Howard Kurtz, With A False Parallel

Howard Kurtz drops a blog on the (mostly righty) outraged reaction to the NY Times outing of the SWIFT monitoring program, and delivers this false parallel:

...most of those proclaiming horror at the leaking of classified info were willing to give the White House a pass for the outing of the covert Valerie Plame.

If Mr. Kurtz is interested in bringing his readers or himself up to speed on the Plame issue, he might start by chatting with fellow WaPo reporters Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward.

Here is Mr. Pincus, who received a Plame leak on July 12 from a White House source (CJR):

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.” The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.

And he is far the tougher of the two - here is Bob Woodward, who received a Plame leak in mid-June (very probably from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage), on CNN.  This is before the indictments and before we learn he received the June leak:

WOODWARD: ... They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage.

And here is Woodward at Harvard - this is after he revealed his role as a leak recipient:

Woodward on fellow reporter and leak recipient Bob Novak:

“His source was not in the White House, I don’t believe,” Woodward said of Novak over a private dinner at the Institute of Politics on Dec. 5. He did not indicate what information, if any, he had to corroborate the claim.

Woodward on the Administration conspiracy to out Valerie Plame:

Responding to Bernstein’s claim that the release of Plame’s identity was a “calculated leak” by the Bush administration, Woodward said flatly, “I know a lot about this, and you’re wrong.”

Well.  So far, two in-the-loop WaPo reporters seem to be telling us to beware of the hype on the Plame case.  Let's see - it is quite clear that the NY Times was asked repeatedly not to publish their SWIFT story; does Mr. Kurtz have any evidence that White House (or Administration) officials were aware that the Plame leak may have been problematic prior to actually leaking?

If so, he ought to hustle that evidence down to Special Counsel Fitzgerald right away - with respect to I. Lewis Libby anyway, the best Fitzgerald has offered is some testimony that

at some time after Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified Plame as a CIA "operative," Libby was part of a conversation with a CIA official and one other Cheney employee who is not identified in court papers. The CIA official discussed "the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees," according to a May 12 court filing by the government.

That also comes from Mr. Pincus of Mr. Kurtz's own WaPo.

Finally, let's suggest a a clarification to Mr. Kurtz, who wrote about people who were willing "to give the White House a pass for the outing of the covert Valerie Plame".

The odds are excellent that first leak to Bob Novak, as well as the leak to Bob Woodward, came from Deputy Secretary of State Armitage.  He is clearly not a White House source.

Was it Armitage?  Mike Isikoff has a book coming out and he told Chris Matthews that he would name names there - the public's right to know is trumped by his desire to hawk his book, obviously.  But last fall, Isikoff leaned towards Armitage, and the odds have improved dramatically since then.

So, if Mr. Kurzt wants to break a bit of news, he might start there - is the WaPo sitting on the identity of the first Novak leaker (Rove was second) in order to guard the book sales of a member of their media empire?

FWIW, in a follow-up version of the Outrage story, the absurd Plame parallel is dropped.

MORE:  Here are Messrs. Isikoff and Matthews from the June 13 Hardball:

MATTHEWS:  OK, who leaked to Novak?  Who was the prime leaker here, do we know yet?  Or is that in your book that‘s coming out?

ISIKOFF:  Oh, that will be in the book.

MATTHEWS:  Anybody else want to venture who the prime leaker was that leaked to Novak and started this mess back July 14^th of 2003?  Do you want to give me the name, Jim?

VANDEHEI:  I don‘t want to give you the name.  I‘m going to read it in his book or you‘ll read it in our paper.

MATTHEWS:  OK, nobody‘s going to talk.  All this about, we can‘t tell who the original—it wasn‘t Richard Armitage, was it?  Anyway, thank you Mike Isikoff, thank you John Dickerson, thank you Jim VandeHei.

The public's right to know - thank heaven we have these guardians working for us, and selling to us.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Pincus said:

...The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated ...

which is factual...insert SWIFT for Plame in the same editorial and what do you have?

[topsecretk9]

Also TM...WAPO's Dana Preist just pooh poo'ed any "damage" done by revealing Plame ...in the post chat (that you blogged)...

so maybe Howard just forgot like 3 of WAPO's employees informed the world there was like zippo damage done...

[topsecretk9]

--The public's right to know - thank heaven we have these guardians working for us, and selling to us.--

Really doe put it into perspective doesn't? The entire DC press corp and the SP is protecting the dreaded dastardly LEAKER...if he isn't prosecuted it means it wasn't against the law ergo no damage...and press? Well after gallons of ink and had wringing...they have books to sell so? THEY ARE KEEPING A SECRET! go flipping figure.

Maybe the Administration should have told the NYT's if they revealed the Swift program it would have grave, grave (forget the rest of us!) implications for Valerie Plame !!

[topsecretk9]

getting sleepy, typos and poor grammar.

[MayBee]

Glad to see that line dropped.
Any comparison to the "covert" Plame case was just going to make the NYTs look even sillier.

[Kate]

Throwing out the Plame case must be a talking point for the left. The ignorance on the case, however, is mind boggling.

Saw a debate between a conservative talk show lady and Al Sharpton. The lady was really tough on the New York Times and all of a sudden Sharpton and host Matthews double teamed her and started bringing up the Plame case, and wasn't that treason, and wasn't that awful. Clearly, the lady wasn't up on the case and was surpised that they would bring up such an irrelevant topic.

She did get a zinger in at Matthews and said "I know you are fixated on Rove, Chris." LOL.

She should have told Sharpton that it reminded her of the hoax that Sharpton helped perpetuate years ago. That's irrelevant also, but it would have shut him up.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Kurtz is a *media* critic?

Frankly when has Kurtz actually criticised the media?

Well other than conservatives or Republicans in the media. Those he has no problems criticising. But the liberal media? I've never read anything by Kurtz that could be called a criticism when applied to the liberal media. And don't even bother trying to find anything critical of the WaPo by Kurtz. Evidently media criticism is definitely off-limits when it applies to an employer of his.

Personally I lump Kurtz with every other asshole MSM reporter. Biased, partisan and a dickhead.

[Patton]

The New York Times is LYING...they do not believe it the PEOPLES RIGHT TO KNOW..they only care about their right to print.

The people would very much like to know who the leakers are in our government that are providing all this classified information to our enemy through the press.

The New York Times KNOWS who these people are but will not tell the public.

So apparently the 'peoples right to know' can trump our laws regarding government secrets, our laws regarding aid and comfort to the enemy, etc.

BUT OUR RIGHT TO KNOW CANNOT TRUMP THE REPORTER-SOURCE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.

Why is that, why does the NYT throw away the vaunted 'peoples right to know' when it comes to the very information the people REALLY want to know.

[Patton]

Of course the big differnece in the Plame case is that it actually has been scrutinized by a prosecutor given Special powers and years to work on it and he has found that the claims made by the left have been completely false.

If someone had outed a covert agent and broken the law, they would have been charged by now.

I HAVE NOT HEARD KURTZ AND THE REST CALLING FOR A FULL TIME PROSECUTOR WITH THE FULL POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (TO INCLUDE SUBPEONING REPORTER AND FINDING THEM IN CONTEMPT IF THEY DON'T TALK) TO INVESTIGATE THE OUTING OF THE NSA PROGRAM, THE SECRET PRISON PROGRAM, THE BANKING PROGRAM.

[Bob]

I've always thought that this whole Plame/Wilson episode was nothing more than a pre election stunt simply made up in order to damage Bush.

What they never counted on was that Bush would win, and that this investigation would actually go forward. They purely wanted to shape the election, just like Danny boy's "Fake but Accurate" reporting. But once this ship left port there was no way to turn it around...

Thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet. And did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam?

Anyway,

In their minds all they needed was the liberal MSM as their partner... where only their version would see the light of day.

But Joe Wilson, and the other liberals had overplayed their hand, and therefore more lies and bizarre stories were needed to prop up their original stunt.

So I've always viewed Kurtz as just another water boy for the left MSM... the truth or facts at this point have nothing to do with it. His only job is to just keep spreading the same old crap until it takes root. But only in a Moonbats mind can such nonsense grow - it must be what's in the fertilizer... uh I mean crap.

And it doesn't even need any sunshine to grow! ...thus explains another reason for the Tin Foil Hats.

[Tom Maguire]

Maybe the Administration should have told the NYT's if they revealed the Swift program it would have grave, grave (forget the rest of us!) implications for Valerie Plame !!

That should work!

[lurker]

Kurtz is not alone.

1. There are good and bad leaks.

2. Bush and Cheney are authorized to declassify information, regardless of timing of release.

[lurker]

This time, the dems have been...mostly quiet....

Another difference, huh?

[lurker]

"But Joe Wilson, and the other liberals had overplayed their hand, and therefore more lies and bizarre stories were needed to prop up their original stunt."

Joe Wilson and the lefties still believe that Libby is guilty.

[jerry]

I've been hearing about this terrorist financing investigation for quite a while now, months, years?

Funny that Roberts suddenly wants a damage report here and but he's in no rush for Plame's outing by the WH or for the second part of that Senate WMD report that's to be focused on the WH.

The WH whinging reminds me of the World Cup players who constantly fall to the ground in writhing agony, to draw a penalty or take a break from running about, and then just get up and keep on playing after everyone stops paying attention.

[Jim E.]

Since Mark Leibovich = the entire NY Times, then Howard Kurtz = the entire Washington Post. Therefore:

We shall not let the Washington Post paint with too broad a brush with its false parallel. Heck, one might almost think the WashPost would like to discredit the right-wing blogs -- and cable screamers -- as a class in order to preserve its own ascendancy in the conservative pantheon.

