Adam Liptak of the Times takes up the issue of just what the various journalists have said in the Plame investigation. Let's skip to Tim Russert, and then pick up Judy Miller:
Mr. Russert's testimony last August provides intriguing clues. A statement issued by NBC at the time suggests that Mr. Libby had told Mr. Fitzgerald that he had heard about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Russert.
According to the statement, lawyers for Mr. Russert and Mr. Fitzgerald reached an agreement under which Mr. Fitzgerald questioned Mr. Russert only about Mr. Russert's end of a conversation in early July 2003 with Mr. Libby. That would be an unusual way to go about pursuing a leak inquiry, but it is consistent with an attempt to try to establish that Mr. Russert provided information to Mr. Libby.
Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Indeed, the statement said, Mr. Russert first learned the information from Mr. Novak's column.
A spokeswoman for NBC declined to elaborate on the statement yesterday.
Well, that shows his respect for the public's right to know. Did he tell Libby about Joe Wilson's wife? it's not an unreasonable question. And if Rove's attorney Luskin gave an answer, as Russert did, of "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative", we would parse that with a surgical knife - if Russert had said "Wilson's wife is with the CIA in some capacity", would that be consistent with Russert's denial? Arguably, yes. But will Tim tell us?
And how about Judy Miller:
According to the federal appeals court, which rejected her appeal in February, Ms. Miller has received two subpoenas seeking testimony and documents "related to conversations between her and a specified government official" in the days before Mr. Novak's article appeared.
In court papers filed earlier this month urging that Ms. Miller be jailed, Mr. Fitzgerald said that "the source in this case has waived confidentiality in writing."
George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, said Ms. Miller would not say who that source was. "She has never received," Mr. Freeman said, "what she considers an unambiguous, unequivocal and uncoerced waiver from anyone with whom she may have spoken."
Mr. Freeman declined to say what efforts, if any, Ms. Miller and her lawyers have made to obtain a satisfactory waiver.
Asked whether Ms. Miller provided information about Ms. Wilson's identity to the source to whom Mr. Fitzgerald referred, Mr. Freeman said: "Judy learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. If the suggestion is that she is covering up for her source or some fictitious source, that is preposterous. Given that she is suffering in jail, it is also mean-spirited."
"Source or sources"? The subpoenas, as best we can follow this, are for one source; surely her attorneys can figure out how to limit her responses to the scope of the subpoena.
Last fall, Ms. Miller was subpoenaed when a flurry of subpoenas went out involving Lewis Libby, and the WaPo reported that Ms. Miller had also been subpoenaed about him. They are no longer pushing that, so who knows. [UPDATE: Yes, they are pushing Libby again, in a July 16 Howard Kurtz piece:
While media coverage in recent days has focused on conversations White House senior adviser Karl Rove had with reporters, two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation.
The two sources, one who is familiar with Libby's version of events and the other with Miller's, said the previously undisclosed conversation occurred a few days before Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column on July 14, 2003. Miller and Libby discussed former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who had recently alleged that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the source familiar with Libby's version.
Two sources confirming what the WaPo reported last fall? Works for me.]
We do exhort Mr. Liptak to take up the story of WaPo reporter Walter Pincus, discussed in the update to this post, which I will copy below:
The Walter Pincus story is interesting - here, he tells us that Lewis Libby was not his source, but that his source had identified himself to Fitzgerald, freeing Pincus to testify.
And here is what Pincus wrote on Oct. 12, 2003 that earned him an opportunity to spend some time with Mr. Fitzgerald:
On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored 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. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.
In this telling, Ms. Plame was not named, nor was she covert. And, per Pincus, the source of that story has identified himself to Fitzgerald.
Let's say this - if Novak had been given exactly those details, he could have added Ms. Plame's name by finding Joe Wilson's on-line bio (now gone, but not forgotten); his discussions with the CIA spokesperson who failed to dissuade him from publishing may have led to the upgrade from "analyst" to "operative". [Mr. Pincus offers more details here].
