in regard to a matter to which a client is even tangentally related, much less when they could be as closely related as Novak. In many cases it would even be malparactice not to tell your client to keep his mouth shut until an investigation is concluded. So as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, with only the information that we have so far, I think Novak is fully justified in being a clam. If I had told a client to keep his mouth shut and he didn't, most likely I'd have quit him. There are all sorts of ways to get screwed when a grand jury convenes. The terms "conspiracy to commit" or "conspiracy to conceal" have the habit of popping up all too often in a federal indictment. What most people don't understand is that grand juries are creatures of the prosecutor; and if they really want to indict you, they usually can and will. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 10, 2005 8:55 PM | Permalink "What most people don't understand is that grand juries are creatures of the prosecutor; and if they really want to indict you, they usually can and will." -- Nick. Exactly. Or as Doug McCollam, another ex-lawyer, wrote at CJR Daily re Mad Dog Fitzgerald: "How can it be that a reporter who never even wrote a story about Plame is in the cooler, while the prime instigator is free to enjoy his martinis and prime rib? On another front, there is an added wrinkle here that seems to have escaped the one-track minds of our more rabid commentators who seem to forget that Press Think signals by its very name a hope and a trust that all involved understand that "thinking" is part of the deal when you sign on. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 10, 2005 9:32 PM | Permalink LoveLady- that we must find the facts out before we convict someone is considered "rabid" by your definition. And there are more facts to come out and if they show someone to be guilty of a crime or a stupidity then fine, that's where cards fell...but you and others convicted Novak many posts ago before facts were coming out, and even before, as now, we know the full relationship between Miller/Novak/NYT/Rove/Cooper as we post. Posted by: calboy at July 10, 2005 11:54 PM | Permalink Back in October 2003, Josh Marshall focused on Novak's use of the term "CIA operative" to describe Plame in his column outing her. Did the use of the term mean Novak knew Plame was covert and not just an analyst, as he claimed weeks later? Josh did a NEXUS search to see what he would find. Clearly, Novak knows the meaning of the phrase 'CIA operative' and he uses it advisedly. In the last decade he’s never used the phrase to mean anything but clandestine agents. Let’s cut the mumbo-jumbo: past evidence suggests that Novak only uses this phrase to refer to clandestine agents. In this case, when he has every reason to run away from that meaning of the phrase, he suddenly runs away from that meaning. Especially with all the other evidence at hand, that just defies credibility. Everything points to the conclusion that Novak did know. That would mean, necessarily, that his sources knew too. The ‘we didn’t know’ cover story just doesn’t wash. Novak's fellow reporters have never pressed him on this point. Maybe now would be a good time ... http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_05.php#002066 I wonder whether Fitzgearld is as impressed with the Rove/Novak 'alibi' as Josh is. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 11, 2005 1:07 AM | Permalink I will be interested to see it all play out... Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 1:28 AM | Permalink Jay, Isikoff's article doesn't mention where they got Cooper's email from, and since it does mention that a person close to "Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story" helped authenticate it, that leads me to assume that they didn't get the email from anyone at Time. Newsweek may have gotten the email from someone connected to the Fitzgerald investigation...or...perhaps even Rove's lawyer. But since someone close to Time did authenticate it....I think that your inference that many people are not happy with Time's decision to give in still holds up, anyway. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at July 11, 2005 5:50 AM | Permalink Yeah, Ron, I realized that when I looked closely at Isikoff's story. Seems the "authentication" came from someone inside Time. The e-mails may have come from one of the law firms; that would be my guess. Today the Wall Street Journal reports: Disclosing the identity of a confidential source to a grand jury remains contentious in media circles.. Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine, who says that he alone made the decision, was scheduled to meet with Time magazine's Washington bureau today to discuss internal unease, according to people familiar with the situation. He will be joined by Time Inc. Editorial Director John Huey and Time magazine Managing Editor Jim Kelly. Going to the mat on this case, as Judy Miller did, remains contentious in media circles too. See Michael Kinsley's column this week: The biggest problem standing in the way of a compromise is that journalists who share the philosophy of the New York Times assert the right to decide unilaterally. Even if they acknowledge the possibility that their needs don't always trump everybody else's, they insist that their judgment — any individual journalist's judgment in any particular case — does trump everybody else's. I have to say I find this piece in the Miami Herald (taking the opposite view to Kinsley) almost demagogic. Take this prediction: Anyone who reads the paper or watches television is going to hear a lot of snarky criticism of Judith Miller in the coming days and weeks as she sits alone in a jail cell. You're going to hear about her personality quirks, her past mistakes as a journalist, even her perceived ulterior motives to enrich her career. Huh? What is David Kidwell talking about? Miller is mostly being praised for her uncompromising stand. Calboy actually asks a pertinent question.(lol) Posted by: Nick Perez at July 11, 2005 2:26 PM | Permalink Aaiiieee! It's the Attack of the Strawmen---flee for your lives. Steve S.-I didn't say Pinkerton was a liberal, how would I know and why would I care? What Pinkerton said in his first paragraph was "...if that liberal (media) establishment falls completely..." all hell will break loose because the "ultimate enemy of freedom is the unchecked power of the state." Jeez, I guess Pinkerton has never heard of elections, but even if he had, how would the press stop the permanent bureaucracy in DC---those who are not elected, or come from "safe" states and districts (like mine) ---no matter who is President, or what party is in power. I don't see much press coverage of that. The press obsession is on POTUS (Watergate lives!), not the people who really run things. But no matter, I don't want the press to fight the government---that's my job. Pinkerton also adds this bit of hilarity: "no MSM entity has the resources to wage a long struggle against the government". Apparently, Pinkerton has never heard of GE, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner etc. I might add that no individual has the resources to wage a long struggle against MSM either (i.e. Richard Jewell, Hatfill, etc.). Dave, when and where did I ever say that it was OK to out a CIA agent (if that's what Plame was)? The law must be obeyed whether it's Miller or Rove. Also, you mention the "rush to judgment" on the Novak/Plame/Miller thing, but such liberal leading lights as Kevin Drum have delayed "judgment", saying the Plame thing is just too "muddied" to draw any valid conclusions.It's a great parlor game, though, dontchathink? Nick, I agree, GWB is no conservative, and we should have known that the "compassionate" part of conservatism would have a big pricetag attached. My biggest disappointment is that the Congressional Republican majority just laid down and died, instead of standing by their (supposed) principles. But still, I'm no conservative, or Republican, for that matter. Which brings me to our (un)congenial host. I know what you are trying to accomplish by branding me as an "ideologue" and "culture warrior", and why you make comments like "Careful, culture war may be rotting your brain." This is your "sophisticated" way of diminishing me. In a cruder context you would use fag, slut, spic, kike, nigger,camel jockey, retard, etc. I'd rather you addressed my comments (demented though they may appear to you) than resort to name-calling. Do you really wonder why I won't tell you more about myself? Posted by: kilgore trout at July 11, 2005 2:45 PM | Permalink Are there any precendents we can draw upon to this Plame case or is it a power shift or paradigm shift in the way that washington will for now on work off of? What can we expect in the future? Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 3:51 PM | Permalink Stephen Spruiell fisks Frank Rich's Sunday Times-Democrat column, but is looking for the "most disingenuous, fake, pretentious piece of sophistry in the avalanche of shoddy commentary set off by the Plame investigation." The competition is intense here, but I'm sure PressThinkers will rise to the challenge.http://media.nationalreview.com/069160.asp Posted by: kilgore trout at July 11, 2005 4:26 PM | Permalink Chill until Cool If Judith Miller’s time in the slammer will have a “chilling effect” on journalism, then that is good and sorely needed. There is way too much use of unnamed sources in journalism today. Journalists who use unnamed sources deserve what they get -- be it Ms. Miller or Dan Rather I am aware of the argument that the use of unnamed sources facilitates whistle blowers, which do provide a community service. But it also facilitates administration’s spin, personal ambition, and attack and purging of rivals. How are we supposed to know if all the facts are not out there for us to see? Trust the journalists whose primary objective is print space, air time, a byline or anything to increase their income? Yea, right. Let’s see, do I go on page 5 with a story of just the facts or do I go front page, above the fold, with a juicy bit of information the source of which I can not divulge. Miller should go to jail for printing all those lies about WMD’s in Iraq and mobile bio-labs, all from unnamed sources. Where was good journalism to save us from bad intel when we needed it? I have no problem with Novak’s story publishing the Plame name, which appeared in the editorial section of my newspaper. That is just the place for nonattributed facts -- or the columnist’s opinion since sources are not named. Editorials, Op-Ed or columnist in the editorial section is just the place for facts with no source -- either there or in the gossip section. Papers could have a political gossip section, but get it out of the hard news sections. Chill until cool and then serve. I have to agree with Jay. The repetitive baiting on the culture war crap is tedious and juvenile, not to mention insulting. It's more akin to graffiti than commentary. Do I have the cooties because I'm a libeeral democrat or a conservative republican? That's about the level of it. There are plenty of blogs out there where that level of discourse is welcomed and encouraged. There ought to be some where it's not. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 11, 2005 4:52 PM | Permalink Trout -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2005 5:02 PM | Permalink Whoah. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2005 5:24 PM | Permalink You know, if nothing else, the press reaction to Judith Miller should help dispell the myth that media is one big monolith (liberal) and that all reporters think the same. Some support Miller. Others condemn her. And for as many reasons as there are opinions. What will the effect be on the media? Mixed. Some will continue to print leaked information. Some, concerned about legal fees and jail time, won't. It's safe to say, however, there will be a hesitation in the step of most media to go too far out on the limb. That puts one more layer of approved news in play. And that means readers and viewers will have less information on which to base an opinion. And that's really sad. Oh, Kilgore, the question about outing CIA agents wasn't a straw man argument. It was a question, in part because your position seemed to be more about protecting the White House than concern for Truth, or whatever. And you answered and you were doing so well until the "if she is a CIA agent" part. There's never really been any doubt that Valerie Plame was indeed a CIA agent working without protective cover. That you doubt it suggests you've made your mind up even though the facts are out there. Posted by: David McLemore at July 11, 2005 5:55 PM | Permalink "Have you got your laywer yet??? Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 5:56 PM | Permalink