[lurker]

The Sept 24, 2001 article published by NYT urging WH to start the financial surveillance of the terrorists is far different that what was revealed last week.

The phase II report is either on hold or cancelled because of the bias. I don't blame Roberts for making this decision because the report must be unbiased. As for the Senate WMD report, Roy Robison's work on the Saddam Dossier and documents should conclude the Phase II report for the Senate.

As for Roberts not being in a rush for Plame's outing by the WH, there's no need for Roberts to do that. Why? Because the WH did NOT out Plame and the outing of Plame is not a crime; nor did it damage anything as far as we know.

[jerry]

Well, I appreciate the response lurker. I can't see that the recent NYT article is all so terrible, Roberts' bias has been to obstruct criticism or oversight of WH activities, and as to Plame "as far as we know" seem to be correct. Those Big Guys in the WH should stop with all the sissy games. Now, I have to rush back to my flag burning....

[Patton]

So lets say that when the person/persons gave this classified information to the Times reporter - instead of printing it in the paper, they instead got on a plane, went to Afghanistan and gave the information directly to Osama Bin Laden?

Would that be 'freedom of the press'?

[lurker]

9/11 Commission Chair: 'A Good Progran Is Over'

and

It's a start but more coming

Also, check the Damage Assessment thread. There's a bit more there.

These aren't sissy games when a soldier's life is threatened by Keller's publications of these classified programs.

[lurker]

Of course, Jerry, your response regarding the life of a soldier would be that we shouldn't have gone to war against Iraq and Afganistan. But Osama bin Laden declared war against us. There's growing evidence of Saddam's WMD program, Saddam's connections with AQ and other terrorist organizations, and Saddam being a threat to the entire world.

Look at Israel last night. Palestinians declared war against Israel. Israel responded by with last night's attacks. Good for them.

[lurker]

Don't forget Cotton's letter, Jerry.

[richard mcenroe]

Well, I don't know 'bout you folks, but based on Isikoff's cutting edge journalism on the Great Gitmo Koran Flush, I have no doubt his book will be the definitive word.

Yyyyyyup.

[Sue]

Would another terrorist attack help or hurt Bush?

[PWT]

Regardless of whether or not 'we' are willing to give the White House a pass on the Plame matter, that matter was investigated thoroughly. The SWIFT/NYTimes matter, (not to mention the NSA data mining matter) should be investigated as thoroughly and publicly as the Plame matter. Of course, that would only turn up democratic hold-overs in government and further soil the image on a no longer national party.

[Bob]

Sue... unfortunately I think it would help Bush. And when I say unfortunate, I am wishing it doesn't have top happen in order for the left to find religion again.

But if it did happen, you'd see a crushing crowd of Democrats and liberals beating their chests claiming they never faulted in their support for the War on Terror. Expect Kerry to be at the front of the line. Remember Clinton's promises of getting those responsible for the bombing of the Towers in 93, the Cole, etc. ....pure bunk!

But again if it happened, America would see Bush as the real deal. The only difference is the moonbats would blame him for stirring up the trouble.

[Florence Schmieg]

All powerful professions and trades must police themselves or risk having others do it for them. This is a media crisis they brought on themselves. Saw a panel discussion a few weeks ago on C-Span. Walter Isaacson(?) claimed they could not police themselves such as medicine and law do because they were not really a profession but were more like a trade. So? mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc. are trades and they require licenses and police themselves. For a group that is always yammering for accountability from everyone else, they should get some themselves!

[Semanticleo]

"Funny that Roberts suddenly wants a damage report here and but he's in no rush for Plame's outing by the WH or for the second part of that Senate WMD report that's to be focused on the WH."

Don't go there Jerry. We are more focused on
what panders to our point of view here.

And although Woodweird hoards material to sell his books, it's OK because he supports OUR POV. Kinda' like Chris Hitchens. He's
100% for the war in Iraq, still. He's no coward.

From Counterpunch;

Hitchens Hails "Glorious War"

The recent memorial for long-term New York Review co-editor Barbara Epstein, sadly felled by cancer on June 15, was disfigured by an unseemly outbursts from Christopher Hitchens. There was a list of invitees for the private ceremony and C. Hitchens -- a sometime NYT contributor ­ was not on the list. He implored to be admitted, and some misguidedly decent soul gave him the green light.

Visibly taken with drink, in the estimate of at least one observer, Hitchens showed up and soon made his way to Jean Stein, a close friend of Barbara Epstein, also editor of Grand Street in recent years. Hitchens spared Stein the habitual presentation of his hairy cheek but made a low, facetious bow and offered his hand.

Stein icily declined, saying she had no desire to shake hands with him for many reasons, not least the fact that Hitchens had attacked one of her best friends, Edward Said, while he was on his death bed.