Let me add an "I'll be darned" coda - in describing this legal ballet on Nov. 26, 2004, the WaPo wrote this:
One current or former administration official has told Fitzgerald that he or she had a conversation with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus on Saturday, July 12, Pincus has said publicly. Pincus also has said his source was not Libby. Pincus has previously said that an administration official told him that day that Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife.
Current or former Administration official? Hello! How often does a WaPo source get described that way? [Possible answer - any time the Post runs a story mentioning current and former officials. Don't slow me down!]
Obvious candidates would be Ari Fleischer and George Tenet (see UPDATEs here or in the continuation). However, the name might be right on the list the WaPo helpfully provides:
Among those who are known to have been interviewed by the FBI or testified before the grand jury are Bush White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis I. Libby, Republican National Committee consultant Mary Matalin, former Cheney press aide Catherine Martin, White House press secretary Scott McClellan, communications director Dan Bartlett, deputy press secretary Claire Buchan, and former assistant press secretary Adam Levine.
I highlighted two "former" staffers, both with Cheney's office (neocon alert!). Could Novak call either of them a "senior" official? No. But Pincus did not, in his blurb.
Bonus Theory After The Break
The Case For George Tenet As The Mystery Source For Walter Pincus
Let's contemplate Medal of Freedom winner George Tenet as the mystery source for Walter Pincus - the X-man, if you will.
Absurd on the face of it, you say - his CIA sent over the criminal referral that triggered this investigation. Well, the CIA criminal referral advanced without him, and he did not mention the scandal to Bush until October. Remember, Tenet was walking a tighrope, trying to balance between a White House which thought he had lost control of the CIA, and a CIA which thought that he let Cheney and the White House use and abuse their intelligence. Maybe irate underlings worked up the referral, leaked word of it, and slapped it on his desk as a fait accompli. So Tenet signs, figuring, he'll ride it out - he leaked to Pincus, someone else leaked to Novak, no worries.
Is Tenet the sort of guy who would have long talks with old hands like Pincus? Yes, he is... And might he put out a line of, "Hey, don't blame *me*for that messed up trip?" Yes, he might... But then why are we having a criminal investigation? Surely the head of the CIA can de-classify and leak this. But what if he only talked to Pincus, and maybe Miller?
Now, let's reprise the early reporting, with a surprise plot twist:
Pincus' X-Man appears on Sept 30, and then again on Oct 12, 2003:
On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored 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. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.
That Oct 12 mention earned Mr. Pincus a subpoena, which was reported upon. But check this update from Nov. 26, 2004:
One current or former administration official has told Fitzgerald that he or she had a conversation with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus on Saturday, July 12, Pincus has said publicly. Pincus also has said his source was not Libby. Pincus has previously said that an administration official told him that day that Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife.
Emphasis added. George Tenet became a "former" Administration official on June 3, 2004 (effective 7/11/2004), under odd circumstances. That said, Colin Powell is gone, other top CIA people are gone, Ari Fleischer is gone - lots of people stepped down after the election.
But let's add a bit: Extrapolating from the Sept 30 article, Pincus received a call on Saturday, the day after Tenet issued his July 11 statement taking the blame for the 16 Words and explaining the role of Joe Wilson.
So why did an Administration official call Pincus on Saturday morning? [Maybe it was a call-back on something else.] Maybe because they did not like the Post's reporting of Friday's events. OK, maybe they wanted to thank him for a great story, but bear with me.
By happy coincidence, here is the July 12 piece, with a byline of Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank.
So, what did the WaPo report, and whose ox was gored? And what did Pincus report the next day, July 13, after his chat with the X-man?
The headlines tell the story - July 12 is "Bush, Rice Blame CIA for Iraq Error"; July 13 is the CIA pushback, with "CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct. / Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear".
Hard to believe Colin Powell called Pincus just to bail out the CIA. Hard to believe Rove would call Pincus on Saturday morning and tell him to go easy on the CIA and pound the White House a bit. Easy to believe that a senior CIA official, now retired, called his old pal Pincus to set the record straight on the 16 Words and the Niger trip, and mentioned Wilson's wife in passing. How about that.
So, if Tenet leaked to Pincus, is Rove a criminal for leaking to Novak? That would be interesting to see prosecuted. And who was Novak's first source? Who is Dame Miller protecting - also Tenet? It might be worth checking her bylines.
