A Teachable Moment

The deans of five prominent journalism schools take up the role of the press in wartime, and the ongoing efforts by the press to balance national security with the public's right to know.  However, they go on to make so dubious an assertion about the Plame case that I would like to propose a contest for contrary (or agreeable!) journalism school students.  Let's go to the deans:

Most Americans want their government to be held accountable, which is the raison d'etre of watchdog journalism. At the same time, they do not want the press to disclose government secrets that are vital to national security.

The journalist's dilemma, then, lies in choosing between the risk that would result from disclosure and the parallel risk of keeping the public in the dark -- a quandary that has become all the more pointed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As deans charged with imparting the values of journalism to the next generation of reporters and editors, we favor disclosure when there are not strong reasons against it.

And what might a "strong reason" be, and who makes the call?

We believe that in the case of a close call, the press should publish when editors are convinced that more damage will be done to our democratic society by keeping information away from the American people than by leveling with them.

Well, that does not provide a lot of guidance - the editors perform some sort of harm/benefit analysis, presumably subject to the likelihood that they can only guess at the prospective harm, and further subject to the possibility that their decision-making process will be viewed through a political lens.  And how high is the public's confidence in this balancing process - can the Times editors convince their critics that they can in  fact conceive of a situation where weakening our current president could also harm our society?  Jay Rosen was much more interesting on all this.

The five deans do provide a concrete example to illustrate their thought process:

There are situations in which that chance [of harm to national security] should not be taken. For instance, there was no justification for columnist Robert D. Novak to have unmasked Valerie Plame as a covert CIA officer.

We believe that in the case of a close call, the press should publish when editors are convinced that more damage will be done to our democratic society by keeping information away from the American people than by leveling with them.

We know from history that the government often claims to be concerned about national security when its concern is that disclosure will prove politically or personally embarrassing.

OK, the five deans have chosen a specific example in order to illustrate the decision making principals they hope to impart to the next generation of journalists.  So let me ask a tedious question - just what principals are they presenting to their students as having been overlooked or violated by Robert Novak?

They do not offer much of a hint, but I guess they are saying that outing Valerie Plame represented a clear risk to national security which was not balanced by any compelling public "right to know".

Let me re-write and revise their exhortation as a question - Do we know from history that the CIA often claims to be concerned about national security when its concern is that disclosure will prove politically or personally embarrassing? Has the CIA ever made mistakes and tried to cover them up under the rubric of national security?

And how about the public's right to know?  In the spring and summer of 2003 the Adminstration and the CIA were engaged in bitter mutual recriminations about the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.  Joe Wilson, formerly of the Foreign Service and the NSC, emerged with a story that amounted to, the CIA asked me to look into the question of Iraq, Niger, and uranium, I came back with an answer the White House did not like, so they ignored my answer and marched to war.

Should Joe Wilson be presented by the media as a seemingly dispassionate third party arbiter of a White House - CIA dispute?  Or is it possibly newsworthy that his wife works in the CIA division that engaged him, and that she might have been involved in getting him the assignment?  Does that scenario create a possible conflict of interest - might Joe Wilson have chosen to shade his story towards the CIA in order to bolster his wife's professional prospects, or simply out of spousal pride in the good job done by his wife and her team?

Or were all these reasonable issues meant to be swept aside by Bob Novak following the request by a CIA press spokesperson not to publish?  By his account, he was not subject to much arm-twisting - the Times met with senior Administration officials who implored them not to publish the SWIFT story, yet they proceeded; Novak had one chat (and a call-back) with a press flack, who did not call Novak's editor or have any senior CIA official contact Novak or his editor.  Should the amount of effort exerted by the "Don't Publish" side be a factor in the Publish/Don't Publish decision, will the next generation of journalists have ESP, or what?

I take for granted that the five deans will not deign to notice this post.  However, their choice of this example has got them firmly on the record and suggests an excellent teaching idea - these journalism schools should develop a case study of the decision to publish as made by Robert Novak in the Plame leak case.

I don't think j-schools do anything like a law school "moot court" - but they ought to!  The Plame case is appealing because it is topical, small in scope relative to something like the SWIFT decision, and just far enough in the past that we can reasonably re-create the events of May-July 2003 and the environment in which Bob Novak and his editors marched forward with the Plame story.

The Plame case is also appealing because these five deans are on record with their answer - enterprising j-schoolers can either polish the apple and explain why publishing was a mistake, or challenge authority and show up their deans as hopelessly misinformed.  Or biased.  Anyway, wrong.

And let's open it up a bit more - what if enterprising j-schoolers prepared either a ready-to-publish op-ed or a hypothetical memo to their editor arguing which ever side they choose?  Perhaps Jay Rosen, journalism maven and Plame savant, could be lured into judging a bit of a contest, splashing interesting entries across the blogosphere; I know I could be.  That and a couple of bucks gets you a double mocha latte.

Since for all entrants research skills are a must, I am not going to offer any shameless, self-promoting resources.  But I will say, good luck.

MORE:  Chris Hitchens and Cliff Kincaid have already entered.  They both pummel the deans, but the whipping is more severe at the Hitchens post.

Comments

[clarice]

After reading this piece of uninformed and ill-argued drivel, is there any question at allabout why the media is so crappy? How embarrassingly bad!

[Neo]

I think there are far better examples surrounding the Cuban missile crisis. There were moments when reporters knew that the US was flying U-2's over Cuba to see the Soviet missiles.

The US government knew the missiles were there, the Soviets knew the US was flying U-2's, yet most, perhaps all, reporters and newspapers decided that it was in the best interests of the situation to report virtually nothing for some extended period, until the Kennedy Administration did their show-n-tell at the UNSC.

