William F. Buckley on the Plame affair:
The hot-blooded search for criminality in the matter of Cheney/Libby/Rove has not truly satisfied those in search of first degree venality. Very soon after the indictment of Mr. Libby, the tricoteuses glumly conceded that no conspiracy has been uncovered. It is not alleged that Mr. Cheney whispered to Mr. Libby that he should conceal the truth from the grand jury or the special prosecutor. The great blast of publicity came from the technical exposure of Mr. Libby to (in his case, at his age) a life term in jail, plus a million-odd-dollar fine. If John Jones is hauled in and word is given out that if found guilty he will be hanged and his severance pay confiscated, the public’s attention will be drawn to his crime even if it was to double park…
We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal. But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay — that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company. In my case, it was 15 years after reentry into the secular world before my secret career in Mexico was blown, harming no one except perhaps some who might have been put off by my deception…
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.
In other news, it appears the some in the White House are deciding they can not get past Plame with Rove still around:
Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.
If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.
Meanwhile, Tom Maguire gets snarky.
Bob In Pacifica
The “hot-blooded search for criminality”? If he’s referring to Fitzgerald’s investigation, he’s confusing “hot-blooded” with cool professionalism. If he’s talking about the general public’s interest in scandal in the places of the powerful, it’s human nature.
As for Buckley’s cover being blown, he above all, should understand the importance of a covert agent, and should understand that his role in Mexico was not operationally equivalent to Plame’s role in her mission. And he does understand this. It’s his typical right-wing upper crust bullshit. He’s talking politics, not sense. In his own way, he’s saying the same talking points the Republicans have been churning out since the CIA brought the crime to the attention of the Justice Dept. Big deal.
Maguire, by the way, still repeats those Repub talking points, too, against all facts.
Bottom line: The Republicans expect loyalty to the Party, not to the country.
John Cole
You clearly did not read what Buckley said, but rather, reacted to his name. Read the last paragraphs I excerpted again. Clearly not only should Buckley understand this is serious, but he does…
As for Maguire, he is not a Republican lyalist, nor is he spouting talking points.
Bottom Line: Your mind is made up, and you don’t care what people actually say.
CaseyL
John, if Maguire isn’t a “Republican loyalist,” then why did he proudly assert to me, directly and in so many words, “I don’t repeat talking points, I write them”?
He has an enormous hard-on for Joe Wilson I find absolutely baffling unless he’s a GOP loyalist and/or Bush apologist.
Al Maviva
I hate commenting here because any attempt at a serious thought will be met with a combination of snark and spite, but I have to throw some chum in the water.
Everybody is freaked about the compromise of the confidential or secret level classified information relating to the status of a formerly operational, now desk officer who attends society soirees in D.C. and New York.
Yet nobody could give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about the Wash Post revealing yesterday the existence and some locations of top secret/special access program codename CIA interrogation facilities around the world, the existence of which was kept secret because it is believed disclosure will make them terrorist targets. Terrorists have attacked overt facilities used to hold captured Al Qaida fighters in order to try to spring the detainees; now that these facilities are known, similar attacks can be expected.
Plame plame plame, whatever. The only reason anybody gives a shit is Wilson/Plame is a colorable excuse to bash Bush.
Yet there is a leak of TS/SCI information that actually endangers lots of real live covert CIA and DOD operatives around the world, and it goes completely unnoticed, because noticing that would mean bashing somebody who probably leaked in order to hurt Bush.
Fucking pathetic. Please, in the future, spare me the stuff about how the libby/rove/plame thing is about principle and protecting the troops. If it was about protecting the troops, then the same people going on endlessly about Plame, would be smelling blood in the water and engaged in something that looks like a meth-fueled feeding frenzy this morning about the interrogation facilities leak. All I hear though, is silence.