When McClellan was asked about Rove's involvement on Oct. 1, 2003, he said: "Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear." And when McClellan was asked again about the case on Oct. 10, 2003, he said that he had talked with Rove and other White House officials and they'd all "assured me they were not involved in" the "leaking of classified information." -- From Salon, July 11. Or you can spend a little time in Google and find it yourself. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 11, 2005 6:02 PM | Permalink Dave- how do we know that Bush or rove didnt lie to McClellan? Or Rove simply lied to Bush? Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 6:12 PM | Permalink You don't get the facts if you don't ask the questions. And sometimes you have to be disrespectful to power. Otherwise, you're just doing stenography. Look, we're talking about the official spokesman of the White House, the guy who speaks for the president. And if he's emphatically said things in the past that are shown to be counter to the facts, than exactly what are reporters supposed to ask? How was your day? What's your favorite color? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 11, 2005 6:17 PM | Permalink Wow, interesting to see this discussion still going on. I left for a few days of hurricane watch, and see you are stil at it. Has Novak felt the chill yet? I hope so. Tough questioning from Professionals (that isnt and doesnt need to be disrespectful) I can deal with...its what I expect...but snarky junior high questions from "professionals" puts doubts unto myself regarding the intentions of the journalists ie their politics are coming into play when I thought being objective was one of the 10 commandements of journalism. Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 7:11 PM | Permalink Cal-boy: What source do I have that McClellan lied to his teeth all through 2003 about whether Rove was involved -- or, alternately, that Rove lied to McClellan, who dutifully passed the lies along ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2005 7:26 PM | Permalink Interesting, calboy. You see the questioning of McClellan as motivated by political agenda. I see it as a group of White House reporters pissed at being lied to again and again. You wanted to know how reporters didn't know that "Bush or Rove didnt lie to McClellan? Or Rove simply lied to Bush?" and what the hell the White House's previous two years of denial of Rove's involvement in l'affaire meant. That's exactly what the reporters were asking. Yet somehow you're insulted they weren't polite enough about it. That makes me think you're more concerned with political agenda than the reporters ever thought about being. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 11, 2005 7:31 PM | Permalink To my liberal friends pursuing the Plame name leak story with gusto now that Karl Rove appears implicated: Turn back, "It's a trap!" Just like Rove planted the Rather documents, and other diabolical plots attributed to Karl. Think about it. I'm just saying... Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 11, 2005 8:19 PM | Permalink On at least 13 separate occsions, McClellan (mostly), Bush and Rove denied in stong-worded statements that Rove had anything to do with outing Plame. McClellan said the suggestion that he did was ridiculous, several times. Billoman has collected the pertinent quotes here: http://billmon.org/archives/001989.html McClellan lied. Over and over again, whether intentionally or not, McClellan lied to the press and to the public. And even now after Rove is caught red-handed, he refuses to back away from those lies. No wonder they wanted to tear his head off! Something tells me that possibly Cooper's e-mails coming out and him agreeing to testify was not part of the plan.... Posted by: steve schwenk at July 11, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink Steve -- The cognitive dissonance belongs to you, I think. Judy is not "my hero," nor is she now "my villain." I actually respect what she's doing. I don't respect some of the hyperbole being issued by partisan would-be truth tellers like yourself, directed at Rove, Novak, etc. Novak is on your side in this one, fingering the guy you've wanted to get for probably the past four or five years. Personally, I don't care much about Rove but I would see it a tragedy if he can be hounded out of office by an intentional misconstruing of what he actually did--that would be bad for the country, I think. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 8:25 PM | Permalink ps. "hounded out of office" means "hounded from the administration" Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink Of course there may be some political motivation-we are human after all and that includes journalists(or if there isnt the appearance is still there). Posted by: calboy at July 11, 2005 8:44 PM | Permalink Nick Perez - The reason I think Wilson's credibility is important because one's interpretation of those whole affair pretty much hinges upon it. Either 1.) Wilson is an honest whistleblower, in which case the actions of Rove, etc. to undermine him look shady and smack of abuse of power. or 2.) Wilson is a hack sent on a nepotistic junket who came back from Nigeria and then lied to the public about what he actually reported because, like much of the CIA (including no doubt his wife) he radically disagrees with Republican foreign policy and wants to undermine it. In this case, the efforts of Rove, etc. look like honest efforts to expose Wilson for what he is so that his disinformation campaign doesn't succeed and hurt the war effort. Depending on which you believe--Rove is villain or hero. I personally see evidence for both 1 and 2, and withold judgement for now, though I admit I lean toward 2. Of course, if Rove actually committed a crime, especially if knowingly, then he is a villian even if No. 2 is true. You can count on Steve Lovelady, et al (ie., the anti-Bush wing of the MSM) of course to make him out to be one, no matter what the truth is (I guess I have to say).
Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 8:48 PM | Permalink I would see it a tragedy if he can be hounded out of office by an intentional misconstruing of what he actually did. If Rove was the one orchestrating the hounding, he would see it as a triumph, not a tragedy, if he succeeded in driving someone from office. Ask Dan Rather. And did he show any compassion when Plame's career was destroyed? No. He said she was "fair game" ... as he twisted the knife planted firmly in her back. Either 1.) Wilson is an honest whistleblower, in which case the actions of Rove, etc. to undermine him look shady and smack of abuse of power. or 2.) Wilson is a hack sent on a nepotistic junket who came back from Nigeria and then lied to the public about what he actually reported .... In this case, the efforts of Rove, etc. look like honest efforts to expose Wilson for what he is so that his disinformation campaign doesn't succeed and hurt the war effort. Since this is what Rove's attorney is claiming, it deserves some attention. There's one problem with this theory. On the same day that Rove talked to Cooper (2 years ago today), George tenet issued his mea culpa (for Dick Cheney) saying there was no basis for the claim in the SOTUS that Saddam was trying to import uranium from Africa. Isn't Tenet saying right there that Wilson was right, there was no uranium or efforts to acquire it. Wilson's July 6 column had come out only 5 days earlier, and is linked here: And here's a WaPo piece reporting that the CIA knew the claim was false since at least Oct. 2002. [It got into the SOTUS speech anyway at Cheney's insistence and over Tenent's objections.] So what was Wilson wrong about that required Rove to out his wife? Was Tenet wrong, too? Posted by: steve schwenk at July 11, 2005 9:34 PM | Permalink Here's Wilson's column, sorry: Posted by: steve schwenk at July 11, 2005 9:44 PM | Permalink We all wouldn't have to do all this Monday morning quarterbacking if we just had a gutsier smarter more aggressive media. The press rarely has the ability to make probing insightful questions. I wish there were a class for the dense majority of the media by a really good attorney on asking the right questions and the art of crossexamination, and that they would attend. McClelland may never have literally lied; he may just have never been asked the right question, given a literal answer to the wrong question, or never been asked the right followup question. Or as someone suggested, Rove nay have flat lied and McClellan didn't really press him, but just conveyed the lie. We don't really know. But there are some things we can infer. McClellan assertion "that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information", is at minimum thought provoking. It leaves open the possibility the allegation(s) might be true in other "terms". McClellan then said he had talked to Rove and others and they'd all "assured me that they were not involved in the leaking of classified information". This doesn't mean I didn't leak anything, just perhaps not anything that I thought to be classified. This line of thinking then evolved to Luskin, Rove's attorney, stating that Rove had never "knowingly revealed classified information", tracking the principal statute that could hang Rove. I can see the defense coming that Rove unknowingly revealed classified information. But we don't really have concrete facts that we might otherwise have because the press willfully doesn't probe very well or else they are willing to accept pablum answers from both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Case in point, I just read the headline on a W Post story, "Rove Told Reporter of Plame's Role, but Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says". What an inane title. From the headline on might infer that makes everyhing OK because he didn't say "Valerie Plame is a covert CIA agent". He might just have said Joseph Wilson's wife who works at the CIA on WOMD proliferation....." Curious coincidence that Novak in his article talks about his sources also speaking in terms of Wilson's wife, etc. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 11, 2005 9:49 PM | Permalink Nick -- I agree with your approach. If we're trying to understand what our government is up to, how the various power centers in conflict (e.g., CIA rank-and-file vs. Bush Admin) are playing their hands and what the truth actually is I think it's necessary to put aside hysteria and analyze the motives of all the players, what they believed when and what the truth actually may be. (So we can leave Steve Lovelady out of this discussion for now.)