Just because there were "nuclear devices" involved should not stop the press from the public's "right to know," yet they kept the public in the dark. It think case virtually all the "facts" were known to both sides, except the limits that would be applied to the possible actions of both sides. What was the point of keeping the public in the dark ?

OK, it was to avoid panic.

[crosspatch]

What I believe the five deans are missing is the fact that they might just as well be five masters of blacksmithing in the 1920's. They don't yet realize that their trade is on the cusp of obsolescence and they are about to become irrelevant.

Novak shouldn't have exposed Plame, what a knee-slapper. Yeah, THERE was a major blow to national security.

They honestly believe that they can make something real just by saying so. I can't blame them, they have been getting away with it for over a century now, it must be terribly difficult to change pathologies in mid-stream.

[Jim K.]

Curious what people think of Steve Chapman's argument that the Bush administration could have prevented the NY Times from publishing the SWIFT story if it truly believed it to be harmful to national security (and since it didn't, it wasn't).

[sbw]

After an all too brief scan of Tom's piece, my first observation is that the deans share the main stream media's preoccupation with asking the wrong questions. That leaves those arguing either side satisfied with irrelevant answers.

The first purpose of journalism is not to be a watchdog of government, but to serve as a surrogate for readers to help them improve their mental maps of reality, the better to plan future decisions. Readers of JOM know how warped the MSM representation of the Libby/Plame case has been... but it seems of little interest to the deans. Why so?

The deans seem to me to be little more than pharisees or moneychangers in the temple. To the deans, principles are academic points to be argued over abstractly while the important skills of journalism are left untaught.

Maybe I'll add more later, but it would seem a waste of keyboarding for the deans who could never recognize what they do not teach.

[SteveMG]

On first blush (and second), I can't discern any substantive guiding principles either from Keller or these j-schools deans. It appears to be, for the most part, ad hoc defenses of light shining.

However, and at the risk of contradicting my observation, it does seem that they're arguing, implicitly, that if the leak of classified information benefits an administration, the publication of that leak shouldn't be done. If the leak, however, is injurious to the administration or raises questions about the government's policies, then that may be published.

Publishing harmful leaks = good
Publishing beneficial leaks = bad

SMG

[jerry]

Novak does have an unusual working arrangement, he's got an independent office and his columns have no real oversight by editors. I'm sure there is a reason he's structured things this way (and a reason why he's been ousted from CNN, where he did have a boss to report to).

Regarding Plame, if she was a NOC there are laws which would make her case seriously different, legally, from even everyday DC leaks.

[KM]

Am I the only one annoyed by the constant reference to the Espionage Act of 1917, this time in the Hitchens column? The effort here is to demean the statute with decrepitude. Oddly, you never hear about the 1789 First Amendment.

[MikeLucca]

What unbelievable gibberish. The irony is that these are the very people that would be the first up against the wall under an Islamofascist regime. We're literally fighting a war for the very freedoms these people are using to undermine the war effot.

[Pete]

Tom - you ask some questions about Joe Wilson. However these are rhetorical questions - do you seriously think that we will ever find the truth about whether or not Joe Wilson was dispassionate? Partisans on both sides will spin the issue based on which side of the spectrum they lie on.

Regardless of whether Plame had a role or not in Wilson's selection (again we hear two sides of the story, one side saying yes and the other side saying no), there was simply no reason to drag her name in this.

On the issue of WMD there is a growing body of evidence that the Bush administration touted the evidence that supported their case for war and ignored the evidence that did not support their case for war. That should be food for thought if one is looking for the truth.

[Javani]

Novak - admits being told by two sources including CIA not to publish Wilson's wife's role. Did so anyway. Bad guy.

NYTimes-admits to being told by sources including intel. not to publish info about SWIFT. Did so anyway. Good guys.

Funny deans.

[Neo]

Actually, Hitch is right that Keller et al probably isn't covered by the Espionage Act of 1917. On the other hand, Section 798. Disclosure of classified information does probably apply. It dates to Oct. 31, 1951, a (give 'em hell) Harry Truman October surprise, I suppose.

[Neo]

On the issue of (issue) there is a growing body of evidence that (group) touted the evidence that supported their case and ignored the evidence that did not support their case. That should be food for thought if one is looking for the truth.

Now fill in the (issue) with:

WMDs in Iraq
Global Warming
Swiftboat Vets
Chapaquidick
9/11 WTC collapse
9/11 Pentagon attack
9/11 jet "shootdown"
Jimmy Hoffa
JFK assassination
Judge Crater
UFOs
Truth, Justice and the American Way

Now pick a (group) ..

[Redcoat]

"Journalism" isn't a profession, it's a cult.

The self ordained guardians of our democracy.

The simply feel they can expose secrets, simply because they are secret, and they are doing some kind of service to humanity.

Personally, I don't want a bunch of insular narcissist deciding how we deal with our enemies, and I don't believe for one moment that they are non-political.

I would hate to walk into a room full of these people, the air of Sanctimony would be nauseating.

Thank God they are dying off.

If there is any justice in this world, Keller and the rest of his poisonous brood will find themselves in front of a Grand Jury, with full immunity, and Patrick Fitzgerald giving them the Libby treatment.

I curse them, with Fitzgerald.

[Redcoat]

Pete,

"Regardless of whether Plame had a role or not in Wilson's selection"

You might want to browse the archives here,maybe find out what the Senate had to say about Mrs.Wilsons role in sending her HouseFrau Joe to Niger.

And leave out the talking points,we've heard them all.

[JJ]

Best quote from the Hitchens' article:

A serious controversy persists as to whether Joseph Wilson himself endangered national security by repeatedly misstating the facts about the Iraq-Niger connection. In order for that controversy to be fully ventilated, the extent of his connection to the CIA must be fully known.

[JJ]

As a j-school grad myself and an ex-j-professional (the pay was way too bad and my fam was getting way too big), it has always been my assumption that news organizations should simply report the news first.

Sometimes that, in itself, takes a lot of guts. Simply because when you tell the story completely, you usually tick off every side presented in the story.

I never thought it was the job of journalists to present "truth" as much as it was to pass along accurate information.

Hey, I half-like the New York Times. They do cover facts and details better than many news outlets. However, I strongly dislike their commitment to "truth" and their arrangement of information to fit that truth. And their omission of some important parts of a story, which leaves an incomplete pic. Most of their good reporting is usually done in the fourth or fifth paragraphs or lower.

I am sure that GW doesn't want bad stories written about his admin. No politician does. But it doesn't take much journalistic effort to present news simply because it "attacks power".

This is why I stand up and applaud the bloggers. I take a shoe off and pound the table for them. Go!

If the five hombres/deans want to out themselves, then it's about time. Nothing like a little reverse sunlight to get a clearer news...

Good post.

[Redcoat]

JJ,re. The Hitchen Quote,

The quote is very telling,not for just what Hitchens says,but the fact that the Journo's are so constrained by their own meme's they have to present the weakest,most absurd and thoroughly debunked example as their defense,The Wilson case.

The arbiters of truth and justice cannot even be honest with themselves,on an issue they clearly see as being very important.

For all their high minded talk and condescending purity,they cannot even be honest with themselves.

It's amazing they survived as long as they did.

[clarice]

When I write a long article, I follow the procedure I used when I wrote briefs. (TM does, too , which is why at first I thought he was a lawyer). That is, at the point of each important factual assertion I put my citation. (I don't always put that in the final product. I do it for myself to assure myself that it is the most accurate rendition . I reread it when I cite it to make sure I have misstated it , and it also helps me to revise my thoughts when new facts come to light.) If I were an editor I'd insist that all drafts that hit my desk were written in the same form.

That the Deans of these prominent schools had all the Wilson facts wrong, shows they never do this. Whatever crap first hits their eyes stays there forever.
That they can't write a coherent, logical argument is another matter. And no less appalling.

[verner]

I absolutely understand why C. Hitchens defends the right of the press to print whatever it wants, but as the sisters taught me in eighth grade--with rights come responsibility.

The only thing that can come close to touching this academic/journalistic gang of five's letter in terms of hypocrisy, blatant partisanship and all out intellectual sloppiness would be Sean Wilentz's ridiculous "historian's" letter during the Clinton impeachment.

What a joke. As if "journalism" was some sort of white draped goddess in an ivory tower. Read a little history buckos. She's always been a bit of a soiled dove.

We speak of Jefferson and the absolute right of a free press. Heck yeah, who would ever disagree with the right to dissent. But do we remember that Jefferson had his own newspapers that he would use to attack political enemies? Indeed, Callender, the spreader of "Dusky Sally"--a rumor that happened to be true--had worked for Jefferson before they had a falling out!

Andrew Jackson had his own papers. He used them to end Davy Crockett's political career for one. He also suffered gravely when his enemies--through their mouthpieces-- accused his beloved Rachael of being a whore.

Abraham Lincoln threw 18,000 confederate sympathizers in jail without trial. I'll have to look it up, but I'd be quite surprised if a few didn't have fingers stained with printer's ink. If memory serves me, in Il., the legislature denied papers sympathetic to the confederacy the use of the postal service for distribution.

And as for the Chicago Tribune during WWII, McCormick (the owner) was a Nazi-loving scumbag. I've read that the only reason he didn't go to jail was that the navy feared further damage to national security from open court proceedings. So they dropped the charges.

I guess the difference between now and then was that there was no pretext to this haughty, lofty "public's right to know" bullshit. Papers and journalists had agendas, and everyone who read them knew exactly what they were--and could judge accordingly. It's much more honest that way.

That said, I'm still trying to think of an example in American history where a major American newspaper released top secret classified information concerning ongoing intelligence gathering programs--leaks that that benefited murderous terrorists hell bent on destroying civilization globally, for no reason whatsoever other than "the public's right to know."

Nope. This is something completely different.

[Dusty]

When in Doubt, Publish?

How about:

When in Doubt, Accuse.
When in Doubt, Convict.

Personally, I'd prefer journalists who think the former is a good rule, embrace "When in doubt there's a cliff, jump. Not as a society, of course, just individually.

[topsecretk9]

It is the business -- and the responsibility -- of the press to reveal secrets.

Journalists are constantly trying to report things that public officials and others believe should be secret, and constantly exercising restraint over what they publish.

Danish cartoons -- excluded -- of course

[topsecretk9]

BTW...I completely agree with you JJ...

Journalist are not by virtue of their profession, GOD like...they are NEWs disseminators...if in gathering that news they are able to glean more, get more, that means they are a good reporter...when a so-called whistleblower drops a template in their lap that AN administration then warns will harm their efforts to protect all americans including their sorry asses, that's not reporting... that is agenda stenography...because I don't have the benefit to judge the "whistle=blower" because they paper keeps that SECRET.

You know, their shareholders and mangers retain "secrets" about the NYT's business too?

[topsecretk9]

Regardless of whether Plame had a role or not in Wilson's selection (again we hear two sides of the story, one side saying yes and the other side saying no), there was simply no reason to drag her name in this.

Then I guess you are especially anxious that PFitzgerald indict UGO?

[crosspatch]

The history of using the media to present a desired reality and influence the opinions of the reader go back to Ben Franklin. The difference was back then you had several different sources of information to choose from and where each source placed their loyalty was quite clear.

These days with so many one-paper towns, people's choices are limited. Papers still have the niche mentality while trying to operate in a monopoly market. If they were more balanced, they would appeal to a wider cross section of the potential reader base. Instead, they have decided to appeal to a particular political demographic and alienate a large portion of their potential customer base. In a country where roughly as many people are Republicans as Democrats, you risk losing half your readers if you insult one side or the other. If you want to survive in today's world, the way to do it is with balanced content. Then you become useful to everyone.

100 years ago, San Francisco had at least 32 newspapers (probably more but the date that many discontinued publication is unknown) in English, French, Greek, German, Italian, Swiss Italian, Sweedish, Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese. I tried to count only those in existance in 1906. Between 1846 and 1934 there were dozens of papers in exsitance at one time or another. Everyone would have a paper that appealed to them. Today they have 4 (3 if you don't count the WSJ) and only one of those is a "major" paper, the other two are freebies.

The one paper SF does have basically calls Republicans moronic barbarians ... and the people in Berkeley think it is too conservative!

One of the reasons for the decline of the print media is lack of competition and lack of variety. But with the cost of printing and distrubution these days, it is too inefficient to produce niche daily papers so ... JustOneMinute can publish to the entire globe for a reasonable charge and a new media is born.

I believe there will always be a place for the broadcast electronic media ... radio and cable news networks. If for no other reason than for live event coverage and in-depth stories. But the pulp news industry is toast. It literally isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

[David Walser]

What I find interesting (knowing that you all care what I find interesting) about Keller et al's defense of publishing national secrets, is the defenders' inability to see how publishing the SWIFT story could harm national security. Yet, see their instant indignation at the suggestion that reporters might be forced to reveal their sources: Why, if we do that, it would be the end of investigative reporting! No one will come forward and talk to reporters if reporters cannot promise anonymity!

On the other hand, when the Administration asks them not to publish, partly, on the grounds that doing so will make it more difficult to get other nations to cooperate with us if we cannot keep a secret; it's an argument they find puzzling. After all, they claim, if a program is effective and legal, people in other lands will not mind disclosure. Are we to believe that it's only the media's sources that crave anonymity or that journalists are too blinded by their own bias to see that foreigners cooperating with the US might have the same desire?

[Kate]

The deans may want to explore the wisdom of having a media that consist of 90% members of one party and 95% socialist/left.

While I will not go so far as to say that the media are allied with our enemies in the actual GWOT, I do believe that they are, by goals and objectives, allied in the information war. Their objectives have converged in a way that I find, well, creepy.

Case in point, the media wishes to keep the rape/slay story alive because it fits their world view: Vietnam=Iraq, US soldiers as criminals, Iraq a mess. They could treat it as a unfortunate crime that is statiscally unavoidable and report on the story when it merits, that is, when there is news that advances the case.

However, they wish to report on the story every day. Lo and behold, along come the terrorists with a brutal video of the murder of 2 of our soldiers giving the media what they want-a link to the rape/slaying.

I notice in the Reuters headline the terrorists are referred to by the neutral term "group".

I think we need to examine the alliance of the media with the terrorists in the information war and how the Administration/Military can counter it.

I've come to the conclusion that the military's aggresive stance in pursuing criminal behavior by the GIs is part of this strategy, they want to expose it and deny the media their desire to be the heroes in these instances.

I notice that I wait to hear from the military, I don't trust any reports from the media and their Iraqi sources.

[PeterUK]

Journalists are paid to provide material to fill the news media they work for,they have to keep the editor happy,who in return has to keep the proprietor happy.All these people have biases,further the sole function of a newspaper ,is to sell papers and advertising,there will be many who say that this isn't working,nobody said they are good at it.
The dream of mediafolk is to work for an organisation which reflects their biases,where they get paid for being activists,but since outside organisations like the BBC,this loses money,newspapers reflect their circulation,printing stories which satisfy their readership.

[Lesley]

OT

TM, Glen Reynolds paid you a huge compliment on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.
Check out the MP3 File on Radioblogger.

Glen Reynolds on JOM & Tom Maguire

Monday, May 10, Anniversary Wishes, Hour 3

[Bob]

clarice wrote:

"That the Deans of these prominent schools had all the Wilson facts wrong, shows they never do this. Whatever crap first hits their eyes stays there forever."

clarice, I think it's worse than that... These fools don't just go with what hits their eyes first. They know damn well that what they publish is just bold face lies and exaggerations. Their BDS agenda is what's only important to them and their editors.

[Dwilkers]

After reading this piece of uninformed and ill-argued drivel, is there any question at all about why the media is so crappy?

No.

Clearly the bubble-heads in the media are the product of their environment. More nurture than nature I think.

I read a post over at TPM about a year ago by a Columbia journalism prof named Todd Gitlin. Leaving aside the politics of it - which politics were rabid left - the 'argument' wasn't worthy of being so described. It was shallow, dishonest and bereft of any intellectual merit and filled with gratuitous insult and profanity. I'm not sure what they teach at journalism school with a guy like that on staff. "How to misstate the arguments of people you disagree with, lie, distort, insult and curse 101" I guess.

Here I went and looked it up if you're interested, or read any of his other drivel over there. Keep in mind that was written by a Columbia School of Journalism professor.

/shrug

[lurker]

Shame that this is being taught in our universities and colleges. No wonder we see more liberal students graduating these days. It would not be until they've put in a few years in the work force and raising families that they convert to conservatism.

One thing that bothers me is when NYT and the likes leaks; they fill up these reports with inaccuracies and intentional lies. Well, Katrina is a prime example. The mine story late last year is another example. North Korea - the reporting of the number of missiles launched - was it five, no, it was six, no, wait, it was seven. Patriot Act. "Bush lied, people died". "No WMDs".