As Hitchens retreated, someone remarked to him, "So your glorious war has turned out to be a total disaster, hasn't it?"

"It is glorious," the sodden scrivener blared, "and it is my war because it needed Paul Wolfowitz and myself to go and convince the President to go to war."

As mourners digested this megalomanic outburst, Hitchens continued, "And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them."

[Semanticleo]

"Would another terrorist attack help or hurt Bush?"

Sue;

I have to assume your tongue is resting against your cheek with that question.

You never heard of the "October Surprise"
in 2004?

[Sue]

Bob,

I think it would hurt him this time.

[mark c.]

a thought; could these leaks be coming from the legislative branch? it seems every time the WH bends to pressure to "include congress" in decisions, we get a bombshell. the killer is that the normal response is to quit sharing info because it will end up in the papers. this leads to more complaining about WH secrecy from the congess. the opposition gets a twofer.too much secrecy and unilateral decision making.

[MayBee]

Sue-
I think it would hurt him too. And the NY Times would be leading the parade of people saying he didn't do enough. Followed closely behind by the VIPS.

[MayBee]

Mark c- good question. And if the press can posture themselves as being under attack, that's a threefer.

I've been wondering if Paul Libby started this particular ball rolling.

[Tom Maguire]

Funny that Roberts suddenly wants a damage report here and but he's in no rush for Plame's outing by the WH ...

Everyone is cooperating with the criminal investigaton, which is how cover-ups work in Washington these days.

If Dems had demanded Congressional hearings, *maybe* we would have learned "the truth" prior to the 2004 election. Now, we may not know "the truth" even before the 2006 election.

But Schumer did get his Special Counsel.

[Bob]

The only "pandering" going on around here, is letting you go on on!

give it a rest cleo!

[richard mcenroe]

It's significant that Kurtz is presented as a 'media' critic.

Just as Robert Kennedy was hagiographed in the "Styles" section of the Washington Post.

For the media, and the people who still pay attention to them, politics is not a matter of belief but of striking a pose. That's why they so bitterly resent George Bush. They don't want politics that makes a real change in their lives. Our lives, sure: these are people who are used to ordering us around; to them the world is one big Starbucks counter and we're just their baristas.

[Sue]

Maybee,

That is my thought. If we have another attack, it will be the NYTs leading the bandwagon that Bush didn't do enough to prevent it.

[Sue]

Leo,

There was a surprise terrorist attack in 2004?

[Jim in Chicago]

Does Cleo think that that piece it quote from shows Hitch in a bad light?

[Bob]

Sue and Maybee,

You are right that NYT will be leading the charge, but the although net effect won't be positive for Bush, it's not going to hurt him.

You are not giving enough credit to the American public to see through MSM distortions. The majority of America would lay the next attack at the feet of the liberals and their mouthpieces and not Bush.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Our lives, sure: these are people who are used to ordering us around; to them the world is one big Starbucks counter and we're just their baristas.

To paraphrase:

"You! Boy pit me an olive!"

[Redcoat]

I think Hitch wrote today's column especially for Leo.

"Peace and Quiet
Four projects for righteous anti-war types."

Money quote-"This has been fun. Now, please, get back to Plame and Haditha."

http://www.slate.com/id/2144578/

[Pisistratus]

"Now, we may not know "the truth" even before the 2006 election."

Quite right. Although Bush and Rove can't fully explain things because...

[Bill in AZ]

Sue, he must be referring to the rather/mapes terrorist attack on the United States.

[topsecretk9]

Regardless of whether or not 'we' are willing to give the White House a pass on the Plame matter, that matter was investigated thoroughly. The SWIFT/NYTimes matter, (not to mention the NSA data mining matter) should be investigated as thoroughly and publicly as the Plame matter.

PWT ...exactly. Kurtz can say "where was the outrage" but the fact of the matter is was investigated because of liberal outrage, period.

Implying the SWIFT program leak should be pooh poo'd because of outrage readings is a dumb statement...all things being equal...since liberals are NOT outraged it means there should be an investigation.

[Semanticleo]

"liberals are NOT outraged it means there should be an investigation."

Yeah. Maybe they can scofflaw it 'till 2009.

[topsecretk9]

Whatever Seman...I never said the FBI was speedy...but you are right it would take far more time than Plame...since the investigators will have a tougher time since sources won't be signing waivers of confidentiality anytime soon...

[Semanticleo]

Sue;

For your edification; (snarkiness aside::chuckle::) if you dare.

http://billmon.org/archives/002476.html

[Sue]

Leo,

That was not an attack, Leo. Surely even you know the difference between an attack and OBL popping his head up...

::grin::

[mark c.]

what is it with lefties? they wear their righteous indignation like a bunch of aging Nora Desmonds.Frickin'pussies.

