July 12, 2005

• Who hasn't heard about this? It'll be worth discussing when they cart the fuckers away.
• Sorry, that sounded harsher than I meant. I simply mean I, like others, am at the point where actions will speak louder than rhetoric. Although it was funny to see Scotty squirm like the scumfuck he is.
• I agree with Chy's first comment. This has already been discussed in one of the oldest threads on MoFi. not to mention everywhere on the interweb. There is a huge gulf between the WH corps grilling Scottie once, and any sort of more permanent change happening in the media, far less Karl Rove being in any danger, far less someone like Cheney getting implicated, far less the Democrats winning a majority in 2006 and impeaching Bush, which, by the way, is the only event worth celebrating. Scottie is the smallest of the small fish.
• * Looks for ten foot pole
• The post was less about rove's actions and the fact that for the first time, the press corps didn't just roll over to the press secretary. It may/may not lead to a long term change, but it was a nice breath of fresh air to see it.
• ...for the first time, the press corps didn't just roll over to the press secretary That was pretty sweet. Bout fricken time.
• Oh, and they better keep it up.
• What a fucking travesty that you celebrate your nice breaths of fresh air once every four or five years. Almost makes you forget the toxic dump it is for the rest of the time. I am sure the WH Press Corpse is really relishing all the nonstop fellatio since their momentary lapse of power-teat-sucking-of fugue, but they have not earned it. Great job, WHPC. Do it consistently for the rest of Bush's term, and maybe I will not clump you together with the waste of humanity.
• it's more complicated than that, tensor. the press is up against THE most secretive administration in history. example: i wrote a story about pet medications, and the USDA spokeswoman insisted on anonymity. huh? i gave her all kinds of shit about it but she wouldn't budge. it's PUBLIC DATA she was addressing. sheesh. the press didn't create this situation, the administration did. it's like beating your head against a wall.
• it's a travesty that I celebrate it? I recognize it and hope it continues. I'm happy that for once they did their job, and I recognize that they have more work to do. I haven't forgotten the toxic waste dump. I deal with it every day like the rest of us. I hate this administration as much as the rest of us. But you really need to admit something. There will be no impeachment before 2007 (if it happens at all). This administration and their destruction of my country isn't ending any time soon. Fact it, they're not going anywhere. It sucks, but right now, there's nothing I can do. Last november, I campaigned and I voted against Bush. I did my part, and it wasn't enough. Now, I have to wait it out like the rest of us. Sorry tensor if seeing one brief moment of fear/instability coming from the whitehouse. But if that's all I can get, I'll f**king take it.
• If it is public data, why do you need an official source? Why not interpret it yourself? Or ask some professor to do it, who would happily attach his or her name to the interpretation? Why are you afraid of saying "no official would agree to speak about this on the record"? ("You" not about you personally, SideDish, but to all members of the press generally.)
• Fact it!! I'm with i_am_138. We need all the fear/instability we can get!!!1!1!11 /spittle You know, maybe it's time FOR REVOLUTION
• because, tensor, we were holding the official to her duties. she's a spokeswoman, she's SUPPOSED to speak on the record to the press. here's what we had to pry out of her: The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine in Rockville, Md., monitors reports on the safety and efficacy of animal drugs and medicated feeds. In 2004, the center received 28,424 adverse drug event (ADE) reports of side effects or ineffectiveness from drug companies, veterinarians and animal owners. That's an increase of more than 5,000 over 2003, said Rae Jones, an FDA spokeswoman. Jones said that while the center cannot determine the exact cause for the rise, increased awareness of ADEs is probably a "major contributing factor." Also, "new products and therapies continually enter the marketplace, which have associated risks with their usage," she added. as you can see, i needed the FDA's direct comment (did i say USDA upthread? sorry).
• >>Why are you afraid of saying "no official would agree to speak about this on the record"? we are not afraid of saying that, it's our journalistic duty to try to avoid that whenever possible.
• I am surprised a spokeswoman feels empowered to insist on anonymity. Good for you for not humoring that request. Anonymity should be rationed out for the few instances where it is necessary to avoid life-threatening or similar retribution on the source. Yes, my armchair is quite comfortable, thanks for asking.
• it's an interesting time to be a reporter in Our Nation's Capital©, as you can imagine. i'm also very glad the public is getting ahold of white house daily press briefings and presidential pool reports. it shows what the press is up against, day in and day out.
• I don't know if it's the reporters, their editors, or the media owners who are to blame, but the US press in general has been extremely lax in their duties these last few years. They simply haven't followed through on major stories like the lack of WMDs, the Diebold/RNC connection, the Gannon affair, voter registration anomalies, and countless other serious issues. Any one of these issues would have toppled governments in many other countries. Hell, here in Canada a relatively minor public accounts scandal was front page news for months, and every government official involved has had no choice but to answer to the press openly and repeatedly. If the current US administration is secretive, it's only because the press has allowed them to be.
• Hey, it's our own fault. Nobody raised a stink when the FCC rules were changed to allow consolidation of the media into the hands of a few companies. We let it happen and now you're seeing the results.
• well, we'll agree to disagree on that, rocket. IMHO, here's what happened with each of those issues -- differerent reasons behind each: -- there were indeed pre-war stories on lack of WMDs -- just not enough, looking back now at what has happened. but of course hindsight is always 20/20. -- Diebold/RNC connection: i just did a nexis search and in the last year there've been 529 stories in newspapers, wire services, magazines, radio/TV, etc. just because it isn't in the media you see doesn't mean it's not there. -- re: gannon, i really think the public reaction surprised a lot of us. i saw it as sort of "inside baseball," as to who receives white house press credentials. frankly, most reporters probably weren't aware readers would be interested. a guy who sits next to me is on the committee that challenged gannon's credentials, and even he was puzzled that anyone outside beltway reporters would care. -- voter registration anomolies have been going on for DECADES. because elections are conducted at the local level, there always has been and always will be "anomolies." it's because so many folks were so rabidly supporting one side or the other that these problems are seen as nefarious when they're just part of the process. voter reform has been an issue for as long as i've been in newspapers (since '82). not saying any of that is an excuse, just explaining what might have happened with the coverage of each of those.
• Do a Lexis-Nexis search for "Aruba", then tell me that a mere 529 stories is anywhere near enough. Look, we are not asking for the impossible from the media. Just be as good as the BBC. The BBC is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but they get their politicians in front of a camera and ask them tough questions. How do they do it? Why is it impossible in America?
• Well, I don't really blame the reporters...it's more the editors and owners who ultimately decide what becomes front page news and what gets buried in the back. But still, if government spokespeople are unwilling to comment on potentially major stories, that in itself should be news. Believe me, if the headlines reported, day after day, that the government refused to answer reporters' questions, eventually enough public interest would build up and they would have to change their ways. The people have the power, and, in many ways, the press are their representatives. Unfortunately, the press (the headlines and lead stories, at least) would rather talk about Michael Jackson, runaway brides, or some pretty blond girl in Aruba.
• i totally agree with you on the coverage of the disappearance of the young woman in aruba. but you have to realize, that was driven -- as so much coverage has been over the past decade -- by the 24-7 news monster that is cable TV. the print press used to think if a story was getting high ratings on CNN, it should be covered because readers would be interested. that has been changing recently: the washpost hasn't given much coverage to natalee holloway at all. it's basically a local (alabama) story. and the vast majority of the news coverage has been on cable TV. >>they get their politicians in front of a camera and ask them tough questions in britain, officials speak to the press. here in america, that is becoming less and less common. literally. *they just won't talk to reporters.* the first bush administration was notorious for that, and was re-elected. so in other words, most of the public doesn't see this as a problem.