Blast them!!

[Tollhouse]

/[Regardless of whether Plame had a role or not in Wilson's selection ..., there was simply no reason to drag her name in this.]/

I think I need some more coffee to deal with this as anything but a complete non-sequitur.

[lurker]

"

Tom - you ask some questions about Joe Wilson. However these are rhetorical questions - do you seriously think that we will ever find the truth about whether or not Joe Wilson was dispassionate? Partisans on both sides will spin the issue based on which side of the spectrum they lie on.

Regardless of whether Plame had a role or not in Wilson's selection (again we hear two sides of the story, one side saying yes and the other side saying no), there was simply no reason to drag her name in this.

On the issue of WMD there is a growing body of evidence that the Bush administration touted the evidence that supported their case for war and ignored the evidence that did not support their case for war. That should be food for thought if one is looking for the truth."

I'm sure Joe Wilson was PASSIONATE but intentional in reporting of his own lies with the objective of destroying WH.

There's growing evidence on an almost daily basis that justifies going to war against Iraq. Playing Devil's Advocate, if I went car shopping, I look at Consumer's Report; blessed some of its data but ignored some of its data, is that wronge for me to ignore some of its data? We deal with these things and make our decisions based on the information available to us. Is that wrong?

Besides, if there was evidence that WH ignored but used other evidence that strongly justifies going to war against Iraq, I don't have a problem with it.

Almost daily translation of the recently released Iraqi document continues to support WH's reasons for going to war against Iraq.

[lurker]

I agree with Tollhouse on the dragging of Plame's name into it. The Plame game was so hyped that the name needed to be dragged in until people start eating crow.

Speaking about these 5 deans not understanding the fine line between leaking, fake reporting, and accurate reporting AND our 5 Supreme Court Justices, here is what we would be forced to defend and prosecute under the rule of law.

Do these believe deserve to be treated according to the Geneva Treaty? Our 5 Supreme Court Justices said, "Yes".

[lurker]

NYT Protest

Wow, what a turnout!

[Gary Maxwell]

I see Pete shows up to offer us "food for thought". Food taken from a starved and starving man seems so wrong to me.

[Pete]

Neo - The Iraq war is nowhere like most of the cases that you mention. Hundreds of billions down the drain, 2500+ US and British troops killed, tens of thousands of ouir troops wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. Comparing that to something like Swiftboat vets, Jummy Hoffa or Chapaquidick is really trivializing the number of people we have lost in Iraq and the amount of money that has been spent.

(Even the 9/11 example you give does not fit since it was not something that the Administration could have made statements on before the fact. And I do not blame or fault Bush for 9/11).

Redcoat - I am well aware of what the Senate Committee has said, but they do not resolve the issue. Pincus (whom Tom Maguire has quoted in other forums to prove his points) said that Plame was instrumental in sending Wilson on a prior trip in 1999, and that CIA officials say that Wilson was sent by officials in CPD and not his wife.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/08/10/
AR2005081001918_pf.html

The point I was making was that regardless of what Plame's role was in sending Wilson (which is not as cut and dry as you all make it to be) her name should not have been dragged in.

topsecretk9 - not knowing all the facts it is hard for me to say, but in general I would say yes indict all the people who participated in the leak.

[Gary Maxwell]

Plus the fact that this no calorie celery ( offered again ) is neither satisfying nor filling.

[MikeLucca]

There's no way you can compare the damage -- if you want to even call it that -- from the Plame "outting" to the very real damage done by disclosing the wiretapping story, the banking story, or the location of Donald Rumsfeld's home, just to cite a few examples. The last is particularly egregious, because it puts an individual human being at very great risk. Everyone in Washington knew Plame was CIA and she wasn't even undercover anymore. As Hitchens said, it is Wilson who endangered national security.

[Pete]

lurker - if there are things that justify going in Iraq then the administration has every right to say so. The administration ran a huge PR campaign before the war to influence public opinion. They mentioned all the things that supported the case for war and ignored all the things that did not.

Lindsey mentioned the cost of war. He was pooh poohed. Sinseki told how many troops were needed to stablilize Iraq. He was sidelined. Our intelligence twice told the Bush administration that the Niger information was unreliable, yet Hadley "forgot" (the dog ate his homework too, but that stop Bush from promoting him). There was significant dissent on the al tubes, yet listening to Bush's State of the Union Speech you would have never known that. Our intelligence concluded that the only way Saddam would use WMD is if he is cornered in a fight, yet we never were told about this by the Bush administration. Wilson's report was given a normal and wide distribution, yet the Bush administration claim they never saw it (again a case of the dog ate my homework).

[Pete]

should be "but that did not stop Bush from promoting him"

[Pete]

The stuff about everyone in Washington knowing about Plame is simply nonsense.

Here is what William Buckley says:
"The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley
buckley200511011324.asp

[Redcoat]

Lesley,
Re:Hugh Hewitt.

That was a good program yesterday.

He filleted two MSM types, Chait from the L.A Times,and some person from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Chait wrote the standard B.D.S laden screed,and sounded foolish trying to defend it.

When will they realize that someone who has no knowledge of Domestic or Foreign politics,the Economy,the Military or Terrorism does not get instant credibility by virtue of a byline in a rapidly vanishing Newspaper.

The woman from the Plain Dealer was another groupthink victim,no insight beyond talking points.

And she of course advanced the theory that "journalists" are a special class of citizen,who should not be compelled to follow the law,like the rest of us,during a criminal investigation or in front of a Grand Jury.

William Jefferson(D)Louisiana, found out that Congressmen were subject to the rule of law,and it is high time the ink stained wretches were taught the same lesson.

[Lurker]

""The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."

