Step 1 in Plamegate was to get the charge noticed.
Step 2 was to create a circus atmosphere with revolving questions and cyclical answers, each shifting and changing so that no one really knows what the hell is going on.
Step 3, it appears, is to impugn the investigation and to imply that Bush is guilty of a cover-up for stating he knew nothing about the leak:
If someone at the White House, perhaps acting with institutional sanction, revealed the name of a C.I.A. operative to undermine the credibility of Mr. Wilson and thus stifle dissent over Iraq policy, that in itself would be a serious assault on free speech and an egregious abuse of power. In such a case, the blanket denial that Mr. Bush issued this week would put him dangerously close to the territory in which the cover-up eclipses the offense.
Blow me, Gail Collins. Can’t these guys even pretend to be impartial? Also, in this lengthy dissertaion regarding leaks and their investigation, the hacks manage to forget to mention that the source of such leaks is usually never found or prosecuted. I guess they don’t want you to know that so they can feign the appropriate outrage if that is the case in this situation.
*** Update ***
Maybe Gail should check the front page of the online edition. She might learn something:
Former Attorney General Janet Reno, in June 2000 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the pool of potential leakers in any administration is extremely big.
“Almost inevitably, we find that the universe of individuals with authorized access to the disclosed information is so large as to render impracticable further efforts to identify the leaker,” Reno said. “Almost all leak investigations are closed without having identified a suspect.”
Or was Reno just ‘covering up’ for Clinton?
Oliver
What is it John, a vast left-wing conspiracy? Heh.
John Cole
Oliver- You started with the Ashcroft bashing on day one, so I am not sure what you are ebing snarky about- the quote, from memory, was “if Democrats let the DOJ bury this they deserve to lose.”
Meaning, of course, that you have no faith in the invesigation and intend to cudgel Ashcroft and the DOJ regardless of what happens, and also, it rather accurately frames what your real concern with the Plame affair is- a weapon to help Democrats win elections.
Pretty succinct, even for an aspiring wirter. You should be proud of that one.
Oliver
I come at this from two points, yes as a Democrat this is yet another failing of this administration but as an American I think the breach of national security is even worse. You guys didn’t trust Reno to investigate Clinton, why should we return the favor?
Andrew Lazarus
John, we’re not starting from a tabula rasa here. Robert Novak published a column in which gave the name of a deep-undercover CIA operative [*] and said he learned this from Administration sources [**]. Obviously Novak could be lying completely; maybe he got the name from the Chinese or something. But the fact remains that this happened in July, and IF NOVAK WAS TRUTHFUL, someone in the White House has committed a felony Bush41 called traitorous. Against this history, the failure of the Administration to conduct even the most cursory inquiry is rather odd?
[*] One of the defense talking points is that Plame was a mere analyst, not undercover at all. This is completely false.
[**] Novak is now saying that the leak wasn’t shopped to him, which is not what he wrote in the first instance. In any event, outing agents is no less a felony when tucked in the middle of a conversation than when it’s the only item. The lame nature of the defense is itself reason to think something big is up here.
John Cole
Andrew- There have been ten different descriptions of her job, as well as ten descriptions of who the leaker is. How bout you, like everyone else, calm down and let the DOJ investigate this. There is not going to be a new Independent Counsel, there is not going to be a special prosecutor.
And if this were Reno investigating Clinton, we would be waiting another 6-8 months before the investigation started- enough time for the Clinton goon squads to begin the wholesale character assassination.
Dan
Can’t these guys even pretend to be impartial?
Funny John, I was about to ask the same thing of you. As to Oliver Willis, yes, we shouldn’t repeat the Clinton/Starr mess again. It doesn’t help anyone. see here
David Perron
Yeah, it’s pretty amusing to watch the same lefties driven into a frenzy by the various Clinton investigations in essence doing the same things they castigated Republicans for doing.
Jon H
“the hacks manage to forget to mention that the source of such leaks is usually never found or prosecuted”
Doesn’t much help the Bush administration.