Here we go - Ms. Miller, with David Sanger on July 23, told us that "Stephen J Hadley, deputy national security adviser and key behind-the-scenes player in Bush White House, accepts blame for allowing faulty intelligence to appear in State of the Union address".
Well, Mr. Hadley always belonged in the mix as a member of the White House Iraq Group who was both informed about the Niger trip and busy explaining the 16 Words debacle to the press, so he could have been a source to either Novak or Pincus. But he is hardly a "former" official.
YELLOW FLAG: Eventually I will run down the article where Pincus explained that he didn't use the bit about Wilson's wife because he didn't believe it. Didn't believe Tenet? Maybe it is a source-disguising head fake. Maybe. Or maybe Tenet was describing the White House position - *THEIR* view - and then tipped Pincus that the CIA saw it differently, as they did.
You're getting close.
I expect soon to read this wrap-up in the NY Times:
"One day, at band camp, a current or former administration official told a high-ranking official that a well-placed anonymous source had told him that he had heard that the White House was saying that a former operative was complaining that his wife, a former administration official, wasn't getting any juicy assignments anymore, thus drying up his opportunity to get free boondoggle trips to Africa."
The source of the leak, in my view, will turn out to have been ... presto ... Joe Wilson.
He's the only source who could be making the press go through this many contortions to avoid having to write what is obvious: a guy with a pre-election beef against Bush, who then went on to become a John Kerry campaign advisor, was the guy spilling his guts about his wife to all those reporters.
Joe Wilson and his pals in the press outed his wife.
Posted by: RightNumberOne | July 16, 2005 at 07:41 AM
As fantastical as Joe's mind works, I'm beginning to wonder if the rope noose incident isn't all it was played up to be either. Remember, Kerry was portrayed as a war hero.
Just what was Wilson's role in the run-up to Gulf One?
================================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 08:41 AM
Responding to Mrs Seven Macho and Martin's comments yesterday: I guess there's just a lot that is unknown about this investigation, and blogs just speculate.
Elite news sources lend credibility to our speculation, true.
I did find your reactions extreme, and interestng. That's the spirit... much better than RNC talking points!
Posted by: jerry | July 16, 2005 at 09:55 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if all of this is made up by the so called news media. It seems that most all of the news media these days pushes an agenda--everyone has one. In most cases, these so called confidential sources don't exist or are used as a cover for agenda reporting. It seems that the outing was just rumor looking for a source. The news media took people's knowledge of the rumor as confirmation that the rumor was true and printed it as truth. Thus the so called news media outed Plame based on so called confidential sources. After all, a confidential source is just someone unknown, whether real or fictitious, that the so called news media can use to spread their agenda.
Posted by: John | July 16, 2005 at 10:29 AM
There is a sense of bewilderment that 'truth-seekers' could get this so wrong.
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 10:34 AM
Everyone keeps coming close, but nobody seems to have the courage to assert that it was Colin Powell who was Novak's primary source. Today's NYT is running an article about a State Dept. memo that Powell had in his hand while running around Air Force 1.
Guys, this whole thing is a classic Powell modus operandi. I am shocked that nobody has the balls to state the obvious, especially now that the State Dept. memo is out there
Posted by: karlito | July 16, 2005 at 11:06 AM
Is this the same Powell who refused to put the Afica-uranium spiel in his U.N. presentation?
yes-he would definitely want to burn Wilson.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 11:13 AM
John --
I share your wonder at the MSN’s representations and so look forward to Time magazine reporter Cooper’s appearance on Meat, The Press tomorrow. On July 7, 2005 WaPo staff write Carol D. Leonnig reported the shock and awe reported the shock and awe of Cooper’s dramatic walk to freedom:
But today we learn from Howie the K that instead of shock and awe, it was “aw shucks” – Cooper's lawyer worked out the last-minute deal which arguably was done at the last minute because the lawyer was returning from a vacation in Alaska.
I ain’t claiming there’s collusion or conspiracy among the MSM journalistas, just that there’s enough exaggeration, innuendo, outuendo, and understatement to make PR types look clear, concise, and objective by comparison.Posted by: The Kid | July 16, 2005 at 11:19 AM
Karlito – See Tom’s previous post, The INR Memo Strikes Again!. The memo writer refers to Plame as “Mrs. Wilson.” Also, the memo writer had no way of knowing if she was or ever had been covert (NOC). Read the whole thing.
Posted by: The Kid | July 16, 2005 at 11:21 AM
TM said:
(...)a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored 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.
hmmm... another anonymous admin official. By this time, there was a ton of "anonymous admin officials" fighting off similar accusations re: GWB's aluminum tubes, drone aircraft, mobile labs... and virtually every Iraq WMD citation they'd made. Two lawmakers said "adiminstration officials" briefed them in closed session that SH could "hit the east coast" w/AB missiles.
Respectfully, if you're still regarding GWB's many WMD claims as sincere, it's time for a reality check. A reading today of Powell's UN presentation is beyond embarrasing... wrong on everything. And Powell stripped out a good part of what GWB wanted in there!!!!
(I know, I know... Bill Clinton believed all this crap. sigh...)
I'd remind of Larry Johnson and colleague's (eg: CIA operatives) testimony on capitol hill on this matter:
It was this sentiment which initiated Fitzgerald's probe. There is no question in CIA about what happened. I'd bet $$ to donuts these same people (CIA), reading WH surrogates daily expanding smears, are being firmed in resolve to make sure offenders pay.
WH is violating "first law of holes" in most dramatic fashion.
Posted by: jdm | July 16, 2005 at 11:24 AM
Martin: You err to attempt to fathom Powell's motives. And he is known to use side-channel political devices, like the press.
I still think Tenet told Pincus, what he assumed many knew already, at least partly because of Powell's loose cannon behaviour on the flight.
Why do I despise Wilson so much, besides all the obvious ones? Well, he betrayed his wife, unless she is in it, too.
Also, the anti-war faction has armoured up the wrong hero here. If this was a deliberate attempt to diminish Bush by rogue(I so much prefer the occaisional slip 'rouge') elements then Wilson's poor aim has not only not hurt the object, it has revealed the presence and impulse of his team.
Hmm, maybe a Presidential Medal of Freedom for him for outing the CIA conspiracy. Or at least a letter from Bush. W could get his Dad to knock it out from boilerplate lying around the library.
========================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 11:26 AM
@ The Kid
"outuendo" and "Meat, The Press". Great! Hadn't heard those before.
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 11:49 AM
Hmmmm.
@ jdm
That's curious. Wilson stated clearly that Valerie Plame wasn't undercover or covert at the time of the Novak article.
So how does Larry Johnson know differently?
Larry Johnson company bio
We are talking about the period of time 1997 to present. But Johnson's bio clearly states that the last time he was in a position to know anything about Plame's supposed covert status, was in 1993.
So jdm, how does Johnson know anything about this? If Plame is covert, then he couldn't know as he is no longer in any intelligence service. If Plame wasn't covert, as her husband Wilson stated, then Johnsons is talking out of his ass.
Which is it?
Or, I suppose, someone could have told Johnson, but isn't one of the arguments being pushed by you guys that repeating classified information, even if it's all over town, is still a crime?
So. Is it shackles time for Johnson?
Well you can hope.
Posted by: ed | July 16, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Larry Johnson worked for the CIA for 4 years? And he's the expert opinion here? Ahahaha.
Posted by: Tollhouse | July 16, 2005 at 01:24 PM
Let's throw in the latest information exculpatory of Rove, from none other than the Gray Lady -
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-CIA-Leak-Rove.html?oref=login
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 01:40 PM
I would like to here comments on my thesis the remaining targets of the investigation are Wilson, Plame and possibly some other rogue CIA employees who obviously leaked classified information.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/331
I'll keep checking back here for the debate over the weekend.
Posted by: AJStrata | July 16, 2005 at 02:10 PM
Larry Johnson's a liar and an incompetent. Anyone remember his "there is no terrorist threat" editorial from 2001? No, of course not.
