Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spy Games: Why the media obsess over Plame, ignore Guantanamo
National Review ^ | David Frum

Posted on 10/12/2003 12:21:34 PM PDT by GulliverSwift

SPY GAMES

Mark Steyn has the best, clearest, and of course funniest summation I’ve yet read of the Wilson/Plame affair in the current Spectator:

Some choice quotes:

“[A]n agency known to be opposed to war in Iraq sent an employee’s spouse also known to be opposed to war in Iraq on a perfunctory joke mission. And, after eight days sipping tea and meeting government officials in one city of one country, Ambassador Wilson gave a verbal report to the CIA and was horrified to switch on his TV and see Bush going on about what British Intelligence had learned about Saddam and Africa. ….

“No political leader is obliged to accept a particular intelligence finding. Invariably, you’re presented with contradictory pieces of information and evidence, and you’re obliged to choose. If President Bush chooses to believe British and French Intelligence over the CIA, that’s his prerogative. It’s also a telling comment on the state of the agency. …”

“If sending Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger for a week is the best the world’s only hyperpower can do, that’s a serious problem. If the Company knew it was a joke all along, that’s a worse problem. It means Mr Bush is in the same position with the CIA as General Musharraf is with Pakistan’s ISI: when he makes a routine request, he has to figure out whether they’re going to use it to try and set him up. This is no way to win a terror war.”

And the reaction to the Wilson/Plame affair offers some telling commentary on the state of our media. I had a call the other day from a journalist at a prestigious publication asking for my views on the “spy story.” For a moment, I misunderstood: “Guantanamo Bay?” “No, no – the Wilson spy story.”

My mistake was inexcusable. In the eyes of our press, the discovery that terrorist sympathizers apparently infiltrated Guantanamo Bay – had even even allegedly recruited one of the army’s Muslim chaplains to their cause – is a minor story, a police investigation. Even the most basic facts of the story remain a lightly reported mystery: Was there a spy ring at all? How much damage did it do? As for the clamoring follow-up questions, nobody seems to care about them at all: How did the ring get missed? Did political correctness deter appropriate investigations? Is the post 9/11 drive to recruit more Arabic speakers for the intelligence services and the military opening opportunities for the terrorist enemy?

Meanwhile the Wilson story tops the news.

The Wilson story excites journalists because it accuses the Bush administration of abusing its powers for political advantage – and there is nothing that journalists enjoy more than abuse-of-power stories, at least during Republican administrations. The Wilson story ratifies journalists’ prejudices, and so journalists revel in it.

Meanwhile, the Guantanamo story challenges those prejudices – and so it is neglected. For six months, we have been presented with pages of news stories and dozens of hours of network broadcasting, all of it premised on the claim that civil liberties are being threatened by post 9/11 over-reactions. The Guantanamo story suggests that this reporting is itself an over-reaction: That even now, two years and more after 9/11, the U.S. government is still hesitant to acknowledge and act against its enemy. It is absolutely astonishing that the government would appoint an Islamic chaplain for Guantanamo without rigorously investigating his background and loyalties – and yet that seems to be just what happened, and it seems to astonish no-one.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bias; davidfrum; gitmo; jamesyee; josephwilson; leak; marksteyn; quotes; spyring; wot

1 posted on 10/12/2003 12:21:35 PM PDT by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Good points all. Contrasting the media's reaction to these two stories is certainly telling.

Kinda looks like Joe and his lovely wife Valerie have retreated, though. I think Bush called their bluff when he actually launched an investigation (probably one that could land Joe himself or somebody else at the CIA in big legal hot water).
2 posted on 10/12/2003 12:26:16 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Hi mom!
3 posted on 10/12/2003 12:26:20 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
I wonder if it was Lying Joe Wilson who divulged her name. It wouldn't surprise me given the fact that Xlinton did the same thing to give the media another opportunity to bash Ken Starr (who of course was so inept, he never responded to the charges).
4 posted on 10/12/2003 12:29:23 PM PDT by GulliverSwift (It's time to recall W spokesman Scott McClellan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
where does everyone find all the data that the cia is so against the war. i heard someone on the news say it but i have yet to read one report stating this as fact. and which part of the cia is against the war???
5 posted on 10/12/2003 12:32:03 PM PDT by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camas
Yeah, I've never seen any documentation about that. But it wouldn't surprise me if the liberal bureaucRATs inside of it oppose both Bush and the war.
6 posted on 10/12/2003 12:38:07 PM PDT by GulliverSwift (It's time to recall W spokesman Scott McClellan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: camas
"where does everyone find all the data that the cia is so against the war. i heard someone on the news say it but i have yet to read one report stating this as fact. and which part of the cia is against the war???"

The CIA, or some faction within the CIA, has clearly become part of the problem. For further information, you might want to check this out.

7 posted on 10/12/2003 12:40:34 PM PDT by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
from what i can find out most cia emplyees are intelligence, and honest. they have to be inorder to get a clearance.

honesty and good character are not democrats long suits.
8 posted on 10/12/2003 12:46:57 PM PDT by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Interesting link. Any idea why did Bush not replace the Clinton-appointed CIA head with his own appointee earlier? If he tried now, it would be protrayed as more "evidence" of a coverup.
9 posted on 10/12/2003 1:04:28 PM PDT by jwalburg (You're not moderate just because you know leftier leftists than yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
"Any idea why did Bush not replace the Clinton-appointed CIA head with his own appointee earlier? If he tried now, it would be protrayed as more "evidence" of a coverup."

For all I know, even though he is a Clinton appointee, George Tenet might be a perfectly capable choice to head the CIA.

The problem appears to be embedded within the bureaucracy itself. And I just don't know how much effective authority the agency's chief has to correct the problem.

This kind of thing seems endemic within the federal bureaucracy.

10 posted on 10/12/2003 1:20:06 PM PDT by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: camas
A) "Falling in love with your source".

B) Compartmentation - only aware of/concerned with your own corner of the board.

C) Just plain politics - staking out a position and fearing loss of status if it is proven wrong.

D) Partisanship built up over a twenty plus year career.

E) Over abundance of agents hired, trained, and taught manners under liberal, PC, sniveling administrations.

F) Poor selection of trainees - liberal arts grads with a degree in foreign languages might not be the most "America first" types available to the agency.

G) Bureaucracy - most agency employees are not field types, and even the spooks don't really like to take risks.
(As in "Hey, I've been here for sixteen years and don't particularly want to pack up and move to Sierra Leone")


11 posted on 10/12/2003 4:07:20 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson