Posted on 10/01/2003 5:50:02 AM PDT by Fighter@heart
STILL THE HOT TOPIC
The morning news stories are still hammering the White House leak story. The storyline is that some high level Bush official disclosed the name of a secret CIA spy. The trouble is, the only people saying that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative are bush critics. The CIA certainly hasn't said that Plame was a spy ... that she was working undercover, and now that cover has been blown. Consider, please, that the CIA actually confirmed Plame's employment to columnist Robert Novak. Has it occurred to you that the CIA doesn't routinely confirm the employment status of undercover agents or spies? Valerie Plame was worked at a desk in Virginia researching and analyzing documents. It wouldn't affect her job one bit if her picture and name was posted on billboards around the world. She could still sit at that desk and pour over the same documents with the same degree of expertise, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
This is a $5 rocking chair story. Let' me explain:
About 15 years ago a man was arrested and charged with burglary. He had been breaking into homes and stealing items, including furniture. He was caught stealing a rocking chair and several other items from a house. The owner of the rocking chair claimed that it was an antique worth several hundred dollars. That was enough to make the burglary a felony. The accused felon made protested his felony arrest for, as he put it, stealing a five-dollar rocking chair. From that day on the media completely ignored the owner's claim that the rocking chair was a valuable antique, and made continuous references to this poor, poor man being so harshly prosecuted for sealing "a five-dollar rocking chair."
We have the same thing going on here. There is absolutely no evidence that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA. The only person who is making that claim is her husband, Joseph Wilson, a Clintonista alumnus harshly critical of Bush. But watching CNN this morning every time the story ran Wilson's wife was identified as "an undercover CIA agent." Valerie Plame, our newest $5 rocking chari.
The Democrats are making a big deal over the fact that the Justice Department is investigating the leak. This is nothing unusual. The CIA is obsessive about privacy, and every time the CIA feels that information about one of their operations or employees has been improperly leaked they ask for an investigation, and that request is almost always granted. There are about 50 such investigations a year. The fact that there's an investigation, then, is no huge news.
Hitlary's dog-washer, Junior New York Senator Chuckie Schumer was seen yesterday pounding the "crime" drum. Schumer is taking great joy in proclaiming that someone in the Bush administration has committed a crime. But is that so?
The law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The law imposes a 10-year, $50,000 fine for those who transgress. Here are the three elements that must be satisfied for a crime to have taken place:
The accused party must have made an intentional disclosure of the identity of the agent. They must know that the person they identified was actually an undercover agent The government (the CIA) must be taking measures to conceal this agent's relationship to the United States. Sorry ... no crime. How can you say that the CIA was making an effort to conceal this agent's relationship to the U.S. when they verified here employment to a reporter? Now ... if she actually had been an undercover agent, that relationship would never have been disclosed.
It is really going to be interesting to see how long the media is going to play footsie with the Democrats in pushing this nothing story.
First, Novak has moved from being a reporter (actually a columnist) writing about a story to being the story. One of the cardinal rules of journalism is that the reporter is not the story--the story is the story and the reporter is the background, and that's where Novak has crossed the line.
Second, Novak knows that he is going to be questioned by the FBI and possibly hauled before a grand jury. He has to be very careful about what he says because, although he's said that he will not reveal his confidential sources, his public words will be used in the investigation and he will be questioned about them. He has to carefully choose his words, because whatever he says will be scrutinized.
Third, Novak said he will protect his sources. This means that he cannot give any clues to their identities in what he says publically, or privately.
Forth, Novak wants to continue working as a journalist. Although he has been critical of the administration's policies in Iraq and Israel, he still wants to keep working, and his sources are within the current administration. He's walking tightrope. He has to diminish his role in this, because if he doesn't, his sources will dry up. OTOH, his ego says he has to play up the story and his role in it to get more publicity for his column, and for Novak, getting his column published means income.
When I come up with more, I'll let you know.
Long a darling of inattentive conservative viewers, Novak holds down the "conservative" seat on panel shows. A laugh in itself.
I remember, also, when Zsa Zsa Huffington held down a conservative seat on CNN....then there's Tucker Carlson etal. Faux "conservatives" all.
Novak opines just enough conservatism to keep up his charade. He is really for himself and his career, not for any consistent ideology. His continual anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war comments seem to be generously forgiven just because he's designated to be a "conservative" by his CNN employers and other liberal media nabobs and publishers.
I forget the event, but a few short years ago, I watched him as toastmaster of some DC function (may have been the White House Correspondents Annual banquet) where he pandered to the Rathers, Brokows, Jennings, etal, by bashing Pres. Bush and conservatives so ardently that I vowed never to watch him again, and I haven't.
His smarmy key role in this Wilson affair should be dissected. He was relentlessly pursuing dirt on the administration, even publishing a name after the CIA asked him not to. He's now caught in a bind and is depending upon his journalistic shield to protect him. Meanwhile, the country is in an uproar, the administration has been hurt here and abroad, lives and reputations are being smashed and national security is involved.
What Novak has done is within his rights, of course, although we peons would probably go to jail for not revealing pertinent information in an official investigation.
Will Novak emerge as a hero in this case? Only with the left. I have no idea where all this will lead, but the phony conservative Novak will not spring from the ashes with glory. He's already, though indirectly, revealed "sources". I doubt if too many of his journalistic moles will talk freely to him anymore.
In his quest for fame and money, Novak has overplayed his hand in this case. I hope he cools his heels in jail for three weeks, the usual time given for protected reporters who refuse to divulge sources in vital criminal investigations.
Leni
Actually, I think he got dragged accross it, and maybe he's spinning, or maybe he's unspinning what it has become.
Although he has been critical of the administration's policies in Iraq and Israel,
Among other things, but that hasn't stopped dashole for one this morning calling him a total shill for the administration.
I'm sure he wishes he never said anything about the CIA, but I think he really was only was trying to get to the bottom of why a rabid anti-Bush partisan was given the assignment to Niger. That has yet to be explained in anyway that makes sense.
I wonder--but given that I wouldn't want to be spending a lot of time with the FBI or before a grand jury, or having to spend endless hours with lawyers (well, I do that already, but after a while, the droning is like background noise), Novak is probably reconsidering publishing her name.
I just moseyed over to the LA Times & they're already gnawing a big chunk of red meat on this story. This one's got about as much gossip as E!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scandal1oct01,1,1890560.story?coll=la-home-leftrail
Yup, and from only over the left hedgerow. And it was a lead in to the zinger:
already add up to a new kind of Washington scandal.
"This has an element that's different from past scandals," said Suzanne Garment, author of "Scandal," a study of Washington controversies. "We're talking about possible threats to someone's life here.
This shouldn't be a problem, afterall the 'Torch' and 'Leaky Leahy' have already caused the death of operatives. < /sarcasm >
Novak is probably reconsidering publishing her name.
For sure, but I really don't think he had any idea of what he was stepping into. His years of experience and sixth sense failed him and I'm sure his butt hurts from kicking himself. ;-)
I read the 7/22/03 story from Newsday about Novak's column, but the story just sat there until now--and all hell is breaking loose--my reaction was "what the hell....? Where did THIS come from?".
The media has been waiting and waiting for a story like this since President Bush was elected and now they've got it (and if not, like the Times story, they just print gossip). The Dems are, of course, running wild, just frothing at the mouth. It's like both of them have gotten their delivery of a side of Angus, maybe a whole herd.
Novak's new best friends will be his lawyers. Lots of them. You can count on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.