Heh, this was written a year and a half ago. Now that people have had a chance to take the time and research it, their research lead to the one and only one conclusion that there was nothing that Cheney, Rove, and Libby did to violate this law. None of them leaked Plame's identity.

If Buckley was to write an article on the same topic today, it would not match what he wrote then.

[Lurker]

"lurker - if there are things that justify going in Iraq then the administration has every right to say so. The administration ran a huge PR campaign before the war to influence public opinion. They mentioned all the things that supported the case for war and ignored all the things that did not.

Lindsey mentioned the cost of war. He was pooh poohed. Sinseki told how many troops were needed to stablilize Iraq. He was sidelined. Our intelligence twice told the Bush administration that the Niger information was unreliable, yet Hadley "forgot" (the dog ate his homework too, but that stop Bush from promoting him). There was significant dissent on the al tubes, yet listening to Bush's State of the Union Speech you would have never known that. Our intelligence concluded that the only way Saddam would use WMD is if he is cornered in a fight, yet we never were told about this by the Bush administration. Wilson's report was given a normal and wide distribution, yet the Bush administration claim they never saw it (again a case of the dog ate my homework)."

It took ten years to reconstruct Germany. The ex-Nazis continued to fight against the allies for five years after WWII.

The magnitude of casualties and cost of this war PALED when compared against the wars of the past.

The almost daily translation of the recently released Iraqi documents showed that Saddam will attack USA no matter what. He WILL attack whether he is in a corner or not. After all, he did go after Kuwait when he was not in a corner.

Of course, there would AND should be dissent. The responsibility of these agencies is to provide and present the best and most accurate data to the top heavy management, including our president. The CIA has been proven more than once for doing a terrible job of collecting intelligence in the first place so the CIA doesn't have much credibility anyway.

[Lurker]

The costs of many wars, including this war, is outweighed by the positive benefits and returns for USA and its allies.

[Tollhouse]

Lol.

Pincus said that Plame was instrumental in sending Wilson on a prior trip in 1999, and that CIA officials say that Wilson was sent by officials in CPD and not his wife.

Do you think there is a contradiction there? Where do you think Plame worked? Jeez. Let's parse what "official" means I guess.

[Redcoat]

Swerving slightly off topic,

I wonder if there was a reply from the White House to the Hoekstra letter.

I'm not sure how these things work,whether a letter of that kind from a Congressman would generate a written reply,or if they would address the issue in person,or both.

I'd be very interested to see it,if there were one.

[Lurker]

"Instrumental" to me means that Plame influenced the decision.

Besides, wasn't there a declassified report from CIA that showed Plame sending Wilson to Niger? Think this was linked here eons ago.

[Lurker]

I have not read or heard about a WH response to the release of the Hoekstra letter. And will MSM raise a question to Tony Snow about the WH response of this letter? Nah, I don't think so. They're not interested in it.

[Lurker]

"lurker - if there are things that justify going in Iraq then the administration has every right to say so. The administration ran a huge PR campaign before the war to influence public opinion. They mentioned all the things that supported the case for war and ignored all the things that did not."

Nothing wrong with the huge PR campaign. And they did the right things. Time proved that the data ignored should have been ignored.

[Lurker]

Related to this topic, Mac expressed his opinion about one journalist

So the main focus of MSM reporting is the "neutralization" of Bush?

[Gary Maxwell]

You are arguing with a mental midget literally starving for facts. You can not force feed him the truth. It simply will not fit his world view.

[Redcoat]

Lurker,

"And will MSM raise a question to Tony Snow about the WH response of this letter? Nah, I don't think so. They're not interested in it."

No they are not interested,to them the whole story is about the oversight issue,that's what they wanted whoever still reads them to focus on.

A C.I.A backstabbing program or the existance of WMD will be studiously ignored.

[Pete]

Lurker - Buckley wrote the article in Nov 2005 after the Libby indictment. Have you even read the article?

[Lurker]

Yes, I did. Things have changed since. The odds that Buckley will write something different about Cheney, Rove, and Libby today are high.

[Pete]

Tollhouse - Sorry I misquoted Pincus. Here is the exact quote:

"Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999."

There is no contradiction here.

[lurker]

Let's break this one apart.

"The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it."

I agree. It is important.

"In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into."

What exactly did Cheney, Rove, and Libby get into? They did not leak Plame's identity.

"But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."

I agree so how come no one is going after the UGO?

[Pete]

So lurker - You said that the Buckley article was written a year and a half ago. Nov 2005 was NOT a year and a half ago.

If Buckley has written anything different since that article, please point it out.

[MikeLucca]

Pete: Buckley is a senile, Bush-hating RINO. And when did he become some big expert on CIA agents?

Fact: Plame was not undercover and hadn't been for more than five years.

Fact: Many of the Wilson's neighbors knew she was CIA.

Your move.

[Lurker]

I did not say Buckley wrote a new article. I said that the odds of what he will write about the Plame story today. Big difference. Things have changed since.

Ok, six months ago.

[Lurker]

Topsecret, wasn't there a declassified, redacted CIA report showing Plame sending Wilson to Niger?

[Lurker]

A question for Pete, would you have any qualms about living under Sharia law?

[Barney Frank]

Pete,

Plame, in a memo, suggested and touted her husband for the Niger mission. Technically she may not have made the ultimate decision sending him to Niger, but if you are suggesting she was not instrumental in that decision you are incorrect and possibly disingenuous.

[Redcoat]

Lurker,from a link to your linked Mac article,

"If Scooter Libby can have a legal defense fund and website, then McCarthy(D-C.I.A) should have one too," says a DNC staffer. "The DNC wouldn't set it up,"

Great work,Democrats,now you own her.