If nobody’s caught and/or fired, then this will just fester, and won’t help during the election.
For example, Bush can hardly say the Democrats aren’t serious about national security if some unknown members of his administration have outed an experienced WMD analyst.
It’s also a nasty club the Democrats can whip out at any debates. Whack him with the Plame stick, and reduce him to gibbering insensibility. “We didn’t find anybody we could convict” won’t sound very good.
Jon H
The father of Johnny Spann, the CIA agent killed in Afghanistan, is all for an IC.
“If someone in the Bush administration leaked this, they need to be punished, and they need to be made an example of, because that’s not just a leak, that’s treason,” Spann, of Winfield, Ala., told The Associated Press. “They should appoint an independent counsel so the American people can be sure, and let the chips fall where they may.”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6915422.htm%3E
Kimmitt
I want to make sure I have this absolutely clear:
David, you believe that a sweetheart land deal and/or an affair with an intern has the same moral significance as burning a national security asset as an act of political revenge?
This isn’t like what Clinton did. This is real foulness, not a seized-upon excuse. The longer you defend your guy or try to cast the righteous indignation as political, the more you devalue the concept of national security.
John Cole
For once, I am with Kimmitt- I think that if she was a deep cover operative and somebody intentionally blew it then it is worse than what Clinton did. The thing is, what Kimmitt won’t admit, is that Clinton did those things, and Bush DID NOT do this- one of his staff might have.
So comparing the crimes of Clinton to Bush is unfair. Not that they won’t do it anyway.
Regardless, I still just want this investigation to continue.
Jon H
Note also that right now, Bush could conceivably come out unscathed.
The longer it goes on, the worse it gets for him.
Also, I thought he was the CEO President, and would run the administration like a business?
If the CEO of a company found out that some employee was calling around offering crucial trade secrets, I expect that employee would be sent packing ASAP, allowed to cool his heels at home until the prosecution.
Don’t forget – these people in the administration serve at Bush’s pleasure. It’s not like they’re union members who can’t be fired.
tom scott
This is something I’ve been thinking about for several days and now that Spann has entered the conversation perhaps I can get some comments on it. Even if Plame had not been overseas and was probably not going overseas again the disclosure endangered anyone associated with her in the past. Wouldn’t the same hold true for Johnny Spann? When he was killed identifying him as a CIA operative would threaten anyone previously associated with him?
Another point I’ve wondered about is how easily the CIA contacts confirmed Novak’s inquiries. Shouldn’t their training be never to confirm or deny? Especially if the person he contacted was a person to handle press inquiries.
Andrew, Valerie has gone from agent/analyst, to covert agent and now “deep undercover.” This type of rhetoric inflation causes me to look askance and anything else you might have to contribute.
Karen
One thing about this situation that sticks out to me is the situation a few years ago when leaks were coming out of Congress. Bush was angry and said he would not brief any but the congressional leaders. He changed his mind the next day but probably made his point nevertheless. There is no real difference between leaking someone’s name and leaking information that person may have attained. As much as we may wish otherwise, our enemies are not stupid and could probably figure out the traitor in their midst. Some of that info may be technological (cell phones, etc.) but some was almost certainly not. Where was the outrage? Maybe the problem was that particular stupidity was bi-partisan. Neither party could scream too loudly.
Jon H
tom scott: “Wouldn’t the same hold true for Johnny Spann? When he was killed identifying him as a CIA operative would threaten anyone previously associated with him?”
Spann was part of a special paramilitary unit in the CIA. I’m not sure how much regular agenting he would have done.
He may not have had continuing or long-term contacts with people, in which case there’d be less damage. He may also have used different names on assignments.
brett
kimmitt: “David, you believe that a sweetheart land deal and/or an affair with an intern has the same moral significance as burning a national security asset as an act of political revenge?
This isn’t like what Clinton did. This is real foulness, not a seized-upon excuse. The longer you defend your guy or try to cast the righteous indignation as political, the more you devalue the concept of national security.