Posted by: ArminTamzarian | July 16, 2005 at 02:35 PM
@ AJStrata
"Rogue" CIA employees? Surely you don't mean those partisan Democrats within the Agency that have put politics above country. Yes, those same ones that supported Clinton's WMD claims as justification for his pinprick attacks against Iraq and Sudan.
Look on the bright side. There's fewer "rogues" within the CIA than within the State Dept.
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 03:02 PM
A little rouge can cover up battlescars and embarrassment.
==============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 03:07 PM
This half-baked story of Cake, Yellow,
Forks like it's smarts to the heart of Plamo.
Operate and douche,
Cover it with rouge.
The Rogue of Rogues is her Ole Man Joe.
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Here's what I believe:
I abhor any "leaks" of confidential, proprietary, or classified information. That includes those that can not be successfully prosecuted under the laws of our land. BUT, I will only advocate nonjudical punishment (like firing) IF
it is fairly and equally applied.
What do I mean? Even though it seems clear that Plame was NOT a covert operative who was covered by the "5 year" time limit, I would, under fair and equal circumstances, advocate firing "anyone" who outted her. To make the circumstances fair and equal though, it would require this principle to be expanded to others. This would require the removal of Reid & Durbin from the Senate for leaking "classified" FBI documents. And it surely requires the dismal of Leahy for his leak of classified information to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Who on the Left will join me in a fair and equal treatment/punishment for "leaks"? And please, don't try to put (Democrat) Senators above the law by somehow implying that they are not bound by confidentiality or classified. You see, they can use that information they are entitled to, beyond closed doors and in closed session without leaking it to the public.
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 03:27 PM
MaDr..
yep, those would be the ones I was thinking of!
Cheers.
Posted by: AJStrata | July 16, 2005 at 04:08 PM
this is rich...from a drudge screamer...
...Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.
Republicans, he said, "want to kill us"....
lovely.
Posted by: peapies | July 16, 2005 at 04:20 PM
the Fat Steve timeline linkfest is spot on!
http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/07/linkfest-plamewilson-spins_112148930159092049.html
Posted by: peapies | July 16, 2005 at 04:41 PM
Re leaks of secret information.
As a sidebar to what Tierney calls "Nadagate", it is interesting to note that about a month ago the NY Times had a front page piece revealing in great detail a CIA operation regarding the capture and transportation of terrorists.
This included the airport where the operation was staged, the specific aircraft (including numbers), the front companies, et cetera of this operation. My guess is that a lot of personnel had their covers blown by someone doing a simple google search.
The story went by with hardly a peep.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 16, 2005 at 04:47 PM
This is gonna be an exciting horse race to the finish. Too bad we didn't create a "Super Bowl of Leakage" betting pool or an Iowa Electronic Markets-like futures setup.
Posted by: Lesley | July 16, 2005 at 06:14 PM
Still waiting for any Lefty in joining me in advocating a fair and equal treatment/punishment for "leaks". It's the weekend so I can be patient.
@ Lesley
Start the the betting pool. I'm in. If there can be so broad a bet - I'm putting my money on a Non-Administration employee of either the CIA or State Dept with proven Democratic Party proclivities.
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 08:02 PM
And the winner loses all.
=========================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 08:12 PM
Old Stewkarl was a dark horse.
And I wish he were mine.
For battling the dark force,
He always comes from behind.
I bet on the Plame Mare.
Put mo' on the Joe.
Now who's dancin' and a prancin'?
But that noble Stewkarl.
===========================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 10:11 PM
Tenet & Pavitt resigned suddenly on June 3, 2004 -- contemporaneously with Bush & Cheney consulting personal counsel in relation to their being interviewed by the Fitzgerald investigation.
Co-incidence?
See this
(pages 2 & 8 of the PDF)
Posted by: AlanDownunder | July 17, 2005 at 12:16 AM
Steve,
"The story [CIA private airline] went by with hardly a peep."
Yes, exactly. Including not a peep, as far as I can tell, from any major righty blogger. Until just now, when various folks like you suddenly notice it.
I wonder what to make of that?
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 01:43 AM
You just weren't paying attention. It met plenty of outrage in the hemiblogosphere.
=============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 08:15 AM
The eternal referee: I didn't see it so it didn't happen.