In any case, Wilson essentially accused Bush of *bad faith* -- Tenet's letter to which you link above in fact absolves Bush of bad faith. So there are really multiple issues in play here: 1.) What was the truth. 2.) What did Bush believe to be the truth. 3.) What did Wilson have to say about 1 & 2. I'm not sure that Wilson was accurate on either point, though I admit I've got to go back and check what I've read on the subject. It may be that Wilson's faith was what was bad. And it may not. If you can summon evenhanded evidence for either I'd appreciate the link! LK
Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 10:00 PM | Permalink I meant previous post to be addressed to Steve Schwenk. apologies. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 10:02 PM | Permalink Lee -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2005 10:09 PM | Permalink Lee Kane, I was starting to think that there was a semblance of logic from you at least in terms of consistency or sincerity of belief, but in your last post I see you are either being deliberately obtuse or else miss the entire point of this issue. You state that, "In this case the efforts of Rove, etc., look like honest efforts to expose Wilson for what he is so that his disinformatiom campaign doesn't succeed and hurt the war effort." My point is that whether Wilson is a hack, a liar, or a whistleblower only relates to Rove's motivation. His motives could be as pure as driven snow, but the execution of those motivations may have resulted in the commission of a cowardly crime that damaged our national security interests and put many people's safety and lives in jeopardy. Let me spell it out. If Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent,Plame, or even by the designator, Wilson's wife,by stating her affiliation with the CIA with requisite knowledge and intent, his crime is as I've stated above. That's what the basic issue is, was there a crime committed and who did it;and even if the crime can't be proved for tecnical reasons, is there enough information gleaned from testimony to conclude that someone made revelations that deserve moral sanction, or political repercussions. As a collateral issue, did anyone lie in an effort to conceal what actuallyhappened. Perjury, or a conspiracy to conceal charge is much easier to indict and convict on than the covert agent crime since that requires knowledge and intent. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 11, 2005 10:45 PM | Permalink Steve -- All that you say may well be true regarding your stances on Novak, Miller, etc. Of course, that does not absolve you of the charge "anti-Bush" which is almost assuredly a fair charge, based on all your writings here and elsewhere and your, shall we say, moronic, um, salivation over the prospect of Rove ("the rat") getting nailed. (Incidentally, I say this as someone who did not vote for Bush in either of the last two elections, although I voted in both elections.) In this case, I see it as the clash of your two deeply held beliefs, the reporter-source principle and the anti-Republicanism that is no doubt deeply ingrained in your soul as it is in all Watergate-dyed journalists. In fact, the two principles in this case can be seen as having some common ground and not in conflict at all. Nick -- We are almost in agreement. But I happen to think that there is a judgement to be made regarding Rove whether or not he committed a crime and that judgement hinges on Wilson's credibility and Rove's motivations. If there was a crime, then the judgement regarding Rove is obvious - though even in that case there remains an important one to be made regarding Wison. What if it turns out Fitzgerald is pursuing Wilson too! I say that only partially tongue in cheek for almost everything written right now is pure speculation and an indviduals' propensity to believe one or another interpretation says much about their political loyalties, in my humble opinion. However, I do see the twisted clash as evinced by Lovelady, the Times, etc. between Rove/Bush hate and reporter-source love to be fascinating and instructive. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 11:49 PM | Permalink Hey I just want to add that I do see Lovelady's somewhat trumped up moral outrage as being socially useful - although I believe Steve's case to be overstated it is those who can summon up outrage--perhaps only because under false pretense--that keep the politicos honest. I seem to recall that the conservative outrage directed at a former certain former Clinton official with secret documents stuffed in his trousers awhile back had a similar flavor and effect. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 11, 2005 11:58 PM | Permalink I found this amusing. From Howard Kurt'z online chat with readers: Plano, Tex.: I was very impressed by your suggested remedy for Bob Novak's transgressions. The idea of completely freezing out a journalist who has shown so little regard for his fellow journalist and his profession seem right on the mark. I for one think he has a lot to answer for. If I have one complaint it would be that while you have gone the extra mile for a fellow journalist you have rarely suggested these types of remedies for journalist who have transgressed against the publics trust. You may want to use the excuse that you are not the judge of your fellow journalist and this is true. Yet as a media critic maybe you are and maybe just criticizing is not enough. Like I said I like your suggestion for Bob Novak why not invoke them for breaking the public trust, after all it is in your interest. I am now getting off my soapbox I'll have to send Howard an updated bio. Les, I am interested in Luskin's theory that supposedly allows Rove to disclose Plame's CIA status and escape criminal culpability. Luskin said Rove was trying to steer Cooper away from bad info from Wilson. Others have characterized it as legitimately showing a critic of the president to be biased or unreliable. And I ask, what did Wilson say that was wrong or unreliable, factually? "Nothing" is the answer. Tenet arguably gave his mea culpa because of Wilson. Here's what they wanted to attack, I believe. And wouldn't you know it, it's more of that Downing Street Memo talk: If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. Wilson feared the WH was doing what the DSM said it was doing: fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy. It appeared that, because his report undercut Cheney's pet claim that Saddam was building nukes (or trying to), it got buried. And not only did it get buried, but the President reported the exact oppositie conclusion to the American people in his SOTUS leading up to the war, a conclusion he was forced to abandon as false after the invasion and right after Wilson's column ran. I can see why they'd want to destroy Wilson for raising these questions (sound familiar?), and deter other would-be whistle blowers. But I see no legitimate reason for trashing his wife's career just because he is raising legitimate questions about their justifications for the war. And now that we have 20-20 hindsight and the benefits of the DSM (corroboration from a 3rd party intelligence agency), we know Wilson was indeed raising legitimate and well-founded concerns in his column. Heck, we knew that when Tenet issued his mea culpa. So, I don't see Luskin having a winning defense theory as articulated thus far that get's Rove off the hook. It does not hold up. All Wilson did was tell the truth and express his opinions and concern. He was not spreading misinformation. The WH was. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 12:35 AM | Permalink I'm stunned that not one of you who claims to be a journalist seems to even be aware that what Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper was the truth! Valerie Plame did recommend her husband for the trip. She followed up with a memo proffering reasons he was qualified. She convened the meeting at which the trip was planned. She was present at his debriefing! Furthermore, Wilson himself lied about the results of his investigation. Yet you seem completely ignorant of these facts, all of which are easily assertainable simply by reading the relevant sections of the SICR - or my blog for God's sake! What has become of journalism when an average citizen is more informed than those who are supposed to be doing the informing??? addendum: I forgot to include that Wilson's wife did not arrange his trip to Niger, like Rove claimed. What this means, if true, is that Rove had to invent a reason that allowed him to bring up the fact that Plame was CIA. He went out of his way so that he could disclose that info, it was not incidential to something that was true. So, it is a weak defense theory, IMO. It does not withstand scrutiny and it risks causing a lot of damage to the WH. I bet he shuts his lawyer up like they did Scottie. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 1:28 AM | Permalink I have a question. A number of commenters have stated that "a covert operative" for the CIA was "outed". Is there one person writing that that knows it to be a fact? Or is it simply an assumption? Has anyone even bothered to ask Valerie Plame if, in fact, she was a covert agent at the time? Has anyone even bothered to ask if her job was compromised in some way? Surely someone in the vaunted halls of journalism has asked that one, obvious question? Or are we all simply taking Joseph "the liar" Wilson's word for it? I'm sorry, Steve, but that is simply false. Go read the SICR. SICR - Page 38 - "...interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name' SICR - Page 38 - ...interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name' and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, 'my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.' SICR - Page 40 - "On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes." SICR - Page 43 - Wilson was debriefed in his own home, with his wife present (acting as a hostess) and a report was generated as a result. The report indicated that in June 1999 a "businessman" approached Niger about "expanding commercial relations" with Iraq, and the Nigerian minister understood that to mean "uranium yellowcake sales."Please get your facts straight! According to Tenet, In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger [these were the forged documents Cheney's office hoped to corroborate and use as proof that Sadam was after nukes/uranium], CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. Even if Plame played a minor role in Wilson being chosen to make the trip, the trip was undertaken to explore the validity of the forged documents/agreements, per the request of Cheney's office (it certainly was not Plame who "sent him" as Novak and Rove misrepresent). And Wilson was well qualified to do the mission, no one disputes that. And besides, Wilson's findings were correct. You say he "lied." At least tell us the lie. And why would he? It's perposterous. It would be treasonous to lie to the CIA and the president and decieve them on matters of war and peace as you suggest. What would he gain in exchange for doing that? Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 2:08 AM | Permalink Ha ha-just like i said...more facts continue to arrive by those who have already convicted and by those who have convictions...interesting that the game is not yet over. Posted by: calboy at July 12, 2005 2:15 AM | Permalink McClellan lied. Over and over again, whether intentionally or not, The Left doesn't understand that a LIE is a deliberate thing, where an untruth is an unintentional thing. "I was in Cambodia at Christmas" -- this is a deliberate lie, intentional. Like "I never had sex with that woman," after getting oral sex. "Saddam has WMDs" -- this is merely untrue if the one saying it believes it (if untrue, not yet proven; likely true for nukes).
Of course, for radical Dems, any Rep becomes guilty upon accusation -- that's one way to police their PC media positions. Jay's call for punishment against Novak BEFORE a trial verdict is the typical Leftist PC-thought police kind of reaction to enforce conformity. No such calls against Eason Jordan or Dan Rather -- but I confess to agreeing that not listening to those who are "bad" is a reasonable punishment. (Disagreement on who is "bad".) Miller's going to jail because she won't testify in a trial -- I certainly support higher whistleblower protection, but if we don't have such laws, the Dems should be proposing them. I understand some are proposed, but such would also not protect Miller in this case. She can't be a martyr until the facts are known. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 12, 2005 4:34 AM | Permalink From a response by The Nation Institute and the Fertel Foundation to Representative J.D. Hayworth (and 10 of his house colleagues) who tried to get them to rescind an award for Truth-Telling that Wilson had been awarded: link. In claiming that Wilson is a liar, you noted that Wilson said that his wife "definitely HAD not proposed that I make the trip" to Niger. But you maintain that the Senate report quoted from a memo from his wife that did (in your words) "promote her husband for the mission, saying 'my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'" This strikes us as rather a small point. So what if Valerie Wilson had suggested her husband? A week in Niamey for no pay was hardly a junket. What would have been wrong with a CIA officer telling another CIA officer that her husband, a former ambassador, is an Africa expert with experience in Niger and that perhaps he should be dispatched to Niger to see what he can learn? But because Wilson is on record saying it did not happen this way, his truthfulness and in fact his character are being questioned. ...... This passage can be read two ways. It could be that Valerie Wilson "offered up" her husband as someone that CIA officials should talk to about the Niger allegation. It could be that she proposed him specifically for the trip. The record presented by the Senate report does not support a definitive reading. By the way, at least two media reports--a July 22, 2003, Newsday article and a July 13, 2004, CNN report--quote senior unnamed intelligence officers saying Valerie Wilson did not propose her husband for the mission to Niger. The Senate report does not mention these denials. Wilson says that the CPD reports officer quoted in the passage above has told Valerie Wilson that he was misquoted. Wilson has asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to re-interview him. Wilson also says that the chief of the CIA task force that sent him to Niger was never questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee about the manner in which he was selected to go to Niger. Whatever happened in this regard, the report noted that the CIA people in charge of investigating the Niger allegation deliberated over what to do and then reached the decision to ask Wilson to perform a pro bono act of public service. And Wilson said yes. He had the experience for the job. His trip was no boondoggle arranged by his wife for his or their benefit. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at July 12, 2005 8:25 AM | Permalink Yesterday morning I sent this to the Key White House Journalists and others: "We need your help. It's time to be a journalist again. Please focus on the NEWS. DARE to ask the toughest questions, and for America needs you. Thank you." Today, it's time for a new message... The key White House Reporters obviously engaged in a bit of a conspiracy of their own yesterday (finally) to take these bastards on in numbers rather than individually. The tide has turned. Obviously McClellan has made it known that he will stonewall the media on any questions pertaining to Rove. Today I'm going to be sending out more e-mails suggesting the following of these reporters: "THANK YOU from all patriotic Americans, THANK YOU for holding McClellan's feet to the fire and making him personally accountable to the people of this country, for whom he works. Next step: As this administration has obviously CONSPIRED to prevent you from learning the truth, it's time to counter these tactics with a conspiracy of your own. If ALL OF YOU collectively refuse to ask any question other than those pertaining to Rove's Treason, The White House Press Briefings will themselves become an indictment of this administration. McClellan lied right to your faces, repeatedly, and now he doesn't want to talk about it? Consider this strategy to be a Press Fillibuster - for as many days as it takes - until McClellan or the President himself ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. Let's see how the opinion polls deal with a few days of "No Comment" from the President's spokesperson, or the President himself. There are NO OTHER TOPICS to ask questions on until these questions are ANSWERED (unless of course they want to switch the subject to who was actually behind 9/11 and what Dick Cheney and NORAD were really up to on that morning)." Posted by: Plunger at July 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Permalink I think Rove is safe, at least legally, if not morally or politically. I know, I know, those are bullshit arguments in the court of common sense, and ones that will cause eye-rolling from quarters left and right -- but bullshit arguments often carry the day when trying to parse the word-by-word language of a specific law. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 10:45 AM | Permalink I think you are right lovelady- a lot of the stuff will be parsed and drawn out. Even if Rove is found to have done something and is guilty of some crime whats to stop him from advising the Prez? Bush isnt running again. Posted by: calboy at July 12, 2005 10:56 AM | Permalink Interesting idea, calboy .... Rove pulling the strings from his jail cell, and to the naked eye the motions of the puppets look the same as always. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 11:19 AM | Permalink Steve, why do you persist in making false claims? Even if Plame played a minor role in Wilson being chosen to make the trip, the trip was undertaken to explore the validity of the forged documents/agreements, per the request of Cheney's office (it certainly was not Plame who "sent him" as Novak and Rove misrepresent). And Wilson was well qualified to do the mission, no one disputes that. And besides, Wilson's findings were correct.1) You claim Plame played a minor role, yet I gave you the cites from the SICR, including page numbers, that prove that a) She suggested Wilson for the trip, b) she wrote a memo proffering his bona fides c) she convened the damn meeting where his trip was discussed and d) she attended his debriefing. This is "minor"? Please try to maintain some semblance of objectivity. 2) You state that "Cheney's office" requested the trip. Do you have some proof of this? There's nothing in the SICR to indicate that the trip originated outside the CPD. If you know otherwise, please provide proof. Further you write: In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger [these were the forged documents Cheney's office hoped to corroborate and use as proof that Sadam was after nukes/uranium], CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.First of all, this statement clearly refutes your earlier statement that Cheney's office requested the trip. Which is it? You don't get to have your cake and eat it to, Steve. Make up your mind which story you're going to tell. Second, your statement "these were the forged documents Cheney's office hoped to corroborate and use as proof that Sadam was after nukes/uranium" is provably false, since the existence of the forged documents wasn't even know until several months later! Wilson arrived in Niger on 2/26/2002 (SICR - pg 42). The forged Italian documents were made available to the US Embassy in Rome by an Italian journalist on October 9, 2002 (SICR - 57). Can you at least get one fact straight? Finally, you ask You say he "lied." At least tell us the lie. And why would he? It's perposterous. It would be treasonous to lie to the CIA and the president and decieve them on matters of war and peace as you suggest. What would he gain in exchange for doing that?I'm appalled that I have to show you this, since you can easily find the information yourself. What is this world coming to? Page 42 - Wilson arrived in Niger on February 26, 2002. US Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick reported that Wilson said "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on." Page 43 - Wilson was debriefed in his own home, with his wife present (acting as a hostess) and a report was generated as a result. The report indicated that in June 1999 a "businessman" approached Niger about "expanding commercial relations" with Iraq, and the Nigerian minister understood that to mean "uranium yellowcake sales." Wilson also reported a meeting with "an Iraqi delegation" and the Nigerian minister. Page 44 - When Wilson met with the SIC, he indicated that the CIA had told him there were "documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction" and that the source of the information was the [blanked out] intelligence service. However, the CIA refutes that stating that Wilson was never shown any information about the sources or details of the alleged transaction.Here you have the CIA claiming that Wilson lied to them. Furthermore, Wilson claimed there was no attempt by the Iraqis to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger when he himself reported on an Iraqi attempt to do the very thing he claims they did not do! If that isn't lying, then what in God's name is? Further refuting Wilson's lies is the following. Page 47 - On March 25,2002, the CIA issued a third and final report from "the same [foreign] government service" stating that the report indicted a 2000 agreement between Niger and Iraq to deliver 500 tons of uranium a year. This is after Wilson's trip to Niger, in which he stated publicly that there was "nothing" to the story, while reporting something different to the CIA.You claim it's preposterous that Wilson would lie. If evidence isn't enough to convince you, then you have some bias you're not willing to admit. Why would Wilson do it? Ask him. He was feted by the press - treated to front page, above the fold headlines - toasted on all the liberal cocktail circuits. He made a great deal of money on his book. He's a lifetime liberal who hated the President. Can you, for one minute, imagine what might be his motivation? Well, let's start with something we can all agree on. The conclusion of the Senate reports reads in part: Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. There were no stockpiles of nerve gas. There were no WMD labs, mobile or otherwise. There was no looming "mushroom cloud." And there was no evidence of Iraq's efforts to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Which, incidently, is what Wilson reported. If that's a lie, he didn't do a very good job of it. The Senate report also indicated that at this meeting antimedia is so loudly confident was masterminded by Valerie Plame, the lady in question made introductions to her husband and left within minutes of the start of the meeting. And while we're on the subject of lies, where's antimedia's outrage at the whopper's Karl Rove told about his role in leaking Valerie Plame's name? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 12, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink This thread takes the cake. A new low in absurd right-wing apologist denial. Congratulations: You have hit rock-bottom and begun to dig. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 12, 2005 12:07 PM | Permalink The Left doesn't understand that a LIE is a deliberate thing, where an untruth is an unintentional thing. Sure it is. And if Scottie wasn't intentionally lying himself, he was unintentionally lying for someone else who was intentionally lying. Here's another lie. It is Rove lying to Cooper to discredit Wilson: Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." ... The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ..." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/ Why didn't he warn him off of Tenet who on the same day said point blank that the Niger uranium claim was highly dubious and unsubstantiated (after over a year of investigation). Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 12:10 PM | Permalink Ron, you wrote This strikes us as rather a small point. So what if Valerie Wilson had suggested her husband? A week in Niamey for no pay was hardly a junket. What would have been wrong with a CIA officer telling another CIA officer that her husband, a former ambassador, is an Africa expert with experience in Niger and that perhaps he should be dispatched to Niger to see what he can learn? But because Wilson is on record saying it did not happen this way, his truthfulness and in fact his character are being questioned.Here's your answer. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27%257E2163873,00.html.How do you reconcile "She suggested him, she wrote a memo proffering his bona fides and she convened the meeting with the above statements, by Wilson, in his book? Does it really seem like a small thing to you? The entire controversy hinges on this point. Did Rove expose Plame as "payback" for Wilson? Or did Rove simply warn Cooper that Wilson's trip was proposed by his wife, not authorized by Cheney or DCIA and Wilson's story was provable false? The former is clearly wrong. The latter is clearly truth. There's more. SICR - Page 38 - "...interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name' Wilson, when asked directly if his wife "suggested him" for the trip, answers "No." (When asked by Newsweek about the story of his wife's involvement he was quoted as saying it was "bullshit".) The SICR reveals that she did propose the trip. Except in the weird moral equivalency universe, this is known as a lie. Plain and simple. You continue This passage can be read two ways. It could be that Valerie Wilson "offered up" her husband as someone that CIA officials should talk to about the Niger allegation. It could be that she proposed him specifically for the trip. The record presented by the Senate report does not support a definitive reading. By the way, at least two media reports--a July 22, 2003, Newsday article and a July 13, 2004, CNN report--quote senior unnamed intelligence officers saying Valerie Wilson did not propose her husband for the mission to Niger. The Senate report does not mention these denials. Wilson says that the CPD reports officer quoted in the passage above has told Valerie Wilson that he was misquoted. Wilson has asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to re-interview him. Wilson also says that the chief of the CIA task force that sent him to Niger was never questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee about the manner in which he was selected to go to Niger.That too is false. The comments of of the CIA officers were included in the SICR, in the addenda, without comment. The SIC obviously didn't find them persuasive. I am amazed that we are actually arguing about this. To me it simply proves that, when you have an agenda, the truth won't get in its way. Antimedia, you're a star in the making. Much of our liberal friends' assumptions about the Plame affair are built on a house of cards: 1) Was Valerie Plame a covert CIA officer for whom the CIA was actively seeking to maintain secret cover? 2) Was there intelligence at the time of Bush's State of the Union address that suggested Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa? 3) What were Joseph Wilson's and his wife Valerie Plame's politics at the time she sent him to Africa? Is there evidence of them having an anti-Bush political history? Were they attempting to fit the facts around their policies? Some investigative work remains for non-liberal journaists, I deem. The answers to the above questions truly determine whether "his wife is fair game". Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 12, 2005 12:35 PM | Permalink Antimedia, i may be wrong on the forged documents date (although Wilson says the documents that served as the basis for his trip were suspected forgeries), but even if I am, it's an inconsequential side issue. The Niger uranium allegation was always extremely dubious. July 13 2003 Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged. The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb And Cheney's office was the reason Wilson was sent to Niger. Cheney's office wanted the Niger story worked up/pursued. So the CIA sent him. As for Wilson "lying" to the CIA, I just don't see the lie. The DCIA Tenet didn't see it, either. No one in the CIA did: Details about the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy as much as 500 tons of uranium oxide were contained in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that was concluded in late September 2002. It was that same reference that the White House wanted to use in Bush's Oct. 7 speech that Tenet blocked, the sources said. That same intelligence report was the basis for the 16-word sentence about Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Africa that was contained in the January State of the Union address that has drawn recent attention. Administration sources said White House officials, particularly those in the office of Vice President Cheney, insisted on including Hussein's quest for a nuclear weapon as a prominent part of their public case for war in Iraq. Cheney had made the potential threat of Hussein having a nuclear weapon a central theme of his August 2002 speeches that began the public buildup toward war with Baghdad. Id. I give you an "A" for zeal, but it's painfully obvious that your attempts to stretch the facts to fit the alibi fall short. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 12:40 PM | Permalink Dave wrote Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. There were no stockpiles of nerve gas. There were no WMD labs, mobile or otherwise. There was no looming "mushroom cloud." And there was no evidence of Iraq's efforts to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Which, incidently, is what Wilson reported. If that's a lie, he didn't do a very good job of it.And incidentaly, it also isn't in the Conclusions. Nice try, though. You also wrote The Senate report also indicated that at this meeting antimedia is so loudly confident was masterminded by Valerie Plame, the lady in question made introductions to her husband and left within minutes of the start of the meeting.Which part of "suggested", "sent a memo", "convened the meeting" and "attended the debriefing" do you not understand? And while we're on the subject of lies, where's antimedia's outrage at the whopper's Karl Rove told about his role in leaking Valerie Plame's name?What lie did Rove tell? He said he never gave anyone her name. So far the evidence that's been adduced confirms his story. Can you point to something Rove said (re: this controversy) that is untrue? Antimedia, I hate 90% of the mass media also, liberal and conservative, for the lazy, dense, timid, morally hypocritical sheep that they are. But you,unlike many others, are hopefully only deliberately obtuse on the essence of the issue at hand. It is irrelevant whether Wilson is a liar, a political hack, or a martyred whistleblower. Rather than repeat myself once again, see my post at 10:45PM of July11(yesterday). And by the way, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubtthatValeriePlame/Wilson/"Wilson's wife", was a covert CIA operative, operating mostly in the Middle East on proliferation of WOMD. Her cover, publicly she worked for a CIA front company, Jenninngs, etc. (Google it). If nothing else, the fact that such a front, which usually takes many years to establish and to gain credibility, was demolished would be a major blow to our intel gathering capacity in a vital area, at the time perhaps the most vital area of national security as the principal ostensible reason to make war on Iraq. I've worked in the intell field and am ex military and not all that liberal in many respects; I yearn for the good old days of fiscal conservatitivism, less govt., with more than a dash of a feeling for social justice as exercised even by, gasp, Richard Nixon; so don't tar me with the bleeding heart liberal label too quickly. In short, the whole discussion on Wilson is a big fat red herring and we should just ignore it. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 12:49 PM | Permalink Steve, contrary to your assertions, I am an advocate for the truth. In this case, the truth is clearly not on Wilson's side, despite all your contortions attempting to justify his lies. Your statement And Cheney's office was the reason Wilson was sent to Niger. Cheney's office wanted the Niger story worked up/pursued. So the CIA sent him.is clearly false, as you yourself have proven. Why do you continue to assert this? I can only concluce that you want these things to be true, therefore for you they are. As to whether or not the President's statement in the SOTU address was false or not (a completely separate issue from Wilson's lies), the Butler report stated, ". . . we conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." And indeed it was, because the British reporting was independent of and preceded the forged Italian documents. As far as Cheney advocating a position and Tenet arguing against it goes - is that not what Presidential advisors are supposed to do? After all, as you can clearly see, the President did not include a reference to Iraq in his SOTU address, indicating that he found more gravity in Tenet's position than he did in Cheney's. From Wilson's op-ed piece: In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. I hope you're not going to say he was lying here, too. It would be a bit silly i think. No one disputes this. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 1:10 PM | Permalink "The entire controversy hinges on this point. Did Rove expose Plame as "payback" for Wilson? Or did Rove simply warn Cooper that Wilson's trip was proposed by his wife, not authorized by Cheney or DCIA and Wilson's story was provable false?" Huh ?? Not only does the entire controversy most assuredly not hang on that point, the point itself is a red herring. And what is the defense? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 1:10 PM | Permalink OVERALL CONCLUSIONS - WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Is “it’s not in the conclusions” a lie or an untruth? Your choice, antimedia. Now, “suggested” and “sent a memo” denote something less than “ran the show.” To me, anyway. “Convened the meeting” and “attended the briefing,” once translated as “This is my husband, see you later” likewise. Posted by: Dave Mclemore at July 12, 2005 1:11 PM | Permalink Nick, the folks who wrote the law now being tested by Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald seriously doubt that a crime was committed, largely based on questions about Plame's "covert agent" status. I wouldn't get too far out on that limb... Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 12, 2005 1:17 PM | Permalink ANTIMEDIA, See my post above yours. You are getting far afield from THE MAIN ISSUES. See the top of this page, and collateral issues dealing with the Plame case and the related media entanglements. JAY, Honorable site master, aren't we straying far afield. RED HERRING Steve, you are truly wasting your time in a futile effort. You could refute many of his assertions point by point and still not accomplish anything. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 1:21 PM | Permalink Yes, these are all red herrings. But that's what's going to be printed in the press because these are the talking points being pushed by the Rove defenders. The only real issue is did Cheney know she was covert? All other elements of the crime have been met. It is absurd to suggest that a Federal trial court and an appellate court would send reporters to jail if they were not satisified that the evidence established that Plame was a covert agent within the meaning of the statute. On the criminal intent issue, recall that Rove said Plame was "fair game" right after Novak's column hit. Fair game for what, a back rub? Was he out to get her & Wilson, or was he just setting the record straight with Cooper a few days earlier? His contemporanious statement suggests a criminal intent. (See Josh Marshall, who flagged this.) Wish i could stay for more, but i really need to get some real work done. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 1:35 PM | Permalink Nick, I'm not sure why you think we should ignore the discussion on Wilson. After all, the way the law reads, whether Rove is guilty or not depends on his motivation, not just what he said. If, as you seem to agree, he was simply trying to warn Cooper away from a bogus story, then he (it appears) has broken no law. If, as he has apparently testified and as both he and his lawyer assert, and Cooper confirms, he never even used her name, then he's not guilty of anything, although we would all do well to wait for the results of the grand jury investigation before asserting facts not in evidence. Thanks for the Jennings link. I obviously missed those stories. It's interesting to read that it was journalists who exposed the fact that Valerie Plame, the CIA agent was the same as Valerie Wilson, the Jennings employee who contributed $1000 to the Gore campaign. Does that mean that the journalists who exposed this fact will also be subject to prosecution? As far as calling you a liberal goes, I don't believe I've called any commenter that, have I? In point of fact, my only use of the term liberal was in reference to Joseph Wilson and to the cocktail circuits. Please don't accuse me of using ad hominem when I've been very careful to lay out the facts without name-calling. I could take serious issue with your misrepresentation of Bush's TANG duty as well, but that's inappropriate for this thread. Trained Auditor you pointed out something of which I'm aware, but thank you anyway for bringing it into the discussion. It's not so much wheter she was a covert agent but whether at the relevant time she was in that status. Like so much else we aren't quite sure, whatever our inclination is.Further it may not be possible to prove the strict requisite knowledge and intent of that covert agent statute, even to indict, much less convict. In truth we just don't know enough at this stage. What we do know is that Rove at minimum related that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on WOMD;and much to do has been made that he didn't name her.I think we could agree that he identified a CIA person, for whatever legal difference it might make, possibly none. Because of our uncertain information, you will note I hedged and said that at minimum there well could be serious moral sanctions, or political repercussions. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 1:40 PM | Permalink Nick -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 1:42 PM | Permalink Further to this "tremendous damage to national security claim", one should read this Boston Globe article that shows that the supposed Jennings "front" probably wasn't one and certainly wasn't one that Plame would have used overseas. Certainly makes this entire sordid affair look grossly overblown. 1) Plame promoted her husband for the trip Is this much ado about nothing? It certainly seems to be. One last one.., If, as he has apparently testified and as both he and his lawyer assert, and Cooper confirms, he never even used her name, then he's not guilty of anything.... This is not true. The statute addresses this and makes it clear that naming the person is not essential so long as the person is identified in some way as a covert agent. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 1:48 PM | Permalink Steve, isn't "why" someone did something "motive"? Or has the English dictionary simply been thrown out these days? In point of fact, the "why" is essential, because the way the law reads, one has to intentionally expose a covert agent in order to be found guilty. We still don't even know if Plame was a covert agent, even five years previous to the incident, because apparently no one in the press has even bothered to ask. Many assumptions have been made, but precious little fact-finding has been done. That is the essence of my indictment. The press blew this story from the outset, continues to blow it and will probably never get it right because the facts simply don't appear to matter to them. Antimedia, I now see the problem, but you are just flat wrong on the law. You have to separate motive and intent as required by the particular law. His motives, i.e. he sincerely wanted to correct certain wrong impressions created and possibly out a boondoggle, may have been as pure as the driven snow. Not saying it's true, just saying even if, it doesn't matter. If in the process of acting on his motives he revealed the identity of a covert operative, regardless of his motives, with requisite knowledge of her status and with intent, knowing that the US waswanting to conceal her identity, which of course they would want with any coveret agent, then he committed a cowardly and traitorous crime and endangered vital national security interests as well as endangered the safety and very lives of a whole bunch of people. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 1:58 PM | Permalink Nick, thanks for the clarification. How is intent determined? Footnote:The statute is so strict, that's why I've previously postulated poss perjury or conspiracy to commit or conspiracy to conceal scenarios. Or at least moral sanctions and big political trouble. But I think this horse has been beaten bloody to the bone, so absent something new and relevant, see you later STEVE, and gl, that's good luck on my poker sites.LOL Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 2:10 PM | Permalink "Is this much ado about nothing? It certainly seems to be." --antimedia Could you please explain that to Judge Hogan and mad dog Fitzgerald, antimedia ?