[Gary Maxwell]

OT

Anyone else see the Supremes threw out the Dems challenge to the Texas redistricting? LULAC and progressives down in flames again! DeLay strikes again. He must be chuckling this AM.

[Carol Herman]

Not enough that Judith Miller spent 85 days in the hooze-gow; sent there by a "very special" prosecutor who really has rights far superior to those given out in our Constitution ...

But after all these years, now; it looks like the left's caught in a quagmire.

They got stuck, hoisted by their own petard, over the very field that chose to fight in. They wanted to take out Bush; given they already softened their target with the "bush-hitler-chimp-haliburton meme ... And, really folks, what have they got to show for it, now?

Nope. I ain't got no sympathy. Didn't even muster any up for Connie Chung, wearing a dress that belongs to a younger person; singing Thanks for the Memories. A rather deep throttled swan song, that.

Do you think, 35 years from now, people will be talking about their Tet? And, how the news should'a been good, but got reported to look like there were failures?

Howie Klutz not withstanding, there's very little being said that would give you an accurate diagnosis on all that ills the NY Times.

[Jane]

"but you are right it would take far more time than Plame...since the investigators will have a tougher time since sources won't be signing waivers of confidentiality anytime soon..."

All the more time to keep Keller in jail.

[jerry]

lurker, I don't want our soldiers hurt - what I would prefer is that we got a whole lot of troops as well as other support in Iraq from other countries (particularly the local countries but also europe).

The rush into Iraq was entirely unneccessary, those WMDs that Santorum was trumpeting were sold to Iraq by the US decades ago as I understand it.

WH arrogance created the problems we're stuck with now in Iraq. I hate to say it but the French (I am still boycotting their wine BTW), and others, were quite precient in predicting the present situation in Iraq.

This Administration needs real oversight, all authority does or disaster occurs; attacking the press and setting up "Roberts barriers" is a form of CYA cover up and the political/personal conflicts pressuring the WH to do this are immense.

I do admire Israel, except when they run over US girls protesting their policies with bulldozers, and other stuff like that.

[Wilson's a liar]

Jerry, that's all well and good but none of these leaks have anything to do with Iraq! We would still be at war with al Qaeda even if we had never gone into Iraq. And the NYT/Post axis would still be damaging our efforts. The people supposedly held in the "secret prisions" were not nabbed in Iraq. The NSA program has nothing to do with Iraq. The SWIFT program has nothing to do with Iraq! Why do the liberal media want us to lose the war with al Qaeda?

[Barney Frank]

Jerry, jerry, jerry,

Do you have a cite for your 'understanding' that we sold chemical munitions to Iraq? If so, please divulge.

So the French predicted that in three years Iraq would have a functioning democracy and be the grave for thousands of al Queda terrorists? Guess Jacques aint so dumb after all; have some wine and relax.

[Otis]

I guess my first reaction is that if he wants to draw a parallel between this case and the Valerie Plame affair, then let's get on with it!! Let's get that grand jury empanelled, let's get the investigation started, and let's get the rumor mill going with regard to who is going to be indicted!!

[maryrose]

Kurtz and MSM do not consider this war on terror a legitimate one. Therefore they do everything in their limited power to undermine it at every turn. If leak stories sell papers or get them attention-so be it. What Howie et al don't realize is every time they mention Plame they weaken the case because it is then reiterated again that no one is holding the REAL leaker,Armitage responsible. Isikoff and Matthews can play the innuendo game but we here at JOM know the truth of how this all played out. Any smears of the VP I just ignore, as the raging on the left and a bad case of sour grapes.

[David Walser]

"The rush into Iraq was entirely unneccessary, those WMDs that Santorum was trumpeting were sold to Iraq by the US decades ago as I understand it." - Jerry

Then, Jerry, perhaps you should correct your understanding. The US provided Iraq with very little assistance during the Iran/Iraq war. Most of the assistance came from the USSR and from France. US assistance was mostly in the form of access to satellite images.

Even if that were not the case, how would that change the case for war against Iraq? The Administration made several arguments in its case for war. Only one of these arguments had anything to do with WMD -- that Iraq had (or wanted to have) WMD and could not be trusted with that capability. How does the origin of those weapons affect that argument?

It's nice that you would prefer that lots of other countries provide the troops for the Iraq effort. So would just about everyone else. Problem is, those other countries (with the notable exception of the UK and Australia) are unable or unwilling to provide those troops. Given that fact, and without assuming away the problem by simply positing that "better diplomacy" would solve the problem, what would you do?

[clarice]

Maybe Sealed v Sealed is the indictment of Keller for the NSA leak, or for the NYT's leaks relating to the Holyland terrorists or both.
TM, I'm sure it is.I guy on the street was saying the same thing (I think into an earphone but I can't be sure) so you have confirmation and can run with that story..TO rules.