Now go ahead. Tell me how revealing a former light cover operative’s employment status, is much more grievous than revealing the ongoing existence of dozens of current intelligence operations and sites. Tell me how I’m a Bush fellater for pointing out this fact. Tell me how Geneva Conventions concerns make this particular breech of the most highly classified CIA operations involving hundreds or thousands of active operatives perfectly excusable. I will find it quite entertaining to watch the gyrations as the biggest Wilson boosters try to distinguish the Libby/Rove leak from the unnamed leaker of TS operational information.
http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=5892
ppGaz
The fact that people actually believe this is no longer shocking. In fact, it’s no longer even relevant. It’s right there with the dismissal of the Washington Post we used to hear during Watergate days …. why isn’t the press more fair to the President? That sort of nonsense.
The truth about the Plame case, and its meaning, will unfold, mostly slowly and sometimes suddenly, in the fullness of time, and people will get it, in their own thick way. It’s not about Plame and Wilson. It’s about the ugly arrogance and smarmy dishonesty of the people running the country. It’s about people in the White House forgetting who they are and who they work for, putting themselves above the law, above the good judgement of the people, above everything. And in case anyone missed the point, they are still doing it …. and still saying the same baloney they were saying when they made those foolish choices, as witnessed by the ease with which their apologists are still flinging it today.
What a load of crap, sir. If Bush had a hair on his ass and an honest bone in his body, he’d be the one explaining the significance of the case, and explaining the changes he intends to make now to set the course of his administration on a better track …. instead of hiding behind PR gimmicks and platitudes and denials. The fact that he won’t is why he gets bashed. Well, more to the point, the fact that he is the kind of person who won’t is why he gets bashed. Hell, even a second-rate tv-show president would have done better than this.
Orogeny
So, support of the CIA and, by extension, the US Government, is an all-or-nothing thing? If I’m opposed to revealing the identity of a covert agent engaged in lawful gathering of WMD intelligence, I have to support the CIA using old Soviet gulags as interrogation/torture centers? If I support my local police, do I have to tolerate those officers who decide that raping a prisoner with a toilet plunger is an effective method of interrogation?
There’s a significant difference between revealing information because an agency is doing something illegal and revealing information for petty political revenge.
Paddy O'Shea
Wm F. Buckley: Kay Bailey Hutchison with a thesaurus.
Today’s buzz words for GOP spin amplifiers: “Light cover,” “technical violation,” “death sentence for someone of Libby’s age,” “They’re just doing it to bash Bush,” and, most laughble of all, “Everybody does it!”
So how about that 35% Bush approval rating in the CBS Poll? Anyone care to discuss how the malarkey coming from the Libby/Rove apologist wing of the Neocon Adventure Club just isn’t getting it done for the Hero of New Orleans any more?
Jorge
Al,
I believe there is a huge difference between a newspaper exposing the fact that the US government has a series of illegal interrogation/torture facilities than in a newspaper blowing the cover of an undercover agent as part of a White House plan to damage the credibility of her husband.
I will concede to you that it is obvious that the excitement that many, many critics of Bush feel about the Plame thing has more to do with Bushies getting run through the ringer than it does with the actual crime itself. It doesn’t make what happened any better and it doesn’t make Libby any less culpable. It does expose the fact that many of us on the left have an intense dislike for Bush and take great pleasure in seeing him get slammed. Which, IMO, has unfortunately become the standard operating practice for too many folks, regardless of party, who take an interest in politics in this country.
It was interesting – the night before the Linny indictment I was reading through Proverbs and came across this quote from # 24.
“Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and when he stumbles, let not your heart exult,
Lest the LORD see it, be displeased with you, and withdraw his wrath from your enemy.”
It really made me rethink how much joy I was taking in “Fitzmas.”
John Cole
You guys are not understanding Buckley’s piece. At all.
He is not attacking the prosecutor, or minimizing the Fitzgerald prosecution, he is discussing the reaction in the general public and within political circles. That is what this means:
Unless I am misreading this (and I don;t think I am), he is stating that after Libby was indicted, all the apologists could state that it was for a technical charge. Hardlya defense. Likewise, his observation that regardless what an individual with Libby was charged with, since it will be a life sentence, it is still large.
Then, he states how important and how bad the sin committed is;
He is hardly downplaying this or excusinig it, IMHO, and he is spouting no such Kay Bailey Hutchinson ‘it is just perjury’ nonsense.
That was my take, at any rate.
Blue Neponset
I will try to give you a snark and spite free response.
The main issue with Plame isn’t that classified information was leaked. The main issue is that classified information was leaked by “two senior White House officials” as political payback. In my mind, the White House shouldn’t be using hatchet men like Novak to fight their battles. If the WH couldn’t refute Wilson’s charges publically they shouldn’t have tried to discredit him anonamously through the press. It also bothers me that classified information was leaked for the sole purpose of sliming a political adversary. If Rove and Libby were trying to save American lives by calling attention to a classified report about defective body armour or something like that I would at least approve of their motives if not their methods. Instead they jeopardized American lives because they thought it would hurt a critic of the Adminstration. I can’t understand how anyone thinks that is ok.
Orogeny
John,
“The hot-blooded search for criminality in the matter of Cheney/Libby/Rove has not truly satisfied those in search of first degree venality. Very soon after the indictment of Mr. Libby, the tricoteuses glumly conceded that no conspiracy has been uncovered.”
If it weren’t for the first sentence, I’d tend to agree with you. It seems to me, though, that Buckley’s first graph is trying to shift all the blame onto Libby and away from Cheney/Rove.
ppGaz
Yes, and you are quite right. In fact, I read the Buckley thing in the National Review originally, and then when I saw the comments here I thought, maybe I misunderstood Buckley? I had to go back and read it again.
slide
Jesus guys you are misreading Buckley’s column completely. I am completely with John on this one. Kudos for Buckley for not spewing the right’s talking points.
For me this is a gut check time for political pundits, columnists and others that talk about the Plame case. If they want to dismiss it as some “technicality” or want to revel in the fact that no charges were brought (yet) for the underlying issue, then I know EXACTLY where you stand – Bush apologists that will never go against the President (unless he doesn’t name a uber conservative to the Supreme Court of course).
A scandal really hits home when members of your own party start attacking you. A tipping point if you will. It happened with Nixon in Watergate when Republicans were as demanding as Democrats into what happened. That point may be approaching with Bush/Cheney on the CIA leak case/intelligence manipulation/torture/secret prisons/witholding information to congress/crony appointments etc. Lets see how many honorable Republicans are left out there other than John Cole?
Anderson
As for the “some in the White House” who think Rove must go, that would appear to be the Andy Card set.
After the Miers debacle, talking to the press is probably the only outlet they have.
Rove will leave if and when he’s indicted. Maybe. Not a minute before. He can eat 20 Andy Cards for breakfast.
Anderson
Heh. After commenting, I went to firedoglake and found this on the same story:
If you see Karl Rove coming at you with a gallon of Log Cabin syrup, RUN!!!
slide
From a partisan Dem, I certainly hope so. And Scotty too. Hey, the American people are not stupid, either Rove and Libby lied to Scotty or Scotty lied to the American public. There is no way around that. I think that at every press briefing he should be asked which of the two it is. Refuses to answer? Ask again. and again. Why should anybody in the media belive anything Scotty says from here on out until he clears up why he gave false information to the American public. He has to explain it somehow or he is useless.
Mike S
I think people need to read the whole article again. John’s right as far as I can see. This article is about the seriousness of the leak, the effort that goes into making a covert agent and the fact that all of the people saying it isn’t serious are way off base.
I feel sorry for John. Even when he posts an article that makes the case for the other side he gets slammed by them.