• This is how they do it.
• >>the press (the headlines and lead stories, at least) would rather talk about Michael Jackson, runaway brides, or some pretty blond girl in Aruba again, many mainstream newspapers didn't give those issues as much coverage as cable TV news channels. but unfortunately, many people watch CNN and Fox and think this is how *all* the media works when just a small sliver of media covers that stuff. good example, check out knight ridder's washington bureau. you won't find that stuff there. and there are plenty of outlets like knight ridder, and newhouse news service, which is the one i work for. BTW, my employer is family-owned and not publicly traded and has no ties to any corporations.
• skirk, there are plenty of hard-hitting investigative reporters this side of the pond too. my ex-husband won two polk awards for uncovering corruption. he's with the washpost.
• Really hard hitting investigative reporters in America these days have sudden heart attacks or strange car accidents.
• might be of interest, reporters committee for freedom of the press. good insights into journalism in '05. it's a good thing that so many people are caring so much about press coverage these days.
• You liberals. You should have said your prayers and gotten an MBA instead of going to j-school.
• I think there's a lot of great journalists out there who aren't afraid to pull their punches. The fact that Sidey wouldn't let some FDA spokesperson wiggle out of a named quote over adverse side-effects in pet medications (for crying out loud!) is a very good thing. But I do have to agree with tensor's general point. If the first Bush administration had to put up with leading headlines on every major newspaper and the first story every hour on Cable TV started with "Bush Administration refuses to talk about [insert topic here] on record," and watched their approval ratings fall and keep falling (especially before the election), we would have seen change. They get away with keeping everything hush-hush because, first of all, the public doesn't much care, but second of all, the general journalistic establishment (from some of the suck-up reporters in the WHPC afraid of possibly losing their entrance badges to the board of Time-Warner and News Corp) is letting them get away with it. I think a point can be made that, in general, our US media since 9/11 have looked more like a lapdog than a watchdog.
• I don't know if the MSM is being passive or overcautious. They have had the rug pulled out from under them a few times. And the public, with its generally short attention span, only remembers the screw-ups.
• >>some of the suck-up reporters in the WHPC afraid of possibly losing their entrance badges to the board of Time-Warner and News Corp again, it's a lot more complicated than that. this administration has in the past refused to speak to certain reporters who've asked tough questions. and once your sources dry up, you can't serve your readers. so you're doing no one any good. i have to go into a meeting now but i'm trying to find stories about a group of reporters who got together to challenge the administration's freezing of information to the press. i'll try to look later.
• cynnbad, you have a point. recent court cases against reporters and their sources have had a horrible chilling effect on investigations. the cleveland plain dealer just announced it wasn't running a major investigation because it didn't want to risk losing a court case over the source of its documents.
• more on the cleveland issue here... again, i'm not agreeing with its decision, just passing it along
• literally. *they just won't talk to reporters.* I'll grant you that point if you grant me mine, that the media of today *just won't pursue stories negative of the administration*. If the Republicans won't talk, call up the Democrats.If they too are mum, call up independents. I hear Brian Schweitzer of Montana has a phone, as does Harry Browne and Ralph Nader. Grab people off the street and give them a voice, for crying out loud. Use your power to club the politicians into shape -- newspapers make excellent bludgeons. At the very least, stop sneaking in two grafs about the dangerous stories in the middle of the classified section (like that famous editorial cartoon (by Toles?)), and devoting the front page to the latest White House spin on the Iraq war or whatever.
• >>just won't pursue stories negative of the administration absolutely untrue. sorry, but that is just not true. the washpost holds the admin's feet to the fire -- perhaps not as much as YOU'D like, but far more than others feel comfortable with. >>If the Republicans won't talk, call up the Democrats.If they too are mum, call up independents. you don't understand -- it's a republican administration. we HAVE to go to them. they're the ones setting agendas, pushing legislation. they're in charge. they're the ones who we need to hold accountable to the public. like i said (my meeting's been delayed), check out the knight ridder web site. or look around for others. *if you are not satisfied with what you're reading or viewing, find something else.* that's what's so great about american media -- and so frustrating sometimes to be inside it: the "mainstream media" is not one big goliath; it's thousands of different outlets for readers/viewers to choose amongst.
• (BTW, what's your local paper, tensor? it's sure not doing a good job if you've got such basic complaints. i'm sorry for that!)
• (My local paper, at least the one that is semi-serious about politics, is owned by the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, if I remember right. Perhaps that is the problem. I try to keep up with the paper NYTimes that gets delivered to my workplace.)
• here! found it! this should give you insight into how the press is actively working to improve access D.C. Bureau Chiefs Launch Push to End On-Background Briefings NEW YORK Washington bureau chiefs have launched a new effort to stop off-the-record and background-only White House press briefings with a campaign aimed at getting fellow D.C. journalists to demand that more briefings be on the record.
• Now that is good news. Good for the D.C. Bureau chiefs.
• owned by the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation Yes, that is the problem, right there.
• FWIW, the press corps had a good encore performance today. For now I'm upgrading my opinion from "surprised that they have gonads" to "guardedly optimistic that they have gonads".
• Wow- did you get a load of the one guy who said, "It’s not my job to have a constructive dialogue"? It's almost like if there were journalism.
• this goes on quite a bit, it just doesn't get posted online.
• Sorry, SideDish, there is no deep investigative reporting in the US. Why? Partly, perhaps, because the major media outlets are owned by a small group of corporations, all of whom are very much in thrall to the Republicans. You may think that the reportage is good because you've been brought up with 30 years of background bumfodder, but compared to Britain or Aus, it's crap. Doesn't even compare. No offense, but there it is.
• > encore performance today. video (real player) on cspan. mcclellan almost says *rove has the president's full support*...
• The thing to watch for, is when Chimpy goes from calling him 'Karl' to 'Mr Rove'.
• this goes on quite a bit, it just doesn't get posted online. If this goes on, then they sit on it, that's the same as not doing it. Grilling and hiding is the same as not grilling. They have to get it out there, otherwise it's a nonaction.
• absolutely untrue...the washpost holds the admin's feet to the fire As an outside political observer I'd have to agree that I read a lot of critical articles from the WashPost (just my two cents). Also, in particular, the WashPost seems to fall prey less often to a false sense of balance than other major papers during the Bush administration. Thanks for taking the time to constructively address all these comments SideDish, rather than simply ignoring them. Sorry, SideDish, there is no deep investigative reporting in the US...because the major media outlets are owned by...corporations...very much in thrall to the Republicans I don't think that's quite it. I don't think that many corporations really care one way or another about the Republicans. That's the problem. They don't care one way or another about anyone human, only their bottom line. It's the tyrranny of the share price. Investigative reporting is expensive, and carries risks, so it gets cut. The corporation relies on making the cheapest possible product and using market domination and deceptive marketing, rather than making a high quality product that will drive legitimate demand.
• It's one of the risks inherent in a market with few sellers.
• It'll be worth discussing when they cart the fuckers away. Assuming it actually comes to pass, we'll probably have to shout to be heard over the marching bands and cheering crowds. I'm personally hoping that the Plame related diggings results in the coackroaches scattering everywhere.
• Wow, just got back online after four or five hours, and the interweb--even rightwingia--is abuzz with the Rove story. Maybe there's blood in the water after all. In fact, this dKos post has made me somewhat less disgusted at the news media. I find it most interesting that it's happening on a Monday and a Tuesday, not on a Friday. They are not trying to bury this story quick-like. Here's hoping it grows a nice pair of legs!
• Here's hoping it grows a nice pair of legs! Hairy ones!
• With huge, knobbly knees!
• chy, i love you, you know that, but we gotta agree to disagree on this "lack of investigative reporting" issue. here's one series my ex did on pharmaceutical companies using uninformed persons as human guinea pigs overseas. (apologies in advance, registration required) that took nearly two years to produce. i think unfortunately a lot of folks have come to see watergate as the be-all and end-all of "investigative reporting," quote-unquote. it has to be, A) political, and B) bring down a conservative official/administration. there is SOOO much important investigative reporting going on that has nothing to do with either. you want to see how much? check out the latest polk award winners. those honors aren't as well known in the public but more highly respected than pulitzers within the journalistic community. that is proof there's plenty of incredibly respectable investigative journalism going on on this side of the pond.
• and for good measure, watch this kitten! heh.
• oh and i can't resist linking to this, the wall street journal's hurray for karl rove! hee hee. you guys should enjoy that one.
• Gack, SideDish- two tinies in a row- you're gonna get *stomped*.
• MonkeyFilter: It'll be worth discussing when they cart the fuckers away.
• but i thought the tinyurls weren't having problems anymore? am i wrong? i thought they were permanent links. i'd be happy to stop using them if they're a hassle for anyone
• I think part of the problem is that one has to trust them not to be nasty surprises.
• i promise they are not nasty surprises! but just in case, here are the entire URLs for anyone who'd prefer to click here: kitten watch! wall street journal editorial
• I appreciate that the WSJ is trying to do comedy.
• Oh, well, Sidey, when I see more reporters going for politicians like little bitey sharp-toothed blighters, I'll be happier, let's put it that way. Viz that Irish chick who put the wind-up Chimpy McFlightsuit in Ireland that time. The deference that journos show politicians in the Y00-E$$ buggers the mind of most of us over here, and no doubt in Pommie-Land as well. And no one commented on 'scumfuck' presumably that's not a new one, then.
• You are actually wrong that the journalists show deference to politicians here in the USA. They show deference to Republicans. They don't mind hacking Democrats to bits; just look at what they did to Clinton or Dean. I was irrationally exuberant yesterday. The Karl Rove story is essentially over. Nothing new has come out today. The Ken Mehlman talking points, are now becoming The Word on the issue. It is now officially Wrong to suggest that Wilson had any credibility. After all, who can deny the nepotism that is rampant in the CIA? Yeah, the Republican noise machine faltered for a second playing defense. Hooray!
• Ack, shoddy editing. Kill that comma.
• I assumed it was just the Tourette's keyboard you use.
• That was addressed to Chy.
• You are actually wrong that the journalists show deference to politicians here in the USA. They show deference to Republicans. Examples...? It's pretty rich that the NY Times can piss all over McClellan's "no comment", meanwhile Judith Miller is holding stakes for keeping her sources under wraps. Okay, even if the two situations are different, it still makes the Times seem like a bunch of arrogant asses with a political axe to grind against the WH. Real fair play, there. The Karl Rove story is essentially over. And has been since this ridiculous media frenzy began. Let's review: Rove provides information to the following effect: Valerie Plame, a low-level operative for the CIA (NOT undercover, as has been implied by shoddy reporting), engineered her husband Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Joe Wilson denied this information two years ago, and then turned out to be a liar when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found Plame's recommendation memo. So basically, the press is pissed about the WH providing accurate information to them? What crime has been committed? It is now officially Wrong to suggest that Wilson had any credibility. Um, whatever credibility he might have had, he flushed down the toilet himself two years ago. Wilson is a documented liar. This is shameful bandwagonry on the part of the media, hoping, just hoping to find dirty laundry hanging around Karl Rove's neck. And the MoFi response has been, sad to say, pretty typical of Angry Leftists desperate for a salve to soothe battered ideologies. You can cheer yourselves with thoughts of Rove's demise, but it's all pretty sad sounding to me.
• monkeyfilter: Angry Leftists desperate for a salve to soothe battered ideologies
• f8x, if she was not undercover, one would presume that the Fitzgerald enquiry would have determined this some time ago.. you are basically implying they are incompetent, which seems far from the truth as there is no evidence to suggest this. They've had 2 years to discover whether Plame was undercover or not; if it was not worth following up, they wouldn't be at this stage. Additionally, Novak's disingenuous claims that Plame was not really undercover begs the question how he would know this (classified) information. If, as he claims, he was 'told' about Plame, but her CIA status was 'known all over Washington' - why did he have to be told in the first place? In any case, the CIA itself has confirmed (to Newsday, IIRC) that she was indeed undercover. Further, new evidence comes to light that Novak was possibly 'uncertain' of her status. In which case he and his source(s) should have kept their mouths shut. Don't they care about national security? Shouldn't someone have to face up to this? She did not 'engineer' his trip to Niger, he was one of several names put forward for the job, which was her task. This spin that it was a 'boondoggle' for Wilson is just that, shameful and typical GOP spin - lies - to cover up the fact that their own leadership value politics over national security. The legality of the issue is one thing.. but the ethics is another. Tell me, do you think it fits with Republican values to out a CIA operative, whatever their status really is, as a means of smearing a political enemy? What the White House is really afraid of, and this you can take to the bank, is not that they have dabbled in snake-low political jiggery-pokery, but that the administration's lies about the reasons for war can be exposed by the paper trail and chronological events to be knowing and planned. At the very least, the White House misled the public for two years that Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of the CIA officer. They lied. Is this ok with you? Outside of the legal issues, there is the issue of perjury. Clearly both Novak and Rove lied before a grand jury. Is this what the Republican party stands for? Or is it simply 'alright if you are a Republican'? Stop being a ditto-head for these criminal fools. They are a disgrace to conservatives and to America.
• You are actually wrong that the journalists show deference to politicians here in the USA. They show deference to Republicans. Examples...? f8xmulder, are you serious? Judith Miller is herself an example of a journalist showing deference to Republicans. As Slate puts it, "Miller, more than any other reporter, showcased the WMD speculations and intelligence findings by the Bush administration and the Iraqi defector/dissidents. Our WMD expectations, such as they were, grew largely out of Miller's stories." And your comment about Wilson being a documented liar is priceless, especially considering that it's used to defend Karl Rove, for whom the truth is just another concept to be gangfucked in the ass in the pursuit of power.
• You're just wrong, Chyren. I heard on Scarborough's show that Wilson was a bad man and that's a fact! It's rich that the media are focusing on Rove now but wouldn't print a word about Sandy Berger's treasonous affair with classified documents. I hear he stuffed them down his pants. Very balanced reporting there, lamestream meadia! Scott McClellan should just stop giving these press conference that are nothing but seditious wankery.
• "The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie. For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak... Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies... A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." --Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department, quoted from TPMcafe. If Rove is the leaker, he is a traitor. The journalists who helped spread the info were accessories to a crime, they are not legally guaranteed any protection. Leaking the identity of a covert agent in prelude to, or during, wartime. And the Republican ditto-heads try to spin this as being OK.
• f8xmulder, are you serious? Heh. Here's where we run into difficulties. I could point out 15 reporters who have done nothing but criticize the administration. But you'd call that fair journalism. So what's deference? Surely, you see the problem...

• Civil War, D.C.-style: It's a civil war in Washington. The combatants have an eye-for-an-eye mentality. The partisanship is heated and nasty. Republicans versus Democrats? Nah. This one pits the media against the White House. It's a war the media can't win, and shouldn't wage.

  Comments by Pulitzer-winning NY Daily News journalist Michael Goodwin
• The best case for the right is formulated in: Karl Rove, the New York Times, and the Fifty "Why" by Nick Danger at redstate.org. (aside: our own Nickdanger? Or coincidence?)
• Oops, read "fifth" for "fifty".
• A counterpoint to that Larry Johnson piece, presented here without comment.
• >I could point out 15 reporters who have done nothing but criticize the administration. Yeah, but they're the last of a dying breed. They've mostly been replaced by the Journalists of Tomorrow!... (...I understand they were gonna replace them with actual parrots, but they couldn't get them to quit saying 'Awk!' all the time.)
• f8x, if she was not undercover, one would presume that the Fitzgerald enquiry would have determined this some time ago. Let's reverse that: "if she was undercover, one would presume that the Fitzgerald enquiry would have determined this some time ago." See, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Chy, please show me where it has been DEFINITIVELY proven Plame was undercover. The fact is, her status as an undercover agent was and still is very much in doubt. One, you have the fact that she was a desk jockey at Langley--hardly an undercover position. Second, how undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's online biography? I will agree, that if she was in fact undercover, and Rove was in fact the one who "outed" her to the press, then he should be tried as a criminal and subject to proper punishment. What I'm trying to point out is that there is so much unsubstantiation masquerading as truth, and it's perpetrated by people like you and tensor, who have already determined that Rove is guilty and should have his balls cut off or whatever.
• Thanks for the links, tensor, I hadn't read them.
• Plame's cover may have been compromised in the Aldrich Ames case as early as 1994 (seen on talkingpointsmemo.com).
• I should point out that I don't care about Rove at all, least of all the attachedness of his balls. My hope is to see one of the big fishes (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush) burned by this case. I have maintained all along that even if the unthinkable happens (Rove is indicted), Bush will simply pardon him, and that will be that. Rove has nothing to worry about.
• Second, how undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's online biography? There's a difference between people knowing your name and knowing that you're a CIA operative. Being undercover doesn't necessarily mean using a pseudonym.
• "Let's reverse that: "if she was undercover, one would presume that the Fitzgerald enquiry would have determined this some time ago." See, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be." No, the logic seems rather straightforward, to whit: they have determined her status, which is why Fitzgerald is bearing down hard on Miller and Cooper for more data, pouring thru' Time's records, and looking for witnesses that they need to press charges. All they had to do to determine her status is enquire or subpoena a CIA staffer with the knowledge. And, seeing as the Agency itself seems to have agreed that she was indeed undercover, plus statements from Johnson and others, the point is moot. Somebody committed the crime, there is little question of that. Fitzgerald is very thorough. What I question is the real reason Miller has been jailed? It's not for her great sacrifice to journalistic privilege, because she doesn't believe in those ethics: she's outed her sources in the past with nary a twitch. So what is different now? What I want to know is, f8x, seeing as how the criminal issue and the statements by the White House are really two separate issues, what I want to know is, do you hold the Preznit to his promise to sack the leaker? Do you think he asked Rove, and if so, did Rove lie to him? Or did Bush know? Who was lying to whom (obvious somebody was)? How do you make sense of that whole side of things in your mind?
• do you hold the Preznit to his promise I've seen this phrase repeated a lot recently. What exactly do you mean by this? How does a private citizen hold an official who will never be elected again accountable? Let me put it even simply: if Bush does nothing to Rove, will it change anything? Will it hurt the Republicans at all, electorally? Will it put Diebold out of business? Will we have a Democrat in the White House in 2008? I, personally, hold no hope.
• That is rather my point.
• Again, Chy, please tell me when and where it was definitively determined that Plame had undercover status. At what point did the CIA 'agree' that Plame was undercover? Larry Johnson seems to have some issues of credibility himself, so I hope he's not your source. And no, the point is not moot--there is no determination as yet whether any crime has been committed. I welcome you to prove to me (using points you have previously mentioned as a starting base) otherwise. The real reason Miller has been jailed? Good question, considering she's written no stories on Plame. The president said that he would fire anyone in the WH involved in any leak (whether there was, in fact, a leak or not, has yet to be determined). I will hold Bush to his promise to sack the leaker. BUT, that means A) There was info to be leaked (ie, Plame was undercover) and B) it was someone in the WH. Again, these are matters that have not been made public yet vis-a-vis the Fitzgerald enquiry and Grand Jury hearings. Did Bush ask Rove? I don't know. Did Rove lie to him? It's possible, but Rove doesn't seem quite stupid enough to do something like this--lying about it would even further exacerbate things, and again, Rove seems too savvy to get caught lying to the pres. Did Bush know? I honestly doubt it.
• The most comprehensive Plame leak timeline I've seen anywhere.
• "Again, Chy, please tell me when and where it was definitively determined that Plame had undercover status." Firstly, it is intuitively obvious that she was some form of covert, since there was spin when the story broke along the lines that her cover was already compromised before Novak's article. If she was not deep cover, then this argument would not be needed, would it? Aside from this, CIA representatives, in response to requests by the Justice Department, affirmed to them that Plame's identity was classified and that whoever released it was not authorized to do so. Further, that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak. This was way back in late 2003, if I parse the details correctly. Bear in mind that it was the CIA itself who asked the Justice Department to look into who outed Plame in the first place! It was stated that she worked overseas under deep cover posing as a private industry energy analyst. This appeared in the news reports at the time. Given the two years of process by the Fitzgerald team it seems reasonable to accept that. All of this present stuff about her status, whether it was known or not, looks irrelevant and is probably meant to distract from the real issues. The person who originated the claim that Plame's role was 'well-known' is Cliff May, former director of communications for the RNC. Someone just 'happened' to tell him about her role around the time of the initial Wilson ruckus, he says. Novak grabbed hold of this, using it as a defense for his article. Now, logically, if Plame's role was 'well-known' ask yourself why did Novak have to be told by his "insider"? Why didn't he already know, and if not, why did he need a CIA "insider" to tell him? On top of that, here's another problem for the White House if they want to use this excuse: under the specific statute here, Fitzgerald prosecution have to prove that the Administration leaker(s) knew she was a covert. If her status was common knowledge, how can they claim they did not know? The CIA say she was in deep cover, Novak & May say everyone and his dog knew her status. Both the claims that her status was already compromised, and that it was well known, are implausible based on the initial statements by CIA lawyers. The process of the Fitzgerald inquiry would certainly have determined this after two years. "Rove doesn't seem quite stupid enough to do something like this.." He's not all that smart. Rove was fired by George H.W. Bush for exactly the same thing, if memory serves.
• [W]hen and where it was definitively determined that Plame had undercover status. According to my previous link, the CIA submitted a crime report to the DOJ on July 30, 2003 suggesting that Wilson was covert, and her leak entailed a criminal investigation. On September 16, they notified the DOJ that their internal investigation was complete, and a full criminal investigation must proceed. On September 23, they submitted the standard 11 part questionnaire required by the DOJ. On September 29, they asked the CIA counterespionage division and the FBI to start an investigation. On October 1, ex-CIA analyst and covert operative Larry Johnson confirms on PBS's Newshour that Plame was a covert operative. None of these are links, because the documents are sealed, and Larry Johnson's statement is in presumably in the Newshour archives. Now you have to answer this question — when and where was it definitively determined that Plame did not have undercover status? If you have evidence that she was not "non official cover" (NOC) at the time Novak published his article (submitted on July 11, 2003; went to press on July 14, 2003), as has been widely reported, kindly present it. I am sure Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury would be most interested that they have wasted a year and a half on an idle pursuit. Moreover, I am sure the taxpayers have a right to know what the special investigation is wasting their money.
• Note that "Wilson" above refers to Valerie Wilson.
• (I swear, I wrote that before I saw Chy's response.)
• Larry Johnson seems to have some issues of credibility himself, so I hope he's not your source. Oh, totally missed this bit earlier. What credibility problem does Johnson have?
• Quoth f8xmulder:

  I could point out 15 reporters who have done nothing but criticize the administration. But you'd call that fair journalism.

  I know I'm late to this, but: Who the hell said journalism has to be fair?! It's not a tit-for-tat my-side-your-side thing! Journalism should be accurate! Editorials and Opinion are always going to be biased - that's in their nature - but if you're reading opinion pieces to get news, then you've got it backwards. In Australia - and more so in the UK, it is a journalist's responsibility to their readers/viewers/listeners to obtain answers to questions raised by investigative means - and that should be the case elsewhere, as well. "No comment" and "I'm not answering that question" should be like a red rag to a bull for a journalist with any skill or talent - bugger integrity or the 'right' political viewpoint. Politicians are responsible to their consituents (and public servants are responsible to their polticians) and part of that accountability is a free and accurate press. Not fair. Because a tea-money scandal on the right does not equal a travel rort on the left. There should never be the kind of mentality in the press, anywhere, that dictates when one side or the other is held up to scrutiny! All sides should be fair game. 'Keeping the Bastards Honest' is the role of the press, not 'Turning Them All Into the Same Bastards'.
• By the way, read this Howie Kurtz article. It's pretty good. Yes, Kurtz and good. It's rare, I know.
• Firstly, it is intuitively obvious that she was some form of covert, since there was spin when the story broke along the lines that her cover was already compromised before Novak's article. I call bullshit on this. Whose spin, yours or mine? You're talking speculation and implied bias. I want facts, not some perceived tone of coverage! CIA representatives, in response to requests by the Justice Department, affirmed to them that Plame's identity was classified So, Plame was a deep cover operative...working openly at C.I.A. headquarters? You still have not proven to me that she was a covert operative. Put another way--and you have YET to prove otherwise--it is by no means certain that Plame was a covert agent, that the CIA was actively trying to conceal her covert status, or that, if she was a covert agent, the leaker knew this. Novak spoke with CIA officials shortly before releasing his initial story and they did not discourage him from publishing. Doesn't that cast doubt on the covert status theory? If Plame really was in deep cover, why did she appear photographed on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine in spy garb? If she really was in deep cover, why did many people in DC know that she was indeed a CIA agent? All of this present stuff about her status, whether it was known or not, looks irrelevant and is probably meant to distract from the real issues. Uh, no, that IS the issue. Because if her status was known, that means she wasn't outed, which means that no crime has been committed, and all this is a light show. You can't be outed if you're already out.
• prismatic7, you read me wrong. I meant for fair to mean "honest". What I was implying was that for every journalist you say is covering for a Right Wing Administration, I can point out and equal number who criticize said administration. Often, the two can be the same (though not in the same breath!). Hence, my conclusion that journalism, in its current state, is hardly a bastion of Right Wing Bowers and Scrapers.
• you have YET to prove otherwise You hae YET to prove that she wasn't covert.
• tensor, thanks for the info. I'm reading through the link now...
• It's clear from the links tensor provided, as well as the info in the sealed CIA reports, that Plame was for some time a Non Official Cover operative (NOC). I did some additional research and found that operatives working under cover have sealed identities for up to 5 years. So there are now two questions in my mind: what was Plame's position at the CIA at the time of the leak, and who said she was an undercover operative?
• "So, Plame was a deep cover operative...working openly at C.I.A. headquarters? You still have not proven to me that she was a covert operative." This is, forgive me, spectacularly obtuse. You appeared (at least until your last posting) to be looking for any reason to dismiss the evidence, which I found somewhat frustrating. The CIA stated to the Justice Department that she was 'deep cover'. NOC is covert. CIA initiated the criminal investigation, clearly believing that a felony had taken place. To me, this is more than enough to accept the proposition that she was covert. You asked where I got the idea that she was deep cover, I told you. Yes, CIA agents do, surprisingly, work at CIA headquarters, rather than, say, shoe salesmen. Much like you often find ducks at a duck pond. Seeing as you need a clearance to enter CIA headquarters and not just anybody can roam freely from office to office (please feel free to wander down there and disprove this, if you wish), I'm certain they feel pretty secure there, whatever their clearance. Now, you're not about to claim that deep cover agents don't ever set foot at CIA HQ? I'm getting the impression you are harbouring some strange ideas about agents. They do not wander around hiding their faces under big hats and wear trenchcoats, flitting from shadow to shadow all the time, not, at any rate, on home soil. When posted overseas, their cover jobs "cover" their real tasks as CIA operatives. You can be an analyst and be deep cover, just as you can be deep cover and sit behind a desk. Clearly, Plame was not a field agent towards the latter part of her career, they are the lowest rung in operations. She was, at least at one time, the person to whom field agents reported. She worked overseas under deep cover posing as a private industry energy analyst. This establishes that the CIA were hiding her status - the "cover" was the role as a private industry analyst. The company she ostensibly worked for was itself a CIA front, a company established to serve as a "cover" for CIA activities, which itself took many years and millions of US dollars to build up. I fail to see the ambiguity. The "old" me would, at this point, make a wholely despicable and ad hominem crack about all Republicans appearing to be unspeakably dense, but I know this not to be true. I cling to this belief much as you cling to the belief that the sun shines out of Rove's arsehole. :)
• (wanders in, starts singing) Bliiiinded by the light...
• *Sigh*. I was hardly being obtuse, you just missed my point, so I will reiterate: If Plame was working openly at the CIA and everyone knew she worked there, that would make her position a non-classified position, much like the Director of the CIA (DCIA). That doesn't mean she doesn't have access to classified materials, just that it's a known fact what she does at the CIA (hence, not covert). Here's what's at stake, at least to my eyes: 1: Did she serve outside the US in the last 5 years? (Note, 'serve' implies more than simply traveling to a foreign country to gather intelligence.) Or... 2: Was her identity as an employee of the CIA in any way officially 'classified' -- regardless of what kind of a job she actually did? And... 3: Was the source of disclosure a Federal employee (those to whom the statute applies)?
• ... I love you all, but I will believe it ( agressive prosecution) when I see it.
• And Fox, I do work for the (state) government, and we do have to keep our mouths shut. But we do know all kinds of shit.
• "Downing Street: A Dead-End In American Media" I thought this touched on some interesting points which were brought up in this thread.
• fox: The whole thing was a media blazt. Thanks for your participation.
• >>she's outed her sources in the past with nary a twitch chy you lost me on that one. examples?
• SideDish: Miller interviewed someone from the Stimson Center in Washington on something, made up a quote (well, paraphrased them), attributed it to them, and then named them, despite being asked by the source not to do so. It 'infuriated colleagues and a senior editor, but it only merited a small editors' note on April 9'. f8x, please do some research on the way CIA operatives function, and in particular the jobs that Plame was doing. You appear not to grok. I'm tired of arguing it anymore. Somebody (Rove) committed a crime in leaking Plame's status. End of fucking story. Miller is in jail for refusing to name a source, it seems not Rove, probably someone else more important, since she's so much an asset of the Republican party spin machine. She's also doing it to keep her flagging career alive. If she has to go before the grand jury and plead the fifth, that would be the end of it.
• Chyren: He's not all that smart. Rove was fired by George H.W. Bush for exactly the same thing, if memory serves. smallish bear posts reference here
• Don't tell me how to post. It sickens me.
• I'm tired of arguing it anymore. ... End of fucking story. Oh, just go climb a tree. Why does internal U.S. politics interest you so much, anyway? Try to answer as directly and un-sanctimoniously as possible.
• Directly and unsanctimoniously? There's no fun in that.
• f8x, please backup you assertion that she was not undercover with a link.
• Mr. K, no links that I can find. That she *was* undercover at some point in time is not in question. What is STILL in question is whether she was in fact undercover at the point of her 'outing'. It is one of the questions the Fitzgerald investigation is supposed to answer definitively, but until that info is "leaked" or whatever, I really don't think anyone here can say for certain that she was. Chy's convinced she was, and that's fine. Chy's also convinced Judith Miller is a tool of the VRWC, Bush is Satan's and Hitler's lovechild, and he's entitled to all that. Doesn't make it true, just interesting reading material.
• f8x, I don't give Bush that much credit. Again, it is the CIA who think that Plame was undercover, which is why they *initiated the investigation in the first place*. This is, I think, the third time I have iterated this. Obviously, the CIA think she was undercover. You continue to fail to acknowledge this fact. If you want the 'good guts' as we say on Judy Miller, here is a quite good bio. As in, partisan and ad hominem, but enlightening much the same.
• The CIA also said that Plame was just an analyst, and not undercover at the time. There's a lot of people saying two different things, including the CIA, Joe Wilson, Rove, and the New York Times. And all I've been trying to emphasize this whole time is that there's too many unknowns for ANYONE, least of all someone outside the US (no offense, Chy, but what gives you the inside scoop here?) to be making unequivocal assertions.
• Okay, then please back up the assertion that she might not have been undercover at the point of her 'outing' with a link. In two years I've never heard this, and if I'm going to commit this to my memory, I'm going to need you to verify it with an outside link. The questions that the Fitzgerald investigation is supposed to answer, from what I know, is "who leaked?" and "did they know what they were leaking". The requirements for it to be a crime is include that the leaker must actually know the information, and that they intentional disclosed it. Just to be sure, are you mixing "undercover" with "undercover on assignment"? Because there's a big difference.
• In general, I'd expect someone outside the US to have a greater depth of knowledge of US affairs than someone inside the US.
• f8x: Valerie Plame, a low-level operative for the CIA (NOT undercover, as has been implied by shoddy reporting) f8x: What is STILL in question is whether she was in fact undercover at the point of her 'outing'. It is one of the questions the Fitzgerald investigation is supposed to answer definitively, but until that info is "leaked" or whatever, I really don't think anyone here can say for certain that she was. So, um... which is it? You're pretty certain in the first comment that she was NOT undercover (on preview: that would appear to be one of those "unequivocal assertations" you condemn in your most recent comment).
• Here Wiki breaks it down as well. The origins of that assertion apparently comes from Novak, not directly from the CIA, as I first thought. I believe you are correct about the Fitzgeral investigation's intention. No, I don't believe I am mixing the two, though to my mind they are not much different. The latter simply implies that one is actively on undercover assignment, whereas the former is a blanket characterization, as in "Plame worked undercover for the CIA" versus "Plame was working undercover on assignment at the time of her outing". Either way, if she was undercover at the time, then the question becomes "who leaked her name originally?" Let's say Rove was THE guy. The question then becomes, did he actually knowingly leak her status? Were his remarks to Cooper sufficient evidence of an attempt to discredit Wilson by using Plame as "fair game"? Or was he, as has been alleged, trying to dissuade Cooper from publishing material that the administration knew was false (ie, Wilson's original Niger report)? In general, why would you expect outside USians to have a greater depth of knowledge of US affairs than USians?
• Got me, the_bone. That initial remark was unwisely unequivocal.
• Or was he, as has been alleged, trying to dissuade Cooper from publishing material that the administration knew was false (ie, Wilson's original Niger report)? Ah, now we're in familiar territory. 1. Wilson's original Niger report was false? Saddam Hussein did attempt to obtain "yellowcake" uranium from Niger? Was it part of his weapons of mass destruction-related program activities? 2. Do you support disclosing national secrets to "dissuade" your political opponents? Do you believe that Rove, someone with top secret clearance (at least), was unknowingly cavalier with national secrets? Do you think that is a valid defense as a matter of criminal law? 3. Do you, as a matter of principle--of morality and ethics, not necessarily the law--believe that Rove is blameless?
• "The CIA also said that Plame was just an analyst, and not undercover at the time." No, the CIA *posed* her as a private industry energy analyst. That *was* her cover. One has to ignore a lot of evidence and testimony in order to question her status as undercover. On the issue of her status at the time of the Novak article: it doesn't matter. The statute(s) involved don't differentiate on that issue. In any case she was still in a situation where her ID as operative protected other agents. Just because she may have finished her project work at that time does not mean that her status as CIA operative was free to be revealed. The outing of her status still threatened other agents and ongoing missions. "Chy, but what gives you the inside scoop here?" None of this is inside info, it is all information available to anyone who does a bit of reading.
• On a more macro scale, who are you more inclined to believe in general: 1. An administration which brought us the imminent threat of Saddam-caused mushroom clouds, tax cuts for the wealthy because that'll level the playing field, an energy industry-designed energy policy, a stalwart refusal to acknowledge any intelligence in all those silly scientists harping about global warming, a recognition that longtime allies who don't agree with U.S. policy should be dismissed as "Old Europe", our newfound ability to call french fries "freedom fries", the courage to point out that giving gay couples legal rights will result in the fall of Western civilization, a chief of staff who reaches out to the political opposition by calling them traitorous, and on and on and fucking on, or 2. Anyone else?
• Here's the Novak quote I was looking for. "They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said. But you have to wonder, if the CIA confirmed Plame's involvement with Wilson going to Niger, that seems to indicate she was not undercover. It would be ridiculous for the CIA to admit she does in fact work for them and at the same time keep her undercover. tensor, I'll get to you as soon as I can. I'm also trying to finish up a project!
• [I]f the CIA confirmed Plame's involvement with Wilson going to Niger, that seems to indicate she was not undercover. Plame recommended her husband for the mission to her superiors in the CIA, who presumably knew of her NOC status. This was before she was outed in Novak's column. Heck, Wilson finished his mission, came back, wrote his report, and was well on his way to completing his media blitz before the world became aware of Plame's status gratis the Douchebag of Liberty. Where is the inconsistency?
• If by "the CIA confirmed" you mean in the senate report (linked earlier), then that was well after Novak's column.
• Sorry, the report was not linked directly earlier, it was buried in another article. Direct link to report (PDF; note the date: July 7, 2004, nearly a year after Novak's column)
• 1. From WaPo: Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said. From Powerline: According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, in Wilson's book and in interviews and op-ed pieces over the past two years, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA. [The CIA reports officer] said he judge that the most important fact in the Joe Wilson report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting. (Page 46 of the report, page 56 of the PDF) This is contrary to Wilson's claims. And again: Throughout the time the Niger reports were being disseminated, the [blanked out] CIA Iraq nuclear analyst said he had discussed the issue with his INR colleague [INR is the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research] and was aware that INR disagreed with the CIA's position. He said they discussed Niger's uranium production rates and whether Niger could have been diverting any yellowcake. He said that he and his INR counterpart essentially "agreed to disagree" about whether Niger could supply Uranium to Iraq. The CIA analyst said he assessed at the time that the intelligence showed both that Iraq may have been trying to procure uranium in Africa and that it was possible Niger could supply it. He said his assessment was bolstered by several other intelligence reports on Iraqi interest in uranium from other countries in Africa. (Page 47 of the report, page 57 of the PDF file.)
• 1(continuing) The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said. Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. So what Wilson actually told the CIA is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
• 2. I think I've stated this before, but no, I don't believe it is right to disclose national security secrets for political gain. And I also think that whoever (if a crime actually has been committed) is implicated in this should be punished as a criminal. As for whether Rove is culpable... From Newsweek: In a brief conversation with Rove, [Time reporer Matthew] Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. Newsweek obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." 3. Clearly, Rove did have some involvement in this matter. I can't speak for the ethics of this, since intent is the heart of both the legality and the ethical issues. What did Rove *actually* say? What was the intent behind what he said? These are questions that have yet to be answered, and I wouldn't trust myself to answer with any certainty before the outcome of the Fitzgerald investigation.
• Cutting and pasting from metafilter threads does not a discussion make, particularly when the points have already been flushed. The confirmatory report that Wilson made about yellowcake being bought was about Iran. Not Iraq, which I believe WaPo had to make some kind of editorial amendment about. I'm too tired to bother with the rest of it, because frankly f8x, you keep moving the goalposts, and your research capabilities don't fire me up. Whatever Wilson said or did not say is irrelevant to the central issues.
• My God, man. Have you read page 46 of the report?

  (U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things. (U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

  All you have to argue that Wilson's report was wrong are, and I note, 1. The word of the Deputy Chief of the CPD, who by the report's own admission, provided a subjective grade to Wilson's report. 2. The Deputy Chief's word that Wilson's report lists as facts: (a) the Iraqi delegation visited Nigeria in 1999, and (b) the prime minister of Nigeria believes that Iraqis were interested in purchasing Uranium. This is hardly "wrong". This isn't even a case against Wilson's report that there is no strong evidence that Saddam wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. "Flimsy" doesn't begin to describe it. Words like "shoddy", "nonsense", "garbage", etc. come to mind. And I haven't even mentioned that the actual documentary evidence that was dug up during the inquiry was proven to be a forgery.
• Argh, s/Nigeria/Niger/
• Now I'm confused, tensor. You're arguing I didn't prove my case, and then you go on to prove my case for me? Wilson made his report, and then contradicted himself in several op-ed pieces, his own book, and multiple interviews conducted in the year after his trip to Niger. So, either his CIA report was wrong, or his post-trip writing and speaking engagements are entertaining falsehoods. His research tended (in the CIA's opinion) to confirm the report, yet Wilson claimed to the Post and other news sources that his report had shot down those same reports. If that's not lying, then what is it? Creative interpretation? And Chy, Metafilter's the last place I want to go for documentary evidence. Nice try. As for my research, I've never claimed it's great. But it is research. I'm quite sure nothing I do will ever satisfy your need to be right, so you and I can consider this a closed book, K?
• Wilson made his report, and then contradicted himself in several op-ed pieces, his own book, and multiple interviews conducted in the year after his trip to Niger. I too am growing tired of this. Let me just say: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG Care to refute?
• >>Larry Johnson i read that and thought, NO! NOT LADYBIRD JOHNSON! monkeyfilter: My God, man. Have you read page 46 of the report?
• WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG Care to refute? Uh...the opposite of what you said... Shall we call it a draw and wait for the fargin' GJ results?
• The Grand Jury is not investigating the truth of Wilson's report, yet you continue to believe that any actions of Rove are excused by perceived flaws therein--flaws that don't exist in fact. (And no, quotes from Powerline are not proofs.) Draw my foot! You will continue to believe that Rove and the merry band of thugs in the White House are pure as the driven snow. I fear you are unreachable. It is a damn shame that you represent the majority opinion in this country. A damn fucking shame.
• there's a good but long roundup here on the republican talking points re rove.
• just a note to f8x: wilson's role or performance of his mission is completely not the issue at the moment, and it ill-suits your cause to refer to wilson. the questions are whether plame was outed; whether it was deliberate (political gaming); and whether this constitutes a crime. the objective answers are yes (by rove and by someone else), yes, and probably.
• It seems clear f8x supports the revealing of the secret identity of undercover intelligence operatives for partisan purposes. He's also been out-thunk and won't admit it.
• This just in -- All Hell Breaks Loose
• Bwah! Blood in the water. Took their fuckin' time.
• Just like we didn't get to string theory without first knowing about classical physics and then from there jumping to quantum mechanics, the issues at stake (whether Plame was outed; whether it was deliberate; whether it constitutes a crime--re: roryk above) MUST be arrived at via the initial and relevant facts. Hence, the following: Wilson critizes administration after reporting from Niger; press attempts to follow up about Wilson's criticisms and talks to at least one (Rove) senior administration official, who cautions press regarding getting "too far out on Wilson." Rove then goes on to tell Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." (These are from Cooper's emails). The emails go on to say "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." From there, we can then begin asking those probing questions. But Wilson remains very much a relevant portion of the matter (even if not part of the investigation) since Rove's intent is caught up in Wilson's work. This is not to say Rove DIDN'T out Plame on purpose for political revenge (or whatever reason). But it is NOT CERTAIN. And you friggin' people seem to refuse to accept that ancillary matters (like Wilson's report) is TOTALLY relevant to the investigation. And you're attacking me for holding the position of "Let's wait and see." Chy, you are blatantly ignoring my previous statements on this issue. Not ONCE have I implied or explicitly stated that I support revealing of secret identities of covert operatives for partisan purposes. In FACT, I have stated the exact opposite. Please stop mis-characterizing the nature of my position!!

• But Wilson remains very much a relevant portion of the matter (even if not part of the investigation) since Rove's intent is caught up in Wilson's work.

  f8x, i'm not sure i understand your point. do you agree that the investigation first needs to consider whether rove (and someone else) outed plame? do you agree that once (if) it has been established that plame's cover was blown by rove (and another), the investigation needs to establish whether the outing was a crime? to my mind, it is only after this point that the investigation (prosecutor at this stage) could consider intent in order to evaluate the seriousness of the crime.
• "Not ONCE have I implied or explicitly stated that I ..."[SLAP] YOU are a FILTHY TRAITOR. From now on you shall be known as Bennedict F8x. WHY do you HATE AMERICA????
• roryk, you are correct, as far as I can tell.
• SHUTUP BENNEDICT
• The last pic on the right, from tensor's link above, is a classic.
• Huh, I have some catch up to do on this thread. Let me take care of the immediates: No, I don't believe I am mixing the two, though to my mind they are not much different. The latter simply implies that one is actively on undercover assignment, whereas the former is a blanket characterization, as in "Plame worked undercover for the CIA" versus "Plame was working undercover on assignment at the time of her outing". Either way, if she was undercover at the time, then the question becomes "who leaked her name originally?" (I see I mispoke in my previous post when I made the statement about undercover vs undercover on assignment. The words I used earlier were meant to convey something completely different than they ended up doing. I'll try be clearer in the following) The law came into being from someone reporting person X was a covert CIA agent 10+ years after they finished that assignment. It became a law because (1) it puts the agent at extreme risk, even decades after the assignment, and (2) it reveal clandestine actions of the US, and makes the US responsible. I do find this reasoning to be morally resprehensible, but it is there, and it's the major player, actually. Undercover agents don't passively watch, they actively create situations that would not have happened otherwise. When an agent's identity is blown, it displays the covert operations performed the US. Now, I morally disagree with this, as I believe they should be held accountable for their actions, and that the US should be held accountable for its actions. Now, it sounds as though you were using the fact that she was not actively on a assignment to justify the ousting. Do you agree that her not being actively on assignment still is just as bad as if she was? (I just want to note that it REALLY bugs me to defend the CIA on any matter.) In general, why would you expect outside USians to have a greater depth of knowledge of US affairs than USians? Well, because in general, the average Usian is poorly informed, especially in politics. Compared to other countries, Usians have a pretty hands off approach when it comes to politics. (This isn't all countries, but really the non-Usians I interact with, compared to the average joe on the street here.) I haven't the time to read the links provided, yet. I won't for some hours still. I hope everyone is still playing here when I get back.