[Gary Maxwell]

Do you have a cite for your 'understanding' that we sold chemical munitions to Iraq?

OH HELL YA, Jerry has a memo. Its from Steve Gilard but it seems like there might be some problems with memos coming out of Steve's computer so he cant share it with you just yet.

[clarice]

Some things you just know intuitively, GM. There is no need for confirmation.

[Semanticleo]

Sue;

Was the Ayatollah's release of the hostages
in Oct 1980 an attack? Please, you are starting to sound like your paramours.

[Tom Maguire]

Maybe Sealed v Sealed is the indictment of Keller for the NSA leak.

LOL. (But why not?)

[Ted Barlow]

Tom,

It seems as though you want us to believe that, but for the handful of quotes you've collected, you would be opposed to the exposure of Valerie Plame on security grounds. Sorry, but that's too much.

It wouldn't be hard to gather another handful of quotes from well-placed journalists who have said that the Plame leak was dangerous or irresponsible. Do my pile of Plame quotes cancel out your pile of Plame quotes? How do we measure that?

It wouldn't be hard to find some well-placed journalists and analyists stating that this SWIFT stuff was well-known, and that it's hard to justify the outcry. Ron Suskind has said just that, for example.

It wouldn't be hard to show that right-of-center bloggers and pundits (including yourself) immediately leapt to the defense of the administration when Plame was revealed, long before any of these quotes were uttered. Likewise, no one is waiting to see if Bob Woodward thinks the SWIFT story did any harm before crying treason.

I think Kurtz's parallel is a good one. Partisans clearly have a double-standard when it comes to the Plame and SWIFT stories. Right-wingers have spent the last few years parsing every phrase within an inch of its life to wish away any damage that might have been done by the Plame leak. When it comes to the SWIFT story, though, there's no need for that! It's the principle that counts- any leak that could possibly damage our security is unacceptable! (It should go without saying that being concerned by the damage caused by outing a covert agent and her front company is _laughable_. Have you seen the kerning on this document, and was she really actually covert when you squint your eyes a certain way, and didn't Andrea Mitchell once say...)

Of course, you could say that lefties have a double-standard too, and you'd probably have a point. But don't pretend that the right alone is standing on some kind of principle, or that the treatment of the two stories is just a rational decision based on the evidence.

[Dave H]

The Times' Bush-hatred is only a secondary consideration. Outing a secret programs sells papers. Controversy over an outed secret programs sells papers. If the disclosed information would help terrorists launch another successful strike against the U.S. -- that would sell even more papers. Everything else is secondary to the bottom line: Will it sell more papers? Even the Bush-hatred is adopted and cultivated because, to a liberal New York audience, Bush-hatred sells papers. Even the threat of prosecution of the Times sells papers, so it's not like that would weigh against publication. This isn't rocket science. Not even a skilled trade. It's business, pure and simple.

[Bob]

Forget it Tom B... if Plame was truly undercover, we would have been celebrating Fitzmas by now!

[Lurker]

"OT

Anyone else see the Supremes threw out the Dems challenge to the Texas redistricting? LULAC and progressives down in flames again! DeLay strikes again. He must be chuckling this AM."

Gary! This is fantastic news!!

Now what's up with the CD22 election lawsuit?

[Gary Maxwell]

Wow thats a lot papers being sold. So exactly when will the poor suffering shareholders see this success in the stock pirce.

[Specter]

Gang,

Don't be so hard on jerry. He is only following the talking points he has been brainwashed to believe. Like a robot - over and over no matter the facts - no WMDs...no WMDs...no WMDs....

[Specter]

OT

Israeli planes buzzed Syrian President's Summer Home today. I guess they aren't foolin' around anymore about the link between Syria and Hamas. And Russia has turned loose their special forces to track down the murderers in Iraq. Interesting, huh?

[clarice]

Well, if we take prisoners we can't send them to Gitmo and if we allow them to surrender we are offering amnesty to the enemy. What's left? The Putin Policy, I think.

[JM Hanes]

Jerry

"The rush into Iraq was entirely unneccessary, those WMDs that Santorum was trumpeting were sold to Iraq by the US decades ago as I understand it."

Deja vu all over again, and again, and again. The bulk of Saddam's chemical weapons material was supplied by the Germans -- perhaps even you may recall the history of that expertise. In fact, only a year or so ago, another German was finally put away for his role in that illicit business.

[Lurker]

"OT

Israeli planes buzzed Syrian President's Summer Home today. I guess they aren't foolin' around anymore about the link between Syria and Hamas. And Russia has turned loose their special forces to track down the murderers in Iraq. Interesting, huh?"

Boy, that's great! Would this lead to WWIII? or WWIV?

Wonder what Egypt would do? And the other Arab countries?

HHHhhhmmmm...We'll see.

Interesting how Russia sought to help Saddam move his WMDs and Putin ordering his troops to find the killers....