Well, get a pair, Ump. Of glasses. We're telling you your vision is obscured.
===============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 08:19 AM
Kim,
"It met plenty of outrage in the hemiblogosphere."
I've looked and found not a trace (except recent mentions in the context of Plame). Proof, please. I have now asked this question several times in several places, and the silence is deafening.
I'm not saying proof doesn't exist. I'm saying if it's this hard to find, that doesn't say much for the quality of the point you're trying to make.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 10:13 AM
So where have you looked and not found a trace?
==================================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 10:47 AM
jukeboxgrad
Why don't you start searching on this blog. Try this.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/05/the_times_versu.html
Posted by: MaDr | July 17, 2005 at 12:09 PM
None so blind as he who will not see.
It is willfullness.
==============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 12:22 PM
Several blogs talked about it.
Besides, that shouldn't matter.
Posted by: Aaron | July 17, 2005 at 12:53 PM
Of course not. He had an awfully weak point pointing out my weak point. And he doesn't even see stuff like that. Vision, delusion, See, Mon, See.
=============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 12:59 PM
"So where have you looked and not found a trace?"
Instapundit and Power Line, which I think of as perhaps the two best-known righty blogs.
Thanks for the link to Tom's article. With all due respect to Tom, this still doesn't explain why the bigger righty blogs passed on the story, if it was really such a big deal.
"Besides, that shouldn't matter."
It does matter, because it's an indication of hypocrisy.
A few days ago Power Line suddenly wakes up and tells us the NYT did something to "endanger the lives of real covert agents." If that's true, why didn't Power Line bother to mention it at the time (as far as I can tell; if the article is there and someone else can do a better job of finding it, that would be great)?
The day Tom wrote about the NYT report on the "CIA secret airline," Power Line wrote 12 articles. None of them were about the "CIA secret airline." Hmm, I wonder why. Oh, I see now. Hinderaker was up late the night before digging up this sexy photo of "Miss Canada!"
Hmm, lots of time for cheesecake, but no time to warn us that the NYT was engaged in an effort to "endanger the lives of real covert agents." No time, that is, until the story becomes useful as a way to distract us from Rove.
Not to mention the fact that newspapers are supposed to be in the business of telling us what the government is doing (and not only what the government wants us to know about what the government is doing; if that's all the press ever told us, we wouldn't call it a "free" press). The folks who wrote that article did not sign an agreement promising to protect the government's classified information. As far as we can tell, Rove did. By the way, here's what one of Tom's commenters said at the time: "If a few NYT reporters can figure it out, sure as hell any other interested parties could too. We should thank the NYT for pointing out this transparent cover so that it can be fixed. The reaction to sloppy operations and tradecraft should not be 'keep the flaws hidden' but 'find it and fix it.'" Exactly.
One more thing. Tom is less of a hypocrite than Power Line, because at least Tom covered the "secret airline" story before the Plame case got to the current very dramatic stage (unlike Power Line, who apparently couldn't manage to get excited about the "secret airline" story until 7/13, when Plame was suddenly front-page news).
But even Tom's behavior is questionable. Tom's own article (see the update at the bottom) points out that months earlier, there had already been major media coverage of the "secret airline" story. Where was Tom's outrage back then?
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 02:43 PM
I see you've been graduated to editor of Powerline. Just pathetic.
=============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 02:48 PM
By the way, let me know if you think Tom's article (and a number of others in blogs most people have never heard of) is what you consider "plenty of outrage in the hemiblogosphere" given that, as far as I can tell, the biggest righty blogs were completely silent on the story.
Update: now I see that Glenn gave Tom a link (here, also see this; these didn't come up in my search earlier). Glenn also says something about Hewitt, but following that link doesn't get me anywhere.
So I think it's fair to say there was some attention, but I think it's a stretch to call it "plenty of outrage in the hemiblogosphere." I also still stand by my comments about Power Line, unless they have an earlier article I can't find.