• Nope.
• Chy take yer meds.
• Now, it sounds as though you were using the fact that she was not actively on a assignment to justify the ousting. No, it was not my intention to imply that, and I apologize if that confused you. I don't justify or support any covert agent being outed. The law you're referring to is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. To clarify your comments re: the law's purpose... In the law, the government must establish the following: 1)The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States 2)The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of the intelligence agency 3)The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified 4)At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identiy was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure 5) The person disclosing the identity of that covert agent must be authorized, directly or indirectly, to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent 6) The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship 7) The person disclosing the identity knows that the information so identifies the covert agent 8) The disclosure is intentional; and 9) The identity is disclosed to a person not having authorization to receive such information Further, the law provides for the defense by ensureing that it was only to be used in limited circumstances, so as to "exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government will by chilled by the enactment of the bill." With Plame, as I have attempted (rather poorly if you ask tensor or Chyren) to lay out, there is doubt that she meets the criteria specified in the statute that would imply a disclosure had been made.
• points 1-3: The CIA have stated in the affirmative. point 4: there is no such 5 year requirement. point 6: duh point 7: duh point 8: Ignorance of the law *may* be a defense, I don't know, but who told Rove? Where did he get the info? point 9: Obvious. Intelligence Identities Protection Act of '82 is not the only thing, there's perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy plus the Espionage Act to contend with. The prosecutor had to prove that a crime had been committed before the judge would send Judith Miller to jail. The presiding Judge has stated that that certainly was the case.
• Unlike most of you, I read redstate.org regularly. Here's their latest take on this matter, presented here as always without comment, except to note that redstate tends to be a good first-order approximation to the views of right-wing blogistan. (It is not a mirror of dKos, as is often claimed — dKos tends to lead the left-wing blogistan .)
• And then he sent her to jail.
• redstate's logic seems dodgy on several of those points.
• points 1-3: The CIA have stated in the affirmative. point 4: there is no such 5 year requirement. point 6: duh point 7: duh point 8: Ignorance of the law *may* be a defense, I don't know, but who told Rove? Where did he get the info? point 9: Obvious. Chyren's logic seems to be dodgy on some of these points.
• Yeeeahh.. thanks for that, Bennedict f8xald. OK, let's look at RedState's list in more detail as a view to seeing where right-wing blogistan is at, mang. 2. Did Iraq seek to purchase yellowcake from Niger? (SHAKY). the general consensus among all but the biggest True Believers is that the claim itself is a matter that is absolutely up in the air. - With apparently few credible sources, RedState says that the claim is still 'up in the air'. Now, bearing in mind that the evidence that Iraq was seeking weapons grade material from Niger was based on a document considered fraudulent by even the United States' intelligence services long before 2003, the claim itself was found to be baseless by not just one, but three separate investigative delegations to Niger, and the documents were quickly dismissed as crude forgeries by International Atomic Energy Agency, it's hard to understand how RedState still can say this is 'up in the air'. There is zero evidence that Iraq tried to get yellowcake from Niger. Wilson, conversely, reported that Iran did. (It was erroneously reported "Iraq" in the WaPo story, which was later corrected - for proof of this see the relevant Senate report, page 44. Laughable.) 9. Was Valerie Plame's identity a secret? (SHAKY). - Again, RedState defies common sense with this statement. The CIA instigated the inquiry into the outing of Plame, and it is they alone who can best be sure of whether she was covert or not - clearly she was, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for the investigation, n'est pas? On top of that, even the White House's counsel recognised her as undercover. Additionally, it was widely reported by various media that her status had been confirmed. It was also confirmed, by among others, Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a neocon; Ray McGovern, former senior analyst for the CIA ('...his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue...'); etc, etc. As f8x notes earlier, she was NOC - NOCs are the *most* covert CIA agents! RedState is not just being disingenuous, they're completely out to lunch. 11. Did Karl Rove break the law? (SOLID) No. - Dead wrong, again, for the above reasons. Plame *was* covert, and despite what some seem to claim, there is nothing in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 that mentions anything about a 5 year period of effect. Unveiling a covert agent of Plame's status at any time would risk destroying the entire network of agents she ran, exposing them to assassination by foriegn intelligence services, not to mention destroying the CIA-engineered front company that took years to build confidence overseas. Even if Rove avoids the Intelligence Identities Act, he is still very much liable under the Espionage Act among other juicy things as well. 13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No...the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. - I can't find the piddling little splitting-hairs wording that RedState are clutching at here to avoid holding Bush to his promise, in any case, Bush indeed did state later that he would fire anyone found to have leaked the agent's name. The quote sounds pretty unequivocal. McClellan also reiterated in 2003 'if anyone in this administration was involved in [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.' RedState appears to be playing fast and loose with their interpretations here as well. So really, on just a cursory examination of the RedState points, they do not appear to be credible on many of the serious questions.
• You do at least realize that this is going nowhere, right Chyren? I mean, this back and forth has been going on for two days now, with no sign that either is convinced or swayed by the other's arguments. I just re-read the Niger report, and from what I can gather, it is pretty much malleable in that if you think it confirms that the intelligence on Iraqi acquisition of yellowcake was incorrect, you'll find what you need to defend yourself. And on the other hand, I can find enough in there to defend the claim that the report substantiates claims that Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake from Africa. To put things plainly, I am tired of copying and italicizing text and then rebutting it with text that will then be copied and italicized and rebutted by you or someone else, and so on ad nauseum. You can call this a capitulation, if you wish, if it will make you feel better about yourself or whatever. I'm agreeing to disagree with you on the basic facts of this whole clusterf**k, even if you don't agree (ha!). I will reconvene when Messr. Fitzgerald has finished with his thing, evidence is uncovered, and judgements are handed down....which, if you'll recall, is what I've been advocating this whole time. Toodles!
• Round 1 -- f8xmulder wins. Haha, sucks to be you, Chyren. Where's your eloquence now? I bet you think you still have a chance to convince f8xmulder, you loser.
• Yes, goddam it, his intrepid running-away tactic has me crushed.
• Chy by a long neck surely? Going good to soft.
• Chyren wins
• WRONG
• Let's bring this thread back for a rematch!
• Has anyone mentioned that "their" is misspelled in the title? What? You've got chocolate on your shirt too.
• Karl Rove Timeline
• It's just getting worse and worse for Rove. What did the Roberts announcement buy him? 24 hours? Then the new document leak that shows clearly that those traitorous fucks knew Plame's status was covert. Bush won't stand by his promises, of course, we know that. Foregone conclusion: he never stands by his promises.
• er - what new document leak? Did I miss a news cycle?
• The Bloomberg story.
• Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens Though Cooper said he wasn’t sure what Rove meant with his comment about having “already said too much,” the phrase suggests that Rove was aware that he had crossed the line by disclosing classified information.
• I know that it will come to nothing, of course, but it is simply delicious enjoying these assholes suffering under the spotlight. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.
• Interesting story on Roberts. I wonder mow if more republicans will vote against him than democrats.
• Novak loses his cool live on air.
• judith miller is still incarcerated... hopes are that she'll get out next month
• Really?, a lot of people on the left would like her to rot in there forever.
• Wait . . Novak ever had cool?