”
umm, kimmitt.. it wasn’t about an affair with an intern.. it was two other little things called Obstruction of Justice, and Perjury.. lying to a grand jury in the course of a rape investigation is a wee bit more serious.. everybody else who’s name doesn’t start with “Clinton” that has done something similar is now sitting in federal prison… let’s get a clue, shall we?
but you were right about the final part of your statement.. “The longer you defend your guy or try to cast the righteous indignation as political, the more you devalue the concept of national security.”
try looking in the mirror when you say that.. or can’t you?
Andrew Lazarus
To separate out my partisan and non-partisan posts, AFAIK the people who describe Valerie Plame as a covert, undercover operative include her husband, at least one Republican former colleague, and the CIA itself by implication, since if not, their referral to DoJ would make no sense. Novak’s original column said “operative”, although not “covert”. The people who describe her as a mere analyst are every single one Republican-affiliated pundits, mostly citing each other. I don’t view this (as opposed to who did the leaking) as a point in dispute.
(Just to pile on, why would a CIA analyst have what looked like a f/t cover job?)
David Perron
“The longer you defend your guy or try to cast the righteous indignation as political, the more you devalue the concept of national security.”
I just couldn’t not respond to this. First, there’s absolutely nothing I said that could possibly be interpreted by sentient beings as defending my guy. Perhaps, though, I was not entirely clear. So let me expound:
The independent counsel was a bad idea when Clinton was in office, and it’s a bad idea now. IMO, of course and as always. I am amused by the people who thought IC was bad then and is good now. It’s an amusing inconsistency.
Now, to make it crystal clear (in case you’ve once more taken leave of your sentience, Kimmitt) I made absolutely no comparison between what Clinton was alleged to have done, and what ______ is alleged to have done. Blanks, because we don’t have a name yet. Alleged, because wrongdoing hasn’t yet been pinned on anyone.
And, to maintain crystalline clarity, I deplore any improper exposure of classified sources or methods whatever, regardless of reason and regardless of by whom. If Bush did it, and it turns out he did burn an agent, he should go down.
Man, I’m sick and tired of having to disclaim every fucking thing I say. Quit assuming, Kimmitt. Just try to keep in mind that everytime I say something that doesn’t have all the above explanation attached to it does not constitute an abandonment of the above points of view.
And that’s all I’m going to say about that. I’m just going to be less nice about it next time someone mis-attributes some point of view to me.
JKC
Dave-
I’ll remember your point; it’s a fair one. In turn, don’t automatically question the intelligence or patriotism of the next poster who disagrees with you or isn’t drinking the Bush League kool-aid.
Fair enough?
Kimmitt
Understood, thank you for the clarification.
Jon H
brett writes: “umm, kimmitt.. it wasn’t about an affair with an intern.. it was two other little things called Obstruction of Justice, and Perjury.. lying to a grand jury”
Hey, it’s still early. We might see Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, on top of damaging national security by outing a covert agent and exposing her overseas contacts.
Trifecta!
David Perron
“I’ll remember your point; it’s a fair one. In turn, don’t automatically question the intelligence or patriotism of the next poster who disagrees with you or isn’t drinking the Bush League kool-aid.”
Be sure and let me know when you’ve detected me doing so, JKC. I think you’ll find yourself remarkably short of evidence on that front, as well. I am not Misha. Only Misha is Misha. He and I agree on a great many things, disagree on several others, and differ widely on our approach to argument. Still, I refrain from calling him a great big stupid poopy-head when we disagree, or when I think he’s being unusually over-the-top.
John, I apologize for the rant on your bandwidth.
EssJay
Novak wrote his leakers were, “senior administration officials”
That is one or two dozen people. Not the, “universe of individuals” described by Reno.
SDN
EssJay: “Senior administration officials” is a little bit more specific than the “women who wished to remain anonymous” accusing Arnold, but not much. And that’s assuming that Novak didn’t use that phrasing with malice aforethought. He is not a complete Bush fan, and would just love to implicate a “neocon” in the White House.