Also, As far as I can tell, there's nothing earlier, even though 60 Minutes apparently had the story weeks or months earlier. So even the mentions we found (Tom and Glenn etc.) are apparently in the context of the Plame story heating up.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 02:54 PM
JUKEBOXGRAD
Sometimes I think you might be dense like me. Nobody on the right is outraged at all over the outing-the-airline thing. That's the way the ball bounces in a free country with a press that is very often hostile to intelligence and military sectors, unless journalists sense some possibility that a Republicn political figure could be hurt.
No, the issue is: clearly, somebody leaked something to the press about the airline, yet there is no clamoring for jail for those people. In fact, those leaks are seen as good. Here, we have a similar leak and all-a-sudden, the leaker has committed treason -- if the leaker is Karl Rove or any Republican official. (If the leaker was Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame or Judith Miller or Matt Cooper or some Democratic-leaning lifer at State or CIA: move along, nothing to see here.)
It's not ourtage about leaks. It's outrage about hypocrisy and double standards with regard to reporting and to leaks.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 17, 2005 at 02:56 PM
Well which should be the cause of outrage. Revealing a complex and expensive chunk of our intelligence gathering network or commenting that the wife of a political hitman pushes paper for the CIA and was out to lunch on the day she was asked about her specialty?
==============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 03:03 PM
Seven,
"Nobody on the right is outraged at all over the outing-the-airline thing"
Really? Kim just said "It met plenty of outrage in the hemiblogosphere." And when I looked, I definitely found a
what I would call a moderate amount of outrage. So Kim's "plenty" is wrong, but your "nobody" is also wrong.
"somebody leaked something to the press about the airline, yet there is no clamoring for jail for those people"
That's true. As far as I can tell, the folks on the right who got worked up about this placed all the blame on the NYT, and none on the leakers. Interesting how that works.
"Here, we have a similar leak"
I think some folks might give consideration to the question of motive, before they swallow your claim of "similar." In the case of the secret airline, my guess is that some folks at the CIA thought that the public should know one of the means our government was using to conceal torture. In the case of Plame, it's really hard to imagine any reason for Rove outing Plame, except sheer revenge.
I've asked this question repeatedly: why did Rove mention Plame? (This issue and closely related issues are described here.) So far I haven't heard any answers.
By the way, I think some of the outrage in this case is that the leaker has spent a couple of years trying to cover it up. Also the fact that this particular leaker has a track record of previous vicious personal smears.
The whole question of leaks and anonymous sources is very interesting and not simple. It's probably a good thing the public is getting a chance to think hard about it. Sort of like what happened with Schiavo.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Schiavo? SCHIAVO??? Where did that come from? By the way, the sad case of dead Terry Schiavo is another thing that Big Media covered like crazy and that the Left was (remains?) sure will hurt Republicans electorally. And yet? And yet?
Face it, Juke, you don't like President Bush or his political team and you want to damage him politically. You see this as an opportunity to inflict damage. The facts don't really matter. Rove is guilty because he is Rove, an enemy of The People.
If you could just admit that your callous disregard for the actual truth completely and your hatred for people who disagree with you color your judgment, I would have a lot more respect for you.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 17, 2005 at 03:22 PM
My lord, silly, moderate can be plenty. You're getting asinine or inane
============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 03:23 PM
JUKEBOXGRAD
First of all, your questions are leading and intended to trap. (1) Rove was not the leaker, and (2) the thing leaked was not classified.
Why did Cooper mention Plame? Why did anyone mention Plame?
The administration wanted to discredit Wilson because Wilson attempted to discredit the administration after traveling to Niger on a trip that the administration did not approve or care about, but which was making headlines because Big Media was and remains blatantly against the war effort.
People have said this here a million times. For you continue to pretend that your questions about motive haven't been answered is absurd. Either that, or you are stupid. But you can't be stupid, because everyone knows that you are smart, by virtue of your political beliefs.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 17, 2005 at 03:47 PM
Seven, "I would have a lot more respect for you" if you actually made even a slight pretense of an attempt to address the very simple issues I raised here.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 03:50 PM
Seven,
"Rove was not the leaker"
Then please explain the meaning of this (Cooper): "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes." (link).
"the thing leaked was not classified"
Better tell Fitz he's been wasting his time, then.
"Why did Cooper mention Plame?"
