Let's Get This Right, Please

Walter Pincus of the WaPo tries to report on the Mary McCarthy firing and manages to bungle a related story:

Democrats Suggest Double Standard on Leaks

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.

"I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, referring to the firing of Mary McCarthy.

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

No, she wasn't referring to the Valerie Plame leak, or if she was, the WaPo should have noted her error rather than reinforcing it - per the recent Fitzgerald filing, Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate as part of the push-back against Joe Wilson.

Much as he seemingly wanted to, Fitzgerald offered nothing indicating he had any evidence indicating that Cheney had authorized a leak of Plame's CIA affiliation.  As to Bush's involvement in Libby's Plame-related chats, Fitzgerald provided this:

During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser [i.e., Libby, who had both jobs] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him.

Since Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward were Plame leak recipients, I am surprised that Mr. Pincus and his editors could be so misinformed on this point.  Especially since they seemed to have a firm grasp on the NIE connection just a few weeks ago.

MORE:  Mr. Pincus' mis-reporting aside, how fair is to to compare the Plame and Secret Prison's leaks?

I think we can all agree that Ms. McCarthy was well aware that she was leaking classified information.  But what about I. Lewis Libby or the other Plame leakers?

It's far from clear just what crime it might be that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is investigating.  We say this because someone (probably then-deputy Secretary Armitage) apparently leaked to Bob Woodward and Robert Novak, then only disclosed his leak to Novak in his early encounters with investigators; the Woodward leak was eventually disclosed in November 2005.

So somebody leaked twice, including to the person who first published Ms. Plame's CIA link, then mis-led investigators about his involvement.  What's a prosecutor to do?  Conceal his identity to shield him from embarrassment!  From the WaPo:

But Walton's decision to continue to protect the anonymity of one administration official, whom Libby's attorneys described as a confidential source about Plame for two reporters, one of them apparently Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is a blow to Libby's case. Defense attorneys had said they needed to know the official's identity and the details of his conversations with the two journalists to show that Libby was not lying when he testified that many reporters knew about Plame's identity.

But Walton said the source's identity is not relevant, and there is no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges.

The official's identity has been the subject of intense speculation since syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak published Plame's name in July 2003 -- eight days after her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq.

Defense attorneys in yesterday's hearing described the official as someone who did not work at the White House and was the source for two reporters. They said that one of those reporters had revealed in November that he learned about Plame from the official in mid-June 2003.

Well - per this example, leaking about Plame to the press and then lying about it does not seem to merit prosecution.  But did the White House know she was covert?  Here is Fitzgerald from a filing related to the Judy Miller subpoena:

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

OK, that was then.  But Fitzgerald's recent filing in which he noted the Bush-Cheney authorization of the NIE leak would have been enhanced by any mention that Libby knew Ms. Plame's status was classified, but it slid past that point, rather awkwardly - Fitzgerald noted that Libby was reluctant to discuss the classified NIE without authorization, but never asserted that Libby sought authorization to leak information about Plame, or that Libby believed Plame to be classified.

However, per a defense response, we get the opposite:

Mr. Libby was not, of course, a source for the Novak story. And he testified to the grand jury unequivocally that he did not understand Ms. Wilson’s employment by the CIA to be classified information.

Again, his silence speaks volumes - if Fitzgerald has contradictory evidence that Libby did know that Ms. Plame's status was classified, why not indict him on that point for perjury?

How might Libby have found out about Ms. Plame's status?  Perhaps VP Cheney told Libby that Ms. Plame was classified.  It's imaginable, but who told Cheney?  From Murray Waas, we get this:

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.

Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.

Maybe Tenet remembers getting a Medal of Freedom, but this sort of evidence is not going to prove that Libby, or anyone, know that Ms. Plame had special status.

Let's wrap this by noting a quote from the notes of the INR analyst describing the Feb 19 2002 meeting that launched Joe Wilson's Niger trip - Valerie Wilson was "a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson".

Is "managerial type" spook-speak for "NOC", and are NOCs names bandied about in memos?  Please.