If there is ever a monument to monumental stupidity Howard Dean's bust should sit atop the pillar.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9732

[Lurker]

And the fact that CIA did not make Wilson sign a NDA and probably did not pay for Wilson's trip to Niger implies that CDP did not officially send Wilson there.

[Lurker]

Redcoat, has the MOM legal defense fund and website been set up by now?

[Bob]

Yes Redcoat, Dean and moonbats, netroots, are the gifts that keep on giving... and it's not even Fitzmas yet!

[Lurker]

Bob, seems that the more Dean, moonbats, nutroots, etc., give, the more they lose! Ha!

[Pete]

MikeLucca - her neighbors did not know.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260005

Similarly the CIA referred the case to the DOJ, and the DOJ started the investigation. That blasts your speculation that she was not undercover.

[Specter]

I gotta laugh.

Pete - You accuse the WH of pumping up the facts they want to get out and downplaying others. But - that is exactly what you are doing. So - quid pro quo - if it was wrong for them it is wrong for you. You see - you haven't really looked at the 16 words have you? Wilson tried to make it all about Niger - but that is not what Bush said is it? Picture it this way. You have multiple sources of information on which to make an important decision. 90% of those tell you one thing and 10% says something different. Do you make your decision based on the very small minority? No.

Redcoat - the return letter comment is interesting. I would agree that a letter or phone call back was definitely called for, If it was a letterm and since it has apparently not been leaked to the press, it makes you wonder even more who leaked the Hoekstra letter. Or it could be that it wasn't leaked because it had photos attached...LOL

On Topic - The fact is that the news organizations have mostly moved away from just reporting the "news", or even have a balanced approach to reporting opinion. Instead they are busy with reporting their own political viewpoint. With the NYT it is to bring down the Republicans - plain and simple.

[Lurker]

Friends of a friend of mine said that they would testify knowing Plame's identity long before Plame's identity became well-known.

Of course the CIA referred the case to DOJ but their work appeared to be shoddy, incomplete, and biased.

[Redcoat]

Specter,Lurker,Barney Frank,etc...

I fear you are wasting your time.

Despite the title of this post,this is not a "teachable moment."

Pete has his scenario,and he's sticking to it.

[Lurker]

And the fact that Wilson showing up at a democratic event in early May of 2003 AND mentioning Plame and her CIA identification shows that Plame's identity was outed by...

her husband long before Libby, Cheney, and Rove.

[Barney Frank]

"That blasts your speculation that she was not undercover."

You better give Fitzgerald a call, Pete. He doesn't seem as well informed as you.

[Specter]

Mehtinks that Pete only gets his news from the NYT. He has had his head in a hole when it comes to Project Harmony, the 2002 NIE, and the reports from the Intelligence Committee. Oh well....That's the problem isn't it. It is the same with the so-called journalists. They won't even study or take on the facts presented in those documents. Instead, they continue to hoist arguments that have been shown false in hopes that if you say it over and over again it will somehow come true. Remember "Rove Indicted. 24-business hours to get his affairs in order." TO is still saying it's true. That's kind of like Pete.

[Barney Frank]

Redcoat,

You're probably correct but it's so rare to have a lefty who actually converses and doesn't descend to 'F*** You' and pointless ad hominems I can't help but try and reward his decency with a civil response.

[Bob]

Hey Pete, let's face it, I doubt your neighbors know your a moonbat!

And I guess since the neighbors didn't know, in your mind that settles it... nobody knew! You'll have to do better than that my friend!

[Pete]

Specter - There is a HUGE difference between this debate, and the PR waged by the administration before the Iraq war.

It was the administrations duty to present an accurate picture to the American public then. They did not do so.

BTW here is what the President's spokesman Fleischer said about the SOTU words:
"The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger."

[Jim O'Sullivan]

Revealing that Plame worked for the CIA passes no balancing test, while revealing the details of the SWIFT program to Al Queda is responsible journalism. Just to state the proposition is to show that these professors are not serious persons, but partisan hacks. Oh, and not to be a schoolmarm, but it's "principles."

[Specter]

Sorry Pete...it is the same thing, you just refuse to recognize it.

LBush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

can't get much simpler than that. Didn't mention Niger at all. But the fact is that the NIE and the Senate report both indicated that there were contacts between Niger and Iraq regarding "commercial interests". Of course Niger has so many other commodities that Iraq would be chasing....sand...umm...vacation resorts, what else? Oh yeah - yellow cake. Also, the "envoy" sent by Iraq was involved at one time in weapons, but that doesn't mean anything. Nope not at all - it was just a coincidence.

Pete - in AFRICA - are there any other countries that sell yellow cake? Maybe like the Congo? Why do you think that Bush said Africa in his speech instead of Niger? Could there have been a purpose there?

Go beyond that - you did not take up I see the issues presented about Joe Wilson in the NIE and the SSSC. Picture it this way - while working for the Kerry campaign Joe steps forward and says the administration lied. Wow - no political motivation there at all, huh? You also did not address the issue of what decision you would make if by far the majority of your advisors told you one thing (and not only your advisors but top advisors from other institutions - aka other governments) and one, single solitary group from your own side said something different. What would you do? Answer that - it isn't rocket science.

And what about all the project Harmony documents. I see you still don't even acknowledge they exist. Get your head out of the sand.

[Redcoat]

Barney Frank,

You're probably correct but it's so rare to have a lefty who actually converses and doesn't descend

Good point,civil discourse should be encouraged.

[Bob]

Pete wrote:
"It was the administrations duty to present an accurate picture to the American public then. They did not do so."

Pete, most well reasoned people believe the President did so. But like most on the left, you seem have a hard time accepting that, so you beat this argument to death.