Cooper didn't "mention Plame" to Rove. Rove outed Plame to Cooper.
By the way, "I would have a lot more respect for you" if you managed for a few nanoseconds to put aside your pathetic practice of answering a question with another question.
"The administration wanted to discredit Wilson"
Please explain why the White House needed to out Plame in order to "discredit Wilson." As I said earlier, it was a WSJ reporter, oddly enough, who said: "That Ms. Plame recommended her husband doesn't undercut Mr. Wilson's credentials for the job of trying to figure out whether Saddam Hussein was seeking the raw material for a nuclear weapon in Africa."
If the message Rove wanted to deliver was "Wilson was not sent by Cheney; rather, he was sent by slimy traitorous insignificant low-level operatives," let me suggest the following way he could have said that, which would not have posed any threat to our national security: "Wilson was not sent by Cheney; rather, he was sent by slimy traitorous insignificant low-level operatives." Please explain the critical importance of Rove using words such as "Wilson's wife" as part of that sentence.
Also, nice job continuing to sidestep the various other very simple issues I raised here.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 03:59 PM
JUKEBOXGRAD
So, if Karl Rove says one thing, and Matt Cooper says another thing, it must be Matt Cooper who is telling the truth and Karl Rove who is not telling the truth.
That's the bedrock principle on which your argument stands? I would think that a genius such as yourself would be able to do better.
Also, and I think this just may be germane, so I feel compelled to bring it up again and again: Plame was not covert, at least not for many years before Tempest-in-a-Teapot Dome. Further, if Plame was covert, her husband had no business hurling partisan charges all over Big Media. If he expected her covert status to remain, he was grossly negligent. However, that doesn't matter, because Plame did not have covert status at any relevant time.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 17, 2005 at 04:09 PM
"if Karl Rove says one thing, and Matt Cooper says another thing, it must be Matt Cooper who is telling the truth and Karl Rove who is not telling the truth."
Please refer me to any statements by Rove/Luskin which are at odds with what Cooper said (unless you mean the statements from the White House a couple of years ago, that Rove simply wasn't involved).
Rove has claimed (indirectly via a leaky Luskin, it seems) that Novak had already heard. Rove has not made that claim with regard to Cooper, although various people (like you, maybe) are trying to suggest otherwise.
"I feel compelled to bring it up again and again"
The things you "feel compelled" to bring up again and again are a feeble way to avoid dealing with various issues I raised here. You're a good stonewaller. Are you gunning for Scottie's job?
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 04:31 PM
Eventually we may get to see what Cooper told the Grand Jury and compare it with his casual jabber on TV. Expect to see the discrepancies enumerated in the newsworld? Well, yes, some blogger will do it.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | July 19, 2005 at 08:06 AM
Some blogger on JustOneMinute?
Posted by: jerry | July 19, 2005 at 10:38 AM
"Eventually we may get to see what Cooper told the Grand Jury and compare it with his casual jabber on TV"
Ever hear of a guy named Luskin? He hasn't been shy about commenting about Cooper's email, and Cooper's other public statements. Sometimes Luskin has been on the record, sometimes not, but he hasn't kept his mouth shut for very long over the last few weeks. For example, this is what he said about Cooper's email: "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper ... This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true" (link). In other words, just some very questionable spin, but not really a denial.
So if Luskin actually thought that anything Cooper has said isn't true, or will ultimately be shown to be untrue or in conflict with his grand jury testimony (in particular, Cooper's recent statement, in plain English, making it very clear that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and this is something Cooper didn't already know), Luskin would be screaming bloody murder right now. How interesting that he's not. All the current GOP spin is going off in numerous other directions, but no one (aside from characters like you) is seriously disputing the simple statement Cooper made a few days ago: Rove told Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA, and this is something Cooper didn't already know. And of course this is exactly what the White House has spent a couple of years telling us was "totally ridiculous" (link) to suggest.
Hope springs eternal, I guess.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 19, 2005 at 12:52 PM
I'm with you Jukeboxgrad. And frustrated by the obsessive, misleading, mostly predictable (RNC), and dense, commentary here.
Sorry.
Posted by: jerry | July 19, 2005 at 01:44 PM