How will Putin find those killers? Does he know who they are? Good for him to order his own troops.

[MJW]

Ted Balow: It wouldn't be hard to gather another handful of quotes from well-placed journalists who have said that the Plame leak was dangerous or irresponsible.

Then start gathering. I, for one, would be interested in seeing them. I do recall such impeccable sources as MSNBC's ace reporter David Shuster making such claims. I must say, I find it odd the CIA hasn't conducted a formal damage assessment. I'd think that'd be priority-one it they were serious about minimizing the damage caused by the outing of a super-secret covert agent.

[jerry]

I'm not saying the Germans, Chinese, Czechs, Soviets, or a host of other people didn't supply Saddam.

Anyway, I just did some research:

The Santorum claim does seem to apply only to pre-Gulf War munitions and only Santorum seems to take it seriously, here's one article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

As most here know, the US was a supporter of Saddam against Iran years ago, and the US did allow transfer of chemical and bioweapon precursors/dual use technology, change export regulations and Iraq status etc:

re: general review
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

re: biologicals list (mostly GWS discussion)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp27116

re: Congressional debates (machinations)
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920810g.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

Not really brainwashing, at most it's my selective recall.

I could probably find more but can't spare the time, so enough for today.

The Iraq War was entirely unnecessary.

[JM Hanes]

"The Iraq War was entirely unnecessary."

LOL! Says he from his comfy chair with his 5 (can't spare the time!) studiously researched links in hand.

[boris]

The Iraq War was entirely unnecessary

As in: "Take out the termites, they've already wrecked the pantry, but don't bother the carpenter ants, they're going to be a problem later but the damage is minimal so far ... "

Orkin Man: "But ... as long as I'm here and have all the equipment deployed why no take care of the termites and the carpenter ants. It's going to cost a lot more if I have to come back you know ..."

[boris]

the US was a supporter of Saddam against Iran years ago

The US supported both Iraq and Iran at various times depending who was losing.

I suppose one could say the now US is "allowing" IRAN to acquire nuclear bombs. Pretty stupid way of looking at things though.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,

"Well, if we take prisoners we can't send them to Gitmo and if we allow them to surrender we are offering amnesty to the enemy."

You have a duty to send them to Gitmo,it is unthinkable that should be left to the mercies of the Russians,Locke them up,it is their human right.

[clarice]

Carlos the Jackal is suing the French claiming he's being treated worse than the inmates at Gitmo--I take it that's the new gold standard for terrorist prisoners..

[Barney Frank]

Jerry,

"those WMDs that Santorum was trumpeting were sold to Iraq by the US decades ago as I understand it."

Well I reread the enire Riegel report(at least the part pertaining to US exports). I also Googled US exports to Iraq. I find many references to the Commerce Dept licensing such exports but most refer back to the Riegle report. The Riegle report does specify precisely what biological agents were sold to Iraq. Samples of Anthrax and botulinum were requested for research by Iraq and sold to them in the mid eighties. There are repeated references to dual use products that could be employed in chemical weapons but I have yet to see any direct evidence (unlike the bio stuff) of what these may have been, if anything.
So technically the WMDs Santorum was discussing (chemical weapons) may or may not have had some connection to US exports at least in the case of the mustard gas, less so in the case of Sarin. Its unclear.Its entirely possible we did not in fact supply them with the chemicals. Its also entirely possible we did.
However, if we did please explain your conclusion drawn from them that the Iraq war was unnecessary.
If I stupidly hand a criminal a gun, the ensuing struggle to keep him from shooting me with it is hardly unecessary is it?
Especially if he's got 10 other guns other people gave him with which he can shoot me as well.

[Carol Herman]

To answer the question "how will putin find the killers of the russian diplomats" ... All ya have to do is look at Lebanon. Where they, in fact, got the killers of russian diplomats, killed in action.

There's something about the "underground" ... where evil lurks. The ways aren't as secret as you think.

Of course, what russia did to "teach a lesson" is what got learned, afterwards. They just didn't kill the goons who killed the russians. They removed body parts. And, sent it, express mail, to the family.

We don't see all the spooks in the Mideast. But they're literally wall-to-wall. I'll bet information is available for sale at the Casbah. And, through the Byzantine structures of Turkey and Tehran.

When the russians put the word out, they don't have to wait long to catch stuff at the ends of their hooks.

One thing the KGB does, (goes unnoticed at the NY Times), is that they're professionals in the world of secrets. They're among the biggest employers of human intelligence operatives. And, their agents KNOW not to come back empty handed. (Where, for all we know, Plame was told not to come back with a sexually transmitted disease.) Whatever works.

Plus, the only marks that will be left will be the ones the KGB wants you to see. While I'd put the Mossad first, I wouldn't snicker at the KGB. Or the Mafia.

[topsecretk9]

Ted Barlow says

Partisans clearly have a double-standard when it comes to the Plame and SWIFT stories.

yes, you are right...