There is a reasonable possibility that the White House did not know her status was classified, although I can not conceive of documents that would prove that.  Similarly, there is an excellent possibility that First Leaker Armitage (if it was he) did not know either.

Well - the McCarthy/Libby comparison has an irresistible appeal, and post-Kerry Dems may have lost their zest for nuance and details.

Comments

[kim]

Error so persistent must be deliberate. Hang them, too.
==================================

[boris]

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

If the staff members referred to are Rove and Libby, it's double wrong. The public disclosure that Plame was CIA did not come through them.

Not only were they not authorized to disclose it, they weren't even involved in it's disclosure.

[kim]

The MSM metanarrative depends on sustaining a lie, and they can't hold it up much longer.
==========================

[maryrose]

kim;
agreed. This lie has to come out and to compare McCarthy and a declassified report in the same sentence just shows how desperate they in the msm have become.

[Cecil Turner]

The MSM metanarrative depends on sustaining a lie, and they can't hold it up much longer.

I'd love to believe that was true, but I see precious little evidence of it. Pincus has been the go-to man for the CIA's disgruntled disinformation department for the last three years, and profiting professionally. And don't get me started on the Pulitzers.

[kim]

Well they can't sustain it after Mary McCarthy, Pinch Sulzberger, and Joe Wilson are marched off to durance vile.

I realize I don't have a lot of support for my hangman's noose.
=====================================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

James Lileks today, retelling the story of his back yard water garden:

' [in]August I hired a company to install a Water Feature. They said it would take five days. It was unfinished when November snows arrived. Construction took forever, crap was left in my lawn and driveway for most of the fall, the Water Feature leaked like the CIA....'

[MayBee]

If even one Dem would condemn this without a 'but' or a 'while', I would do cartwheels.

The WaPo is being very funny about this leaker source thing. Not only do they refuse to name names, they pretend they don't really even know! They so strongly don't know, they sometimes get the details wrong. Clever.

[Dwilkers]

"Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003."

Do these people care even one whit about accuracy?

Man I'd love to have a job like that. How much do these folks get paid? You realize how easy it would be to write a better story than that and actually include some basic facts?

[Semanticleo]

"Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate as part of the push-back against Joe Wilson."

"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation" Porter Goss

Ah yes, there really is no difference between those leaks which help Bush, and those that
hurt. It's clear.

[Sue]

Bush has a blue dress?

[Florence Schmieg]

I sense an out and out war now between the MSM and the White House. Before they were just partisan, sloppy, poor fact checkers, and out for sensational stories against the Bush administration. Now they feel under threat themselves by the new CIA investigations which include them as well as the Libby subpoenas. They will hit back as hard as they can. Facts won't matter much when their own survival is at stake.

[Neo]

I came across somewhere that the first to have the name of the fired CIA employee was Andrea Mitchell of NBC. The same Andrea Mitchell that indicated that she was "one in the know" in regard to CIA leaks.

Did Andrea know that Ms. McCarthy was leaking ? Did Andrea get her knowledge, as "one in the know", that Ms. Wilson (AKA Ms. Flame) worked for the CIA from or through Ms. McCarthy ? How about her boss Tim Russert ? What di he know about Ms. McCarthy ?

So many new questions.

[clarice]

Don't you think there may be a war going on inside the WaPo, too? I keep seeing signs that grownups like Woodward are battling at the front lines with hacks like Pincus and Priest?

Howard Kurtz, if you come across this I want you to know I'm watching this as closely as I watched your paper's 2 1/2 year wait to correct Pincus big Wilson lie. You deal mwith this or the fact checkers online will.

[kim]

Actually, Clarice, you could change the tense for the factcheckers acts to the past. Talk about, talk about, talk about, taking an axe to the past, the past.
=========================

[Ranger]

I posted this in a previous thread, but I'm really curious to know the answer:

"Her (Andrea Mitchell) statement about Priest was that she only went to McCarthy for verification of what she already had."

Well, if this is true, I have a question for the legal types:

Did Ms. Priest engage in solicitation of a crime (the illegal disclosure of classified information)?