Robbie
George H. W Bush pressed for passage of the act that makes it a criminal offense to out a covert agent for good reason. It undermines our ability to infiltrate the bad guys organization to collect valuable intelligence. It also places our contacts overseas in grave danger. The outing of any of our covert agents is a serious offense. I don’t care if Valerie Plame was a lowly covert agent or a high one. It doesn’t matter…the law was broken and her status and her contacts status was compromised. The White House should clean up this mess quickly. If Rove has to go…he has to go. It’s time for the President to step up to the plate and clean house. This would definitely increase his credibility and bolster his standings in the polls. I was disappointed with apologist for Clinton’s behaviour and I am definitely sadden with apologist for this unprofessional conduct in the Bush White House…There is no excuse for lying to a prosecutor/investigator or for playing political games which compromise our national security. Folks need to remember we are American’s first…Loyalty to any political party shouldn’t supercede this fact.
slide
lets not get carried away. Everytime I feel sypathetic to John he’ll manages to post something about Cindy Sheehan or Katrina that will quicky dispel any warm fuzzies that I may have had however momentarily.
Steve
Considering the WaPo wouldn’t even reveal which countries these secret facilities are located in, I find it very hard to believe that they are now exposed to terrorist attacks. Your average guy on the street like myself may have believed the CIA wouldn’t possibly have secret gulags overseas, but I doubt the terrorists were as credulous, which means the WaPo didn’t really give them much new information at all.
This business of people caring about leaks only when partisan advantage is at stake goes both ways. Witness the undying right-wing meme about the Rockefeller/Wyden/Durbin satellite leak, where there is not a shred of evidence that any of those three leaked a single thing. But given a chance to label Democrats as treasonous, of course the Right never misses a beat.
Mike S
Maguire is projecting. He seems to think that since the New GOP sees everything in black and white, that anything the GOP is good by definition, the left sees the world in the same way.
Mike S
Why? Because he disagrees with you?
You do understand that John is a Republican so the chances of him agreeing with you on every issue is pretty slim, right?
slide
when is a leak good, and when is a leak bad. All leaks are not created equal.
a leak that exposes actions on the part of our government that are illegal, immoral or would be rightly condemed by the “people” of this nation are good. (i.e. secret CIA prisons, memos authorizing torture, evidece of the manipulation of intelligence, etc.)
a leak on the other hand that exposes perfectly legal, moral and acceptable behavior of the government is bad (i.e. leaking the identity of covert CIA agents for example)
Not very difficult is it? Weren’t the Republicans always talking about moral equivalency? If something is secret because there is a need to hide it from the American people because of their disapproval is quite different than having something secret to hide it from our enemies who would use it against us. Everyone following along?
slide
no, because of the way he chooses to disagree with me. He usually ends by saying something like, “Go fuck yourself” or “you arrogant prick” and other intellectual witticisms.
Mike S
So it’s because he does what so many of the rest of us do.
ppGaz
It has a certain charm, really. And such speech serves sometimes to just clear the air. On this subject, I must agree with Big Dick Cheney: The occasional “go fuck yourself” is just good, honest communication.
If John Kerry had said it in earshot of reporters, to somebody like Cheney, he might be president now. If John McCain had said it to Bush in 2000, he’d be president now.
Never underestimate the value of a good GFY, whether you are on the giving or receiving end.
slide
ppGaz go fuck yourself.
Hey, you’re right, very cleansing to the soul. Mike, you can go fuck yourself too. Damn, this is fun.
Anderson
Slide:
McClellan is actually an interesting example of what that “On Bullshit” professor was talking about. Scotty’s credibility, such as it ever was, is zero. And Bush doesn’t care. And, in the White House’s estimation at least, it doesn’t matter.
If all the reporters would get up & walk out of one of Scotty’s disinfo sessions after a particularly blatant lie or evasion, and refuse to attend another session until a new press secretary was found, that might do some good. But as it is, everyone plays the game.
As Nietzsche wrote of opera’s master writers:
I guess we just need to appreciate the art of Scotty’s performances, rather than looking to them for information.
ppGaz
Thank you sir!