NYT's in October and December of 2003:

A New York Times editorial in October called the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity "an egregious abuse of power" tantamount to "the disclosure of troop movements in wartime."On New Year's Eve 2003, another Times editorial cheered the Justice Department's decision to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor: "The Right Thing, at Last," read the headline."

the NYT's today:

The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.

Now, how does the New York Times know the Plame leak was tantamount to the disclosure of troop movements prior to even the SP appointment (and nevermind that the leaker is in no legal peril for having leaked tantamount to troop movement disclosure in wartime) and yet with warnings and appeals from the Admin and members of congress they just don't think this or NSA rises to the level of troop movement disclosure....

...Partisans indeed.

[lurker]

"The Iraq War was entirely unnecessary"

Better check with JVeritas, Roy Robison, and Stephen Hayes.

Did anyone notice that oil production is now the highest since Saddam was toppled?

And anyone read the Hugh Hewitt and Lt. Gen Martin Dempsey about the Iraqi progress?

Very far along!

"MD: Yeah, it's about 85% complete, and let me put a little sharper edge on that. There are ten divisions, and they're geographically disbursed. They've got on average ten battalions in each, but a few of them, the Baghdad division, notably, has seventeen battalions. The support structure that provides them their necessary logistics is developing, but I'd fairly characterize it as immature at this point. Communications, architecture's good. The training base that provides the soldiers that come in off the street, recruting and get pushed into the army is complete, and largely transitions are Iraqi control. So in other words, Iraq has its own capability now to recruit, vet, as they call it, induct, basic train, and then distribute soldiers throughout the force."

A sign that the number of U.S. troops no longer need to be sustained now that Iraqi has taking over more and more responsibilities from us. This is by no means a retreat.

As to Senator Boxer and her cohorts being upset about Casey's troop reduction plan being revealed after the democratic resolutions failed to pass, anyone take notice that Casey's troop reduction plan took place long before these two to 3 democratic resolutions were submitted. I really don't understand why the democrats felt a need to submit their resolutions unless they want to take credit from Casey.

Thanks, Carol.

[topsecretk9]

...Partisans indeed.

AKA...they were lying then or they are lying now...take ur pick.

[lurker]

topsecret, regardless of their lies, it is obvious that NYT's goal is to bring down the WH adm. NYT also played into the public emotions and feelings - depending on the times.

Oh yeah, Flares has a link showing that about 60% of the Iraqi "Great Salt" marshes have been restored. Great news!!

Iraqi the Model reported that after 7 accepted Maliki's "amnesty" plan, 3 more did today. And Maliki clarified that the amnesty does not cover killing of coalition troops.

Good. Let's hope that those killers of our brutally tortured soldiers are found and executed using the legal process.

[topsecretk9]

BTW...I recall MANY, MANY people on the left vilifying Robert Novak who supposedly was strongly warned via Harlow at the CIA not to print Plame's name...Wilson called him a douche bag for not heeding the CIA's strong "probably shouldn't use her name"

[David Walser]

BTW...I recall MANY, MANY people on the left vilifying Robert Novak who supposedly was strongly warned via Harlow at the CIA not to print Plame's name...Wilson called him a douche bag for not heeding the CIA's strong "probably shouldn't use her name" - ts

Yes, but if Novak had shared how difficult and agonizing the decision to use her name was for him, it would have been alright.

[lurker]

Did the Plame leak have anything to do with classified programs?

[lurker]

Sheehad going on a hunger strike for two months.

[PeterUK]

Where can we sponsor her?

[Carol Herman]

I'm still pretty convinced Bill Keller lit this back fire to take the heat off Patrick Fitzgerald's case.

Why?

Because the Pflame-out affair has backfired. It was supposed to be part of the attacks, in 2004, to give Kerry the edge. Bush was supposed to lose. Or, worse case scenario, only win by the thinnest margin. Instead he had a blowout. And, Daschle got tossed overboard, too.

How did Kerry react, back then? He went to sleep. And, when the White House called asked "when" Kerry would call with his consession speech, Andy Card was told Kerry went to bed. Didn't call until about noon, the next day. And, Andy Card, at 3:00 am, on election night, got to go to the gathered republican throng; and tell them about Kerry's dellusional behaviors.

That's exactly the left's problems! THEY ACT ON DELLUSIONAL BEHAVIORS!

Now, why would Bill Keller want to burn away the forest fire called Fitzmas? Think of a reason.

It will explain a lot. Including the fact that touching this topic with special prosecutors, now, fails to excite most American voters.

Still, Keller's an idiot. Be interesting to see if he's still the editor-in-chief at the NY Times a couple of months from now?

[fiesta money]

Because of fiesta money, I meet a lot of friends.

[sealonline cegel]

If you have enough sealonline cegel, you can help others.