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 2:13 PM | Permalink Sorry, meant to say Gl All, u too Antimedia and Jay. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 12, 2005 2:17 PM | Permalink From the L.A. Times: "At the same time, Luskin declined [yesterday] to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken." If he can't/won't deny the facts that would establish the last remaining element of the offense, it can't be good for Rove. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 3:06 PM | Permalink To Steve Lovelady, if I ever hoped to get back any of the ill-spent tax money, that hope faded many years ago. If there's one thing our government does well, it's waste our money. However, if you think it's worth asking, I'll join in the petition. To Steve Schwenk, you've proven quite capable of leaps in logic, so I'm not surprised you can purport to read Luskin's mind (or Rove's for that matter.) I'll wait for the decision of the grand jury to decide who did what to whom and who should pay for what. If there ever is one.... It's been fun jousting, even if some refuse to admit to the facts. Have a good day. Nice talking to you too, son. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 5:27 PM | Permalink This is great stuff; I'm nearly rubbing my hands together with glee. As I say, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop* that will cause our liberal friends to run around, pulling our their hair, saying "Rove tricked us again!" * Tangentially-informed speculation: It likely involves Valerie Plame's CIA duties, her and Joseph Wilson's politics, and how that is reflected in the war between some in the CIA and some in the Bush Administration concerning WMD evidence. Stay tuned! Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 12, 2005 6:30 PM | Permalink "I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop* that will cause our liberal friends to run around, pulling our their hair, saying "Rove tricked us again!" -- Trained Auditor. Hey, TA -- don't count me in that group! Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink Unless Prez. Bush just outright fires Rove or some tape or document comes to light that Rove specifically intended to out Plame then, like Lovelady, i just see this as a he said/she said never-ending parsing of words, their meanings and the context it was used. In which case, it may look like the press corps is more concerned with getting Bush than pursuing the story(by that I mean the appearance of). Posted by: calboy at July 12, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink If you haven't seen it yet, here's the article Cooper wrote within a week of speaking with Rove: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html Does it possibly bear on the issue of Rove's knowledge/intent with regard to disclosing that Plame worked for the CIA? Well, the lede gives some insight into how Cooper interpreted Rove's words and intentions: Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 8:20 PM | Permalink Here's an interesting conundrum. If Valerie Plame was a CIA undercover operative and if Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front company, then why on earth would Ms. Plame list the company as her employer when she made a $1000 donation to the Gore campaign using the name Valerie Wilson? IOW, she "outed" herself in 1999! And even more intriguing, why hasn't one single journalist discovered this fact? AM -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink What do I mean? If she was a covert operative in April, 1999, then why on earth would she connect her married name with her supposed front organization? Does that make any sense to you? She may have been a covert operative for much of her adult life, but the law, if I understand it correctly, requires that she must have been undercover within five years of the alleged offense. If, in 1999, she was willing to connect her married name with her "cover", that suggests that she was no longer undercover. I ask again, has any journalist even bothered to investigate this? It appears not. This is getting way off the point here, antimedia, but since you keep going back there, I'll go with you. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 12, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink "If she was a covert operative in April, 1999, then why on earth would she connect her married name with her supposed front organization? Does that make any sense to you" Jesus. Why? Because it was a front. It was her cover story. At Brewster-Jennings, she posed as an energy analys. After she was outed in Novak's column, former CIA officials acknowledged that she was a NOC agent, one operating 'not under official cover'who spent a most of her time in Europe running a covert network which tracked potential movements of materials used in manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. It was in the news a few years ago. Maybe you read about it. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 12, 2005 11:04 PM | Permalink What is culture war? It's when you can never say, about anything: "That is not in dispute." Steve, you're right about Rove being in his element now. Look at this: MORAN: … Fox News and other surrogates are essentially saying [blabbing all over the airwaves] that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They’re getting that information from here, from Karl Rove. MCCLELLAN: And, again, you’re asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you’ve had my response on that. It's like asymetrical warfare. And antmedia, the issue of Plame's status is not even an issue. The WH, the CIA, the courts, and even the reporters in or headed for jail and represented by super elite and competent attorneys have not once contested her status. Their conduct has instead affirmed it. If you have something concrete, fine. But you're just blowing smoke when you keep suggesting that it is an unresolved issue. There's a whole list of of talking points like that over at the RNC site. Granted, it is by no means a certain at this point that Rove has violated the law or will be charged, let alone convicted, but I haven't seen a talking point yet that actually comes close to clearing him. They're mostly attacks on Wilson, Plame, the law, Fitzgearld or the democrats. None of them actually put Rove in the clear, or if they do, they're nonesensical. Just my observations, of course. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 12, 2005 11:07 PM | Permalink I agree with Steve Lovelady. In previous administrations, some official would make a gaffe like tying his tie the wrong way, there'd be a flap, and then a press release announcing the official's resignation, and then a press conference with a statement that the official in question wanted to Spend More Time With Their Family. Previous administrations threw officials overboard all the time. This administration does not do that. If someone criticizes, they ignore it; if they can't ignore it, they'll try and call the critic anti-American. If Rove is found to have done something against the rules they'll change the rules. Deny, defame, and keep barrelling onward. It's their playbook and it's worked brilliantly. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 12, 2005 11:59 PM | Permalink The comment by Prez. Bush that "he has confidence in his advisors" sic Rove (I am paraphrasing here) seems to speak volumes about the Admin's confidence about where this story is going. Or so it seems. IMO if something was askew than Prez. Bush would fire Rove and continue taking advice from him leaving Bush above the fray while continuing to benfit from Rove's advice. There is other info were not yet privy to... Antimedia-please keep contributing to the threads here...its great to have another Radical on the site that keeps others on their toes.. Posted by: calboy at July 13, 2005 12:17 AM | Permalink I was starting to think that there was a semblance of logic from you at least in terms of consistency or sincerity of belief, but in your last post I see you are either being deliberately obtuse or else miss the entire point of this issue. You state that, "In this case the efforts of Rove, etc., look like honest efforts to expose Wilson for what he is so that his disinformatiom campaign doesn't succeed and hurt the war effort." My point is that whether Wilson is a hack, a liar, or a whistleblower only relates to Rove's motivation. His motives could be as pure as driven snow, but the execution of those motivations may have resulted in the commission of a cowardly crime that damaged our national security interests and put many people's safety and lives in jeopardy. Keep that hope alive, calboy. Every president issues a word of encouragement about a problem advisor/staff member. Everyone. So don't put a lot of faith in Bush's words. I doubt Rove does. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 8:21 AM | Permalink Chris Lehmann in the New York Observer today: Sentiment against Mr. Novak is now so heated that N.Y.U. journalism chairman and Pressthink blogger Jay Rosen recently called for the rather poetic punishment of a profession-wide public shaming of the alleged administration toady: declining TV appearances with him, pulling the plug on his syndicated column, and generally treating him like the Lee J. Cobb character in 12 Angry Men, loudly and ineffectually seeking to foist his boorish scheme of right and wrong on an indifferent world as his jury mates one by one turn their backs on him. Two corrections: I am not the chairman any more, and Novak would not be be "disobeying" a grand jury by talking. He is not under any legal gag order. "I haven't seen a talking point yet that actually comes close to clearing him... None of them actually put Rove in the clear, or if they do, they're nonesensical." [emphasis added]- Schwenk, above It seems Schwenk (and some of our other liberal friends) are fitting the facts around the policy. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 10:33 AM | Permalink I repeat, Rove will prevail. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 13, 2005 12:07 PM | Permalink Steve, there's one difference this time. As Billmon noted in a recent post, Rove's dirty tricks work great when all they have to do is spin and obfuscate and unleash their smear machine and media puppets on the public. They can turn up into down and black into white for enough people to prevail in the public arena almost at will. But it's different this time. The Rovians, in other words, may be fghting the last war -- relying on the propaganda weapons that worked so well in a political campaign to try to defeat an opponent who doesn't have to worry about winning 270 electoral votes. You can defend yourself against an indictment or you can cop a plea. The one thing you can't do is spin it away. Awhile back I wrote that truth no longer stands much of a chance in the political arena -- not when it's pitted against the best modern propaganda machine that money can buy. But the question now is whether the truth, armed with subpoena power and the federal rules of evidence, can still prevail in a court of law. By the time this particular legal battle is over, we may know the answer. http://billmon.org/archives/001998.html
"Courts often say that knowledge may be proved by demonstrating that the defendant was conscious of a substantial chance that some fact [occurred], but averted his eyes for fear of learning more. See United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990), rehearing denied, 928 F.2d 225 (1991). "An ostrich instruction informs the jury that actual knowledge and deliberate avoidance of knowledge are the same thing. When someone knows enough to put him on inquiry, he knows much. If a person with a lurking suspicion goes on as before and avoids further knowledge, this may support an inference that he has deduced the truth and is simply trying to avoid giving the appearance (and incurring the consequences) of knowledge." Ramsey, 785 F.2d at 189. Behaving like an ostrich supports an inference of actual knowledge...." http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980217/972417.htm Maybe Rove will get lucky again. But maybe he won't. It's not in his control this time. The judge is no pansy like most of the press who just let the spin spin on by and report it like it's the truth. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 13, 2005 1:43 PM | Permalink Trained Auditor, how nice of you to clip off the last part of what I said and not alert your readers to that. Had you included the full quote, your dig would have been incoherent. I hate the culture war crap. People are right or wrong based solely on their political views, not based on what they say or what the truth may be. If you have a theory that clears Rove, spit it out. Otherwise, please spare me your petty culture war sneers and digs. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 13, 2005 2:29 PM | Permalink BIG Question:Why does Rove have to beindicted or convicted of a crime to not merit public scorn, political consequences for The Schrub and Co., and deserve to be fired by our illustrious Prez? And McClellan should at minimum be highly embarrassed, lose whatever is left of his credibility with the media, or be considered a willing participant in Rove's misdeed. The case for asserting that Rove is a devious malevolent creep has already been proved in black and white. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 13, 2005 3:17 PM | Permalink Amid all the Bush-hater's political orgasms over Rove's seeming implication here, I think it's timely to note that Robert Novak's original story had (at least) two sources. One of them "no partisan gunslinger", according to Novak. But Rove gets all the attention. Naturally, the Rove-haters at Time Magazine leaked to Newsweek notes of Rove's part in the subject converstations with their reporter. Curious they apparently didn't leak the other name. It is not surprising to me that Rove's name generates the most froth from some of the more ardent mouth-foamers, given his political impact. Which explains the unusually transparent performance by our dominant White House press the past couple days, particularly John Roberts of "[CBS News] and other [Democrat] surrogates" (emphasis on Roberts' quote, with the operative subjects reversed for illustration). As in every partisan feeding frenzy, this episode is speaking volumes about the biases and predilictions of our dominant liberal media - - Let us hope it is remembered. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 3:39 PM | Permalink P.S. I'm not explicitly refering to mouth-foamers in this fine forum (if you exist, you know who you are). I am of course refering to our wonderful White House press friends, God love them. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 3:51 PM | Permalink And so, what's new. Both sides undeniably are just looking for a chance to stick it to the other side. But speaking of sticking, why don't to take a stab at answering my post right above yours, TRAINED AUDITOR. Also,you can't seriously suggest that the media, by and large haven't given Bush and Co. a free ride up to this point.And by the way, the White House press are by and large a bunch of idiots who have very little clue what the right questions are or the right followup when you get pablum or misdirection. Posted by: Nick Perez at July 13, 2005 4:01 PM | Permalink Rove has to be indicted or convicted for the page to turn in his detractors' favor because anything less leaves us where we are: Ideologues and partisans sniping back and forth from their respective trenches - - right-thinking politicos willing to give him the same benefit of the doubt that Kerry received from his supporters when he outed an undercover CIA analyst, and our liberal friends ready to tar and feather Karl for any reason or no reason. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 5:38 PM | Permalink Anybody else notice how antimedia showed up yesterday flashing a line of logic that was practically identical to the GOP talking points that were being circulated more or less at the same time? Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 13, 2005 5:39 PM | Permalink I would amend my opinion to "Rove has to be convicted..." because, as we know, a zealous prosecutor and compliant grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 5:44 PM | Permalink TA, your anti-Kerry gibe suggests Kerry MAY HAVE revealed a name - as did Lugar and John Bolton, for that matter. But we KNOW Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity. So where's the equivalency? I share the opinion that Rove will skate on this. We'll see some pretty inventive interpretive definitions of intent that will likely keep him out of prison. What I don't understand is why this doesn't piss you off. Rove leaked information that helped out a CIA agent, wrecking her network and endangering many lives, including hers. And he did it out of politicized gotcha. Yet you see it as somehow the liberals' fault. How does that work? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 6:12 PM | Permalink Conover: Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 6:13 PM | Permalink Nick, Bob Somerby has some answers to your questions. Go to www.dailyhowler.com--but you may not like what you read. the President's 16 words in the State of the Union address regarding African nuclear materials were well founded. Yes, that one is indeed on Mehlman's list of talking points that antimedia was clicking through. http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5620 And that dasterdly George Tenet, humiliating the president like that, telling the nation that those 16 words were unfounded and should not have been in the speech. He must be a liberal for spreading such filthy lies. What a traitor. Posted by: steve schwenk at July 13, 2005 6:45 PM | Permalink Oh, yes. A British commission, without explanation or detail, stands by the British intel assessment that Bush cited. And another report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that amid it's highly critical assessment of prewar intelligence, cited a statement by a French official who believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger. Yep. Boy, is that convincing. Especially since neither report found any evidence the Iraqis acquired any uranium from Niger. Frankly, the 'smoking gun' that Wilson's report noted comments by a Nigerian official of Iraqi interests in 'expanding commercial relations' was reported at the time but was outweighed by information to the contrary. Nor have we exactly found stockpiles of uranium - Nigerian or otherwise - in Iraq. That's grasping at pretty flimsy straws, TA. Funny how you'll quote the New York Times when it suits your purpose. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 6:47 PM | Permalink Matt Cooper Must Go "As the Wall Street Journal points out today, the true tragedy in the Plame affair has been the burning of Karl Rove. Indeed, if there is any integrity left in Time Magazine, it must fire Matt Cooper. By outing Karl Rove as the man who outed an undercover CIA agent, Matt Cooper has selfishly, recklessly, and amorally endangered a top administration official, exposing Rove and those he works with to threat from political opponents, news organizations and the Justice Department, to say nothing of the damage done to Rove's career as one of America's hard-working partisan hacks. With his identity revealed, how will Rove effectively leak the leaks and spread the rumors necessary to serve his party? Such shameless and reckless abuse of partisan security cannot be tolerated. Matt Cooper must go." http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/matt-cooper-must-go-as-wall-street.html Posted by: steve schwenk at July 13, 2005 7:01 PM | Permalink McLemore: There can be two responses to this - - Liberals: "Well it was only a little yellowcake, and it's harmless in the form in which it was found, after all; let's unconsciously give the guy the benefit of the doubt..." Conservatives: "He's up to no good, let's put an end to those kinds of shennanigans..." We conservatives will continue to make sure voters are reminded of their choice (above) every two years. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 7:04 PM | Permalink I'm proud of you, TA. You didn't let me down. But before you tout this 'smoking gun' too loudly, you may want to recall International Atomic Energy Agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. (Hint: She's the one quoted in the story you referenced.) ""I wouldn't hype it too much," said spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "It was a small amount and it wasn't being peddled as a sample." Are you saying that this is why we went to war? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 7:18 PM | Permalink I am rather surprised at some of the positions taken here. Novak is to be shunned because he cooperated with an investigation that the NYT called for, but Miller is to be cannonized for not cooperating with the same investigation? We should be demanding that Novak speak publicly, but Miller doesn't have to cooperate with a secret grand jury investigation and a special prosecutor? And why is Novak being hammered? He very likely was asked not to go public while the investigation is ongoing. So he is cooperating. Karl Rove very likely did not 'out' Valerie Plame, at least by the legal definition. There are three requirements. She must have been covert in the last 5 years. She was compromised by Alridge Ames, and very likely was no longer covert for that reason. Whether the specific change was more or less than 5 years ago is not particularly interesting, nor given the next two points, relevant. The second requirement is that Rove had access to the official files and KNEW she was covert. That is a pretty tough test to meet. Furthermore, I would bet cash money that Rove found out that she worked at CIA either from the DC party circuit, or from a journalist, likely Miller either directly or indirectly. Rove very likely never had access to official CIA files, as required to break the law. Rove knew (thought?) she was CIA, not that she was covert. Thus no crime. The third requirement is that he did it to hurt national security. Again, no way. The Press has breathlessly reported that the motive was to 'get back' at Wilson by outing his wife. That makes no sense, at least to me. First, everyone knowing that your wife is CIA doesn't hurt credibility, if anything it helps. Second, Occams razor dictates a far simpler explanation...that her status as CIA was relevant to the fact that she got him the job (and yes, nepotism is both a crime and against regulations) which explains how a partisan hack from the opposition ended up in such a sensitive position as verifying intel regarding Iraq's WMD efforts. Karl Rove clearly wasn't trying to 'hurt' Wilson, he was explaining how a hack managed to get in a position to do such damage. The answer...nepotism from his wife at the agency. So Rove doesn't meet at least two of the three requirements for the law, and possibly none of the three. So what is being investigated? Just because Rove doesn't meet the requirements for a crime doesn't mean that no one does, nor is that the only possible crime. It may have started as an investigation of the Plame/Wilson situation, but it is entirely possible that Fitzgerald has reason to believe other crimes were committed. At the very least they might have chased the chain of Plame CIA knowledge back to Miller. Miller worked the Iraq WMD beat, and obviously had sources at CIA that leaked information multiple times. If any of that was classified, that is a crime. Given their partisan antics, there is a good chance that Plame herself was a leaker and thus a criminal. If Miller's source at CIA for WMD was not Plame, there is an excellent chance that that person is the one who clued Miller into Plame/Wilson...and that might fit the three part definition of the crime Rove is being accused of. Just the simple act of Plame getting her husband the job could be investigated as nepotism. It is also possible that someone committed perjury, and Miller's testimony would be essential to establish that. I don't know what Fitzgerald is thinking. But neither do any of you. There are only two people who have the full picture...the prosecutor and the judge, and they both saw fit to put Miller in jail to compel her testimony. They think she is sitting on something important...and she thinks it is important enough to go to jail to protect. I'd be willing to bet they have a much better picture of what is going on and why. I don't believe for a second that Miller is protecting Rove (who gave blanket permission for people who talked to him confidentially to talk to prosecutors 18 months ago...Cooper was just a little slow on the uptake). What I think Miller is protecting is her own and the NYT reputations and credibility. SPECULATION FOLLOWS The NYT were at the very least using highly biased sources without presenting that perspective to their readers. Given her sources at CIA, Miller may well have known that Wilson's famous oped was in contradiction to his actual CIA report before it was published. She might have also known that he got the job as an act of nepotism based partisan politics when the NYT was giving Wilson his platform. If true, leaving that information out would be a serious journalist breach, no? How much credibility would the NYT lose if Miller's records reveal she knew Wilson's oped was a lie when it was published? This is obviously speculation, but it would be a solid reason to go to jail to 'protect your sources' rather than seriously damage your own and your organization's credibility. Jay talks a lot about this administrations efforts to decertify the press. Revelations like that would go a long way towards moving 'the paper of record' to the Upper West Side Daily. (Cue threatening music) Perhaps Karl Rove is orchestrating the whole thing... Finally, with all this outrage about Rove 'outing' a likely no longer covert, and at least already compromised, agent where is the outrage at the NYT's outing of the CIA's current aviation program? The NYT put far more people, in far more immediate danger and compromised far more ongoing operations and will without a doubt hurt our national security and cost the taxpayers millions to recreate the capability for covert aviation operations. Now, I'm not saying that they committed a crime or that the gov't should have censored them or should prosecute them, but a little publishers discretion would have gone a long way. I know if I were Pinch, I would have squashed that article in the interest of national security and the interest of the safety of people working for our security. Would you have, Jay? And do you think we should shunning the Gray Lady the way you are advocating we shun Novak? If we are going to get on a high horse about outings, the NYT should be the first to get knocked from the saddle. I am still stunned how you can condemn someone who cooperated with an investigation for not going public, but support someone who refuses to talk at all. Especially when her paper is blasting other people for 'stonewalling' Hey, NYT, you don't have to tell me everything you know, but you should be cooperating with criminal investigators. And there is no way the NYT can criticize ANYONE (McClellan) for not talking about this whole situation. Rank hypocrisy. Judy Miller and the NYT have a much more complete picture of this whole situation than they are giving their readers. Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 8:01 PM | Permalink Sorry I missed the latest of the Niger banter while writing that. McLemore: What is undisputed is that the head of Iraq's Military Procurement went to Niger as part of a trade delegation. It was the only time he went on a trade delegation, he was a serious bigwig. The only significant Iraqi export was oil, and that had to go through the horribly corrupt OFF. So he wasn't trying to sell anything. Niger's three main exports are uranium, cowpeas and onions. WTF do you think he went there trying to buy?!? And the President didn't say that Iraq had purchased uranium, he said they tried to purchase it. And that is pretty clear. If you say there were forgeries to that effect (which is true) I will forge your birth certificate and cause you to cease to exist, because your birth certificate is a forgery. At least that would work in your world. Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 8:15 PM | Permalink McLemore: Don't throw me into that briar patch. Those who trust their loved ones' security to the United Nation's IAEA (ineffectually helmed by Director-General Mohamed El Baradei, to put it generously, and who is represented by spokeswoman Melissa Fleming) precisely reflect one of my two choices. Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 13, 2005 8:45 PM | Permalink You cited the USA story, TA. And the IAEA was the source of the information. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 9:00 PM | Permalink I love it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 13, 2005 9:26 PM | Permalink Steve, I've been here for a while, even if I haven't been here for a while. I'm not new, and I'm not antimedia. M'kay? And Jay should be able to verify that by IP address without a problem. If you care, ask him to. I invite it. Furthermore, you don't address any of my points. I haven't read any GOP talking points, at least not yet. But just because they are talking points (and I really don't think my long post could POSSIBLY be considered a talking point) doesn't mean they aren't true. Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 9:42 PM | Permalink BTW, Steve, has your supposedly non-partisan media watchdog group finally acknowledged having a radical left winger running the show and put him on the masthead? How long did it take? It would be obvious to anyone reading your posts, but at least you could be honest with your subscribers. Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 9:45 PM | Permalink "Novak is to be shunned because he cooperated with an investigation that the NYT called for, but Miller is to be cannonized for not cooperating with the same investigation?" Well, blanknoone. Your perceptions of Plame/Novak are certainly interpretive. Novak isn't to be shunned because he cooperated. No. He's to be shunned because he revealed the identity of a CIA agent after being fed the information by two White House senior officials. Did Novak already cooperate with federal prosecutors? I don't know. You're the one with the certainty. If he did, that's between Novak and his conscience. And if he did, there's nothing in the law that prevents him from saying what he said. But the issue is the results of his actions. Travel plans of Iraqi procurement officials aside, there remains the sticky details that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the attempt to trade with Niger. That would include Nigerian officials, the CIA and, of course, Mr. Wilson. Even George Tenent has acknowledged the error of those 16 words the president spoke. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 10:04 PM | Permalink As this administration has obviously CONSPIRED to prevent you from learning the truth, it's time to counter these tactics with a conspiracy of your own. If ALL OF YOU collectively refuse to ask any question other than those pertaining to Rove's Treason, The White House Press Briefings will themselves become an indictment of this administration. McClellan lied right to your faces, repeatedly, and now he doesn't want to talk about it? Nick Perez wrote Also,you can't seriously suggest that the media, by and large haven't given Bush and Co. a free ride up to this point.And by the way, the White House press are by and large a bunch of idiots who have very little clue what the right questions are or the right followup when you get pablum or misdirection.Nick, you cannot possibly be serious! If you are, you're deluded almost beyond description. Here's an example of how the media has given Bush a free ride. NBC 40 - 1The first number is the number of stories promoting Wilson's lies. The second number is the number of stories exposing Wilson's lies once they were proven by the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. I won't even get in to where the former appeared (above the fold, page one and leading the evening report) as opposed to where the latter appeared. Daniel Conover wrote Anybody else notice how antimedia showed up yesterday flashing a line of logic that was practically identical to the GOP talking points that were being circulated more or less at the same time?I know this might come as a shock to you, Daniel, but contrary to the apparent majority of the commenters, I actually am capable of both reading and thinking for myself. I've never been a member of any party except the Libertarian party (for one year), and I've never been to any site where there are "talking points". This is because I don't need to be spoon fed my thoughts. I'm quite capable of thinking on my own, as should be quite clear from my comments in this thread. A thinking person might actually question why my points so closely match the "talking points" when I obtained them independently of any political site. (I actually read the SICR, for example.) It could actually be possible that the Republicans are using facts for their talking points! (I don't know that for a fact, because I've not seen them. Nor do I care what their "talking points" are.) As opposed to comments such as yours, invoking ad hominem to disabuse readers of the notion that I might actually have a point, I posted fact after fact after fact, none of which have been refuted by any commenter in this thread. When I posted about Wilson's lies regarding his wife's involvement, irrefutable facts, commenters began attacking those facts by saying they were "unimportant" or "immaterial to the discussion of whether or not Rove committed a crime" or they could be "understood" in a different way. (As if there's more than one way to "understand" facts.) So far, not one of the facts I've posted has been refuted by anyone. Many, on the other hand, have used ad hominem and condescension in an attempt to "refute" them. It hasn't worked, other than to strengthen the resolve of those who only care to see the "truth" they believe in rather than the facts of what took place. Considering this is a journalism blog and many commenters are journalists, that ought to trouble a few of them at least. That it apparently doesn't is merely proof of the bias they insist does not exist. Steve Lovelady wrote Now that Daniel Conover has exposed "antimedia" as a talking point parrot from the RNC, "antimedia" mysteriously disappears, only to be immediaately replaced by "blanknoone."Frankly, Steve, I have no idea who "blanknoone" is nor do I need his or her help to argue. But I do find your sanctimonious and condescending attitude a bit off-putting. I hope you aren't as uncivil in person. As far as Conover "exposing" me, please don't make me laugh. Conover hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I hardly have time to sit around here conducting a pissing contest with the likes of you and your cronies. I just stopped by this evening to see if you were all still stewing in your juices, and sure enough, you were. (It's actually comforting in a way to know that some things don't change.) But enough of these silly games. Let's get to the crux of the matter. Many of you argue that Rove is guilty of deliberately "outing" a CIA undercover operative for partisan purposes. This despite the manifest evidence that it is untrue. But nevermind my arguments nor any supposed "talking points" or other silly excuses for arguing. I'd like one journalist in this discussion to explain this to me. The above is a link to the amicus brief filed in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of 36 major news organizations and reporters' groups on the question of whether Matt Cooper and Judith Miller should be compelled to reveal the identities of confidential sources. On page ii of the brief, the lawyers for the media groups assert: "In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate."Among the amici --ABC, employer of one Terry Moran, outraged member of the White House press corps, CNN, CBS, FoxNews, and NBC Universal --employer of David Gregory, another of the "hang Rove" crowd. The Washington Post and White House Correspondents are also signatories to the brief that notes "Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington -- not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."Now, can any of you journalistic geniuses explain this? Did the lawyers perjure themselves in the brief in an attempt to protect the reporters? Or is what they wrote in that brief true? And I still haven't gotten an answer to the question - has any journalist even bothered to ask Valerie Plame how long it's been since she was in covert ops? I'll be by tomorrow to see if you genius have got an answer yet. As for Novak cooperating, he ain't in a jail cell, which he would be if he didn't cooperate. So I think it is a pretty safe bet he did. And you are right that he could talk about it...but he is under no obligation to do so. Grand Juries are secret. And it is pretty likely that he was asked not to talk about it by the prosecutor. So that is probably why he isn't. So Dave, if Novak is shunned for 'outing' Plame, what are you doing about the NYT far greater outing of CIA aviation? Shunning them too? And what do you make that, per Andrea Mitchell, Plame's CIA status was 'well known on the DC party cicruit'? Tough to out someone who is already out. And where did those WH officials get their information? If it is from Miller and the NYT as I suggested, and at least circumstancial evidence indicates, will you be doubling shunning them? Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 10:32 PM | Permalink Nothing you've written is irrefutable. And little you've written hasn't been refuted. Or ignored as the product of a feverish mind. But if it makes you happy to think otherwise, go right ahead. Just remember: Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 10:37 PM | Permalink Oh, come on, Blanknoone. Novak ain't in jail because he ain't. The assumption it's proof he's talked to Fitzgerald is a little out there. He could also be a target of the grand jury. Has he talked? Maybe. But your certainty has now evolved to a 'good bet.' What Andrea Mitchell knows is beyond my interest. But it's not inconsistent that Ms. Plame was known on the DC circuit as the wife of a former ambassador. I've read they knew her as Mrs. Wilson. But did they know she lived another life as a an agent without official cover? Not that I've heard. Maybe you can make another assumption about it. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But my undertanding is that a brief outlays a legal argument, not necessarily undisputed facts. The aspect of Valerie Plame's identity antimedia exerpted from the media amicus brief lays out the argument the CIA's incompetence resulted in her identity being blown. I assume we'll have a response to counter that. But the definitive answer to the puzzle and a win for the White House? Nope. But if it makes antimedia happy, who are we to complain? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2005 11:18 PM | Permalink This is a rather different direction, but what of Cooper's behavior? He wrote a story entitled "A War on Wilson?" in which he strongly implied that multiple white house sources were pushing the Plame thing. But now we know he had one source, but he presented it as multiple to strengthen his case. And we know that Cooper called Rove, not the other way around. And we know the ostensible purpose of the conversation was welfare reform, and the it was Cooper who changed the subject to WMD. It is a pretty big leap from Rove taking a phone call from a reporter about welfare reform before going on vacation to the WH pushing a Plame story, and pretending to have more sources than he does. Taking a phone call on a different subject is hardly an effective way of declaring a war. Isn't that the sort of thing that would get noted on a site like Pressthink, or at a major ivy league journalism schools review? Aren't distortions like that the kind of thing you should take seriously? And Dave, are you now shunning the NYT as well? Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 11:23 PM | Permalink Nick Perez is a lawyer, perhaps he'd like to comment. I believe it's a violation of ethic, subject to censure, for a lawyer to put forward an argument he or she knows to be false. BTW, Dave, I could care less if the White House "wins". Some of us in America aren't about politicians "winning" or "losing". We want to see the politicians serve our country not screw it. As for your silly statement about refutation, please point to one comment that has refuted any of the facts I've put forward. Then I will publicly admit I was wrong. (And I'm talking about refutation, not lame excuses.) And "product of a feverish mind"? I quote the SICR, so I suppose you could argue that's true, since most of the Senators we have today are idiots who are more concerned about image than substance. Nice try, antimedia/blanknoone/whatever-your-next-name- is. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 13, 2005 11:27 PM | Permalink Dave, And what Andrea Mitchell knows may be beyond your interest, but she claims that people on the DC party circuit, to include journalists, knew both her relation to Wilson and that she worked for the CIA. And that may be beyond your interests, but is a relevant fact to the case. She wasn't very covert before Novak wrote anything. Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 11:31 PM | Permalink Antimedia -- I like to see some solid arguments against the pack dogs on the thread. Nice work. Of course this story is hyped up by a press eager for a scandal and all the more delicious for them that it is Rove. It's almost laughable to see the preening posturing over Miller when this story is really being driven by 1.) indirectly, press profits 2.) the press's pack mentality when blood is in the water 3.) it's "easy" plot--corrupt government offical acting to destroy the country. Of course, details that might muddy that storyline *must* be ignored such as anything that concerns Plame or Wilson's suspect behavior; muddying details make headlines difficult to write and papers tougher to sell. But this is where the press is self-sabotaging. It doesn't realize that this plot is an old one and the public is bored with it. (Hence the lack of outrage.) Our friendly journalist priesthood needs to adjust its plot to sell more product--does it have the creativity? 4.) The target is a Republilcan and most of the people reporting the story are Democrats. However, I think reasons 1-3 are more important. Disclaimer: My comments are an unscientific personal impression that apply to the overall impact of the press's coverage rather than being a comment on any particular reporter, etc. One can hardly listen to, say, the NewsHour and say all the things I've said are true. And Rove might have done something marginally wrong by the way, but that''s not what this is about as far as I can see. Posted by: Lee Kane at July 13, 2005 11:32 PM | Permalink So Steve, how long did it take for the founder of the Nation to make it to your supposedly nonpartisan masthead? And is it just coincidence that Stalin is no longer around, but all of a sudden this supposed Steve Lovelady is? Just as absurd as your position. Any comments on the points I actually raised, Steve? Any comments on Cooper's foibles with journalistic integrity? Anyhting other than your Dem talking points? Any meaningful discussion at all? PS Thanks for promoting me to 'player' Posted by: blanknoone at July 13, 2005 11:40 PM | Permalink For the record, I could care less about Karl Rove, one way or the other. If he leaves or gets fired, the Democrats will just have to find someone else to demonize. It won't change a thing. It will be politics as usual in the land of the bizarre. Steve Lovelady, how stupid do you have to be to keep repeating this ignorant mantra "antimedia/blanknoone/whatever-your-next-name- is". Click on the link, you boob. You'll find I have a blog. I'm not playing some silly whack-a-mole game, and if you go to my blog you'll find I've written about all this stuff for over a year now. I am not a "player" either (whatever the heck that is) despite your paranoid delusions. I'm a simple American citizen, US Navy veteran, father and husband, computer security geek. Nothing more, nothing less. The last time I got a solicitation from the Republicans I wrote them a long, nasty letter about how they were a bunch of boobs and asked them to take me off their list. (Not that it did one bit of good.) At least the Libertarians finally quit mailing me. You seem quite the expert at labeling people, but you seem completely devoid of logical argumentation. You called me "son" in an earlier comment. I'm probably old enough to be your brother, maybe even your father. So grow up, get some spine and try dealing in facts instead of ad hominem. You do know what that is, don't you? Did Andrea say it was DC common knowledge that Plame was both Wilson's wife and worked for the CIA? That was certainly the chatter of Freerepublic and other right-wing blogs. That's not the question. Did she - or anyone - know Plame had been running a deep cover network in Europe? Are you saying you have something other than Powerline to back that up? As for Novak and the grand jury. You can't be jailed for refusing to testify unless you've been subpoened. Judith Miller was. I've never heard that Novak had been. You're saying you know this as a fact? Did he volunteer to testify? I don't know. And neither do you. But the fact he isn't in jail means only that he isn't in jail. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 14, 2005 12:02 AM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