If you made the same argument against Clinton, Kerry, and every other liberal who also believed the information, then I'd give you some latitude. But to lay this at Bush's feet alone, make you just as insincere as these nutty professors. Like them, you have an agenda and no capacity for analytical thinking.

[Rick Ballard]

"civil discourse should be encouraged"

Yes, but thread thievery through regurgitation of talking points should be discouraged. This really is a teacable moment. The j-school deans have provided confirmation that they are, in fact, incompetent hacks incapable of critical thought. The real surprise is how poorly they write - this isn't even decent agitprop.

There is a school of thought which holds that attachment to progressive "ideals" is a form of brain rot. Evidence of the veracity of that thesis is always appreciated.

[boris]

There is a school of thought which holds that attachment to progressive "ideals" is a form of brain rot.

Having "mastered" reason they have moved beyond to Ultimate Truthland. Postmodern postreason postlogic postsurvival. For supposed believers in evolution their's clearly something they don't quite get about the concept.

[Pete]

Bob - "Pete, most well reasoned people believe the President did so. But like most on the left, you seem have a hard time accepting that, so you beat this argument to death."

The public opinion on the Iraq war does not bear this out.

I would have liked to believe that the Bush administration told us the complete truth and not a one sided story. I have cited many issues on where they did not.

It is Bush's fault alone. No, but he does get the major share. Ultimately the buck stops at the President's desk (or so said Bush's favorite President, though Bush himself has never said it).

Had Clinton, Kerry or anyone else done what Bush did, you bet I'd be equally upset at them.

[boris]

the complete truth

No such thing. Never was never will be.

I vote for people willing to do what needs to be done. This is a republic, not mob rule.

[topsecretk9]

--topsecretk9 - not knowing all the facts it is hard for me to say, but in general I would say yes indict all the people who participated in the leak.--

Well you appear to have a lot to say absent knowing all the facts.

But fine you can go on telling yourself, despite all the known facts, that Wilson participated in outing his wife with his dishonest assertions....and frankly I just figure out why the left can't bring themselves to admit this serial pathological liar, Wilson, has turned out to be a real disappointment,

You've gotten very little on your investment.

[nittypig]

"It was the administrations duty to present an accurate picture to the American public then. They did not do so."

Did Joe Wilson not have a similar duty? And when he failed to present an accurate picture to the American public was it not appropriate for Novak to point this out?

[Redcoat]

Rick Ballard

There is a school of thought which holds that attachment to progressive "ideals" is a form of brain rot. Evidence of the veracity of that thesis is always appreciated.

Kind of like syphillis.

That would explain the "progressives" delusions and rampant emotionalism.

[MikeLucca]

Great, Pete, if MediaMatters said it, it must be true. Why don't you tell me what Markos Moulistas and Noam Chomsky have to say about her cover status? When you find a less obviously biased source that backs up your dubious claims, get back to me.

[MikeLucca]

It is Bush's fault alone.

The moonbat world view summed up in a single sentence.

[Pete]

Specter - Here is what Condi said herself:
"What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech."

Now our own intelligence twice wrote to (Rice's deputy) Hadley warning him that the Niger information was unreliable.

The actions of the Bush administration point to one which was disregarding information which did not suit its purpose.

Hadley was later promoted.

[Pete]

Major typo on my part earlier - It should be "Is it Bush fault alone? No, but..."

It is not Bush's fault alone. Certainly George "Presidential Medal of Freedom" Tenet deserves a big chunk of the blame. Many (though not all) Democrats were compliant and gave Bush a blank check, and they were complicit too.

But the major blame does go to Bush.

[Pete]

Major typo on my part earlier - It should be "Is it Bush fault alone? No, but..."

It is not Bush's fault alone. Certainly George "Presidential Medal of Freedom" Tenet deserves a big chunk of the blame. Many (though not all) Democrats were compliant and gave Bush a blank check, and they were complicit too.

But the major blame does go to Bush.

[boris]

Did any Saddam envoy ever seek uranium from any nation in Africa? Did Saddam ever intend to develop nuclear weapons?

Answer: Somebody once forged a document to answer "yes" THEREFORE the answer is OPBVIOUSLY NOT !!!

[MikeLucca]

Pete, it's just as much Clinton's fault as Bush's, whatever intelligence failure occured (and I'm still not sured it occured to anything like the level the left is now claiming). Clinton was just as sure that Saddam had WMD as Bush was. The difference is, he was too busy nailing interns to even try to do anything about it. I'd hardly hold that in his favor.

[crosspatch]

After Wilson wrote that OpEd, journalists probably started finding out that Wilson's wife worked for CIA. Dana Priest probably knew about it VERY early as she probably knew the Wilsons socially through her husband. It is a relatively small circle of people and journalists that cover them. They aren't immune from cocktail party gossip.

I have heard more than one journalist say that it was common social knowledge in certain circles that Plame was Wilson's wife and she worked at CIA. That's one of the reasons it has been so hard for people to sort out when they heard what from whom and who first brought up the subject in conversation.

This comment was made upthread:

The deans may want to explore the wisdom of having a media that consist of 90% members of one party and 95% socialist/left.

The Communications Workers of America is the 8th largest political donor of all time. 99% of their money has gone to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates according to Open Secret. The union of print journlists, the Newspaper Guild, is part of the CWA.

Also, as for the viewpoints of journalists, it is going to be pretty hard for a right leaning article to get space on page A1 at one of the majors. You are more likely to be buried someplace deep inside if you get that. We need more papers like the Washington Times and more people to subscribe to them.

[boris]

The question being skipped: "was the Iraq invasion justified".

The only way "intel accuracy" becomes an issue is by assuming the answer to the first question is "not justified". That's the agenda here. By making accuracy the issue, the assumption gets past serious debate.