DougJ
I’m a bit stunned by how little people here understand what the piece is about. Sure, he uses big words, but he’s pretty clear about the main point: outting a CIA agent is a big deal. I think that many of the spawn of Buckley (Goldberg and especially Brooks, for example, both of whom increasingly sound like parodies of themselves) are pretty odious, but Buckley is not the hack that many liberals make him out to be.
I do think that Maguire spouts Republican talking points some of the time, though. He’s good maybe 80% of the time, but he’s definitely in the bag for the Rovians from time to time. Read him in combo with the firedoglake people (who are more partisan for sure, but from the other side), though, and you’ll get a pretty good view of things.
Krista
You guys are just weird…
slickdpdx
My question: can the CIA choose to burn an agent? Obviously yes. So, what bars the chief executive of the executive branch from doing so?
I’m not saying that’s necessarily what happened, just trying to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized leaks.
In the case of an authorized leak, you can disparage the executive for making the wrong decision (i.e for reasons of political expediency rather than for national interests) but you cannot claim the executive was legally barred from doing so. Can you?
DougJ
I don’t know anything about the legality, but it’s shameful and borderline treasonous. That seems to be Buckley’s point.
Steve
Let’s just say, assuming for the sake of argument that the President is allowed to make an official decision to burn a covert agent, that’s not exactly the defense the White House is asserting here.
If the President or the Vice-President or whoever were to say “yes, I ordered it, because I thought it was in the national interest,” they’d have to face political consequences that they don’t want to face. They can’t both argue that they have the right to do it as an official decision and yet cover up the fact that they did, in fact, make that official decision.
Tim F.
Maguire’s problem is that he assumes that every unknown will break for the administration. Historically that’s not a safe bet.
DougJ
He also goes into Mickey Kaus “more cynical than thou” mode to often.
Steve S
I agree completely with what Blue Neponset said. There was no higher motive involved… it was the lowest of lows, the slimiest of slimes.
Also, to John Cole… I understood Buckley correctly the first time. I don’t understand these others, but apparently they aren’t reading him. I happen to like Buckley and his writing, always have. When I was a subscriber to the National Review back in the 1980s, it was primarily because of his writings.
The magazine has sadly declined since his departure. It was always Republican hackery… today it’s unintelligent hackery.
Frank
Wow nearly 40 posts and no one has mentioned how poorly informed Tom Maguire is.
He said: But I can still type. Why, we wonder, didn’t the CIA call Robert Novak, or his editor, or publisher, to halt the publication of Valerie Wilson’s role at the CIA? Baffling.
Problem is Novak contacted the CIA and they told him not to publish Plame’s identity. He went ahead and did it anyway.
Its either in the original article or the follow up by Novak. No I’m not going to provide a link Google it yourself.
Anderson
Yeah Frank, I noticed that too. Maguire needs to pursue non-Plame interests. But people like Drezner think he’s the one-stop Plame shop.
Paddy O'Shea
Not all that related, but making the rounds today:
The inside information on Bush’s trip to South America: Apparently the President became quite interested after hearing that Nixon got stoned down there.
Of course, it would be the first time Shrub headed south for that sort of thing.
Oh, and anyone who cannot espy the Buckleyesque apologia in the first paragraph cited at the top of this leaning tower of wheeze needs to get fitted out for a cranial implant.
But then again, I’m certain you’re all impressed with Bill.
slickdpdx
Steve and Doug J: Thanks for responding but I think you are dodging the point (which I’ll grant may be irrelevant to this particular situation but may be relevant to the vast majority of other leaks.) Maybe I’m the only person that finds it an interesting point.
Halffasthero
I am glad I did not have to chime in on Buckley’s comments – I read them earlier this morning and he was extremely unforgiving – in his own pontificating way – of anyone outing a CIA agent. I could not have agreed with him more on how he worded his concerns. He is as conservative as they come and no one can dispute this if anyone knows Buckley.