I have been wondering this since the NSA leak actually. It seems clear that if someone with classified information seeks out a reporter, then the reporter is, to a large degree off the hook (depending on what they do with the information). But, if the reporter goes to someone and seeks classified information from them, are they not engaging in solicitation of a crime or conspiring to violate the law?

[clarice]

Why not? Erasing the record used to work.

[AJStrata]

Dwilkers

"You realize how easy it would be to write a better story than that and actually include some basic facts?"

Bloggers do it every day, consistently

Cheers

[Rick Ballard]

Ranger,

IANAL but I don't think that solicitation is in the cards. Conspiracy may be and I hope that the Hatch Act comes in to play, too.

What is needed for this is a '60ish prosecutor who would like to close a career with a very methodical prosecution that would have the possibility of changing the current DC culture. (S)he would have to be prepared for a probable outcome of a hung jury, unless the venue were changed from DC.

I'm not at all sure that the DoJ is up to the job. Careerism there is as prevalent as anywhere in government and the payback threat should Dems retake the Presidency would be rather worrisome for anyone not reasonably close to retirement. DoJ has not displayed much of a backbone in prosecuting Dems - watch the Mollohan affair for confirmation. He's crookeder than a dog's hind leg and he's not sweating at the moment.

[SunnyDay]

Back to yesterday, for those who haven't found it - Juan Williams' meltdown - about 5 minutes of video.

http://www.msunderestimated.com/JuanLosesIt.wmv

dialup people go here http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/04/losing_your_mind_on_national_t.html

scrolldown a little more than halfway it's in the senence about "Watch Juan in class" - right click and save, then play it.

[SunnyDay]

http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/04/losing_ your_mind_on_national_t.html

sorry, didn't fit - take out the space for it to work.

[windansea]

Senators Rockefeller and Durbin May Take Polygraph Tests

But people such as former deputy-undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin don't think the Justice Department investigators and prosecutors have the guts to indict a US senator. Babbin said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

He did say however, that any senator or Congressional staffer that holds a security clearance can be asked at any time to take a polygraph. The individual can of course refuse to take the test, but failure to do so is reason to remove that person's security clearance. Babbin further said that Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden, and some on their staffs will soon be requested to take polygraphs.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11976.shtml

[maryrose]

Bring on the polygraph machines and let's get this show on the road. All their security clearances should be revoked and they should get new committee assignments. They can't be trusted with classified information.

[larwyn]

CSPAN replay of this morning's
appearance by Walter Pincus

on CSPAN NOW!

Understand video at CSPAN.ORG.

[maryrose]

Florence:
You are exactly right in your analysis.They will try to pull out all the stops in order to protect themselves but they can't hide forever.

[Semanticleo]

There are numerous barristers and self-appointed legal pundits who enjoy
the knock down/drag out of legalspeak and
'technicalities' both pro and con defense,
but does anyone here ever address 'right
vs wrong'?

Myopia seems a resplendent disease of choice
for those who make a career out of 'gulping
down the camel, yet straining out the gnat'.
but do any of you ever get airborne to
see the lay of the land?. You know, the big
picture?

Or is everything reducible to the GWOT,
therefore, the end justifies the means?

[boris]

address 'right vs wrong'?

Based on your morality? What morality would that be? Not trying to be "judgmental" are you? Don't hurt yourself.

[AJStrata]

CNN is reporting McCarthy was a serial leaker to many reporters. They also note that the CIA's IG office are the experts on whistle blowing. Interestingly CNN includes bipartisan sources in the House saying McCarthy never blew a whistle since they never got word from CIA IG - as is the process

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1695

Cheers.

[Semanticleo]

Don't hurt yourself.

Make it easy on yourself;

Does the end justify the means.

Simple question, simple answer.

No equivocation.

Don't strain yourself.

[SunnyDay]

Good leaks - bad leaks. Good lawbreaking - bad lawbreaking. Who is going to decide?

It's that parallel universe.

[Rick Ballard]

Semanticleo,

Please explain what was "right" about McCarthy's breaking of her oath and the law by her conduct.

You might take a swing at what is 'wrong' about interrogating terrorists at clandestine locations while you are at it.

The "ends justify means" argument seems to be running the direction opposite that which you imply. What particular "ends" do you believe that McCarthy's subversive "means" serve?

[larwyn]

Hadley immediately LIVE on FNC

at reports of 3 bombing in Egypt's

Resorts area Dahab.

Hope that means the WH has gotten the message - don't wait for events to be spun before reacting.

Fingers crossed this continues.

PINCUS on CSPAN =
Just verbalized all the lies he writes.

[AJStrata]

Semanticleo,

Does the abstract define the reality, or does reality define the application of the abstract? I expect you will need to strain yourself to answer that one.

Your 'big picture' in our democracy is the majority approved picture, not someone's lone fantasy. Do you agree that it requires concensus to change that picture, or can anyone at anytime destroy that picture to achieve personal goals?

LOL!

[Semanticleo]

Rick;

Not sure why the simple question has to
be muddied up. answer according to your
own moral code.

AJ; Not sure what is humorous about the
subject, or what 'majority' you refer to.

simple qustion remains;

END JUSTIFIES MEANS?

[larwyn]

COMPARE:

"The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past—by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away—the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity—or dishonor and shame." —Ronald Reagan

TO:

"Kerry prefaced his remarks by noting: "Clearly, leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak. I abhor leaking. I don't like it."

""If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that [and] at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you, you know, put on that person," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."

So "“I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”

Wish I could send a thank you note to that stadium full of voters.
-----------------------------------
That nifty chart starring KERRY & FRIENDS is found here:
McCarthy's Connections
-----------------------------------

[SunnyDay]

The president is not The President
The laws are bad laws
Democracy is not democracy
Relative is absolute
Absolute is relative
Whose end?
Whose means?

Whatever suits my current purpose... Wow!

[Old Dad]

I've never had any patience for the "ends justifies means" canard.

Of course the ends must justify the means in any moral action. What's meant is "you can never justify the means so shut up you despicable barbarian."

[SunnyDay]

Did Ms mcCarthy follow the whistleblower procedure?

[Sue]

There is no justification for this woman leaking to the press. She was in a position to know how to blow the whistle and she knew it didn't include Dana Priest and/or other reporters. I like the new description given her...Serial Leaker. I want Harman and Kerry to defend her once they find out she was leaking more than just the prison story. I'm sure they will, but I want to see it...

[Patton]

Has the RNC gotten off its butt yet and demanded the Democrats return her contributions or give them to charity.

10K is alot of money that could go to poor children, or Hummer owners......

[Barney Frank]

Some ends justify some means and some don't. Perhaps if you gave a specific example you would get a specific answer. Duh.

[Semanticleo]

"you can never justify the means so shut up you despicable barbarian."

thanks for your input.

Anyone else?

[Rick Ballard]

"Not sure why the simple question has to be muddied up."

That's just silly. You imply both illigetimate means and ends then clumsily dodge behind rather undeft rhetoric.

What you are doing is sophmoric - study a bit and you might get to sophistry with some work. Try not to bore.

[Semanticleo]

"Some ends justify some means and some don't."

Good Glenn Reynolds answer.

Anyone else?

[Sue]

Semanticleo,

Didn't you take the quote out of context?

[SunnyDay]

She was a nothing but a covert political operative, taking advantage of the trust that had been placed in her, in order to do as much damage as possible to the opposing political party.

[Semanticleo]

"You imply both illigetimate means and ends"

My apologies if that's what you inferred.

I merely ask; what do you think?

Should the end EVER justify the means?

[SunnyDay]

Is this a pop quiz, professor? pffffffffffft

[maryrose]

A serial leaker. That's just great! Our highly classified intelligence matters are in the hands of McCarthy -the serial leaker. How did she get another job in this administration-did she brown-nose someone with the ultimate intention of stabbing them in the back?

[Semanticleo]

Is this a pop quiz, professor?

No. Just trying to stimulate some new
nerve pathways.