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.