The Plame Flummadiddle*
The Wall Street Journal’s “Opinion Journal” has another editorial claiming that poor, old Bob Novak has done nothing wrong, and that trying to get him to reveal his sources will destroy the First Amendment. After all, does it really matter which senior White House Official revealed the name and CIA affiliation of deep-cover agent? Of course not! After all, the bitch deserved it. Oh, and we just love the word “kerfuffle.”
There’s a method to this political madness. For one thing, it has succeeded in distracting attention from the substance of the Novak charge. A few papers, including this one, early on reported the existence of a classified Bureau of Intelligence and Research document describing a meeting at which Ms. Plame is said to have suggested her husband for the Niger yellowcake investigation. The CIA has said that the document had it wrong, but thus far the press corps has been decidedly uninquisitive about whether the CIA itself is trying to deflect attention from a case of nepotism.
Yeah, this whole Plame investigation is really just the CIA’s way of trying to keep the press from finding out that Plame might have suggested her husband for the Niger mission. Which wouldn’t be illegal or even a violation of hiring policies — nobody has said she had the authority to select him for the assignment. And it wouldn’t even be immoral — she happened to have a husband who had the contacts and expertise for the job (and who was known to the CIA already — he was a former ambassador, after all). She mentioned his name, and somebody in CIA management chose Wilson for a one-shot, unpaid, unclassified assignment. Geez, no wonder the CIA (and its accomplice, the DOJ) is trying to keep everyone from focusing on the potentially devastating NepotismGate matter.
Oh, but I do think that somebody (presumably the FBI) should be focusing on that State Dept. document — either somebody gave the WSJ a classified document regarding a case under criminal investigation, or, which seems more likely, somebody a fabricated a document in order to smear the victim of a crime. I would like to know which it is, and who did it. Seeing them punished would be nice too.
What especially troubles us is that if the Justice Department investigators do not find who leaked Ms. Plame’s name, Mr. Novak may be slapped with a subpoena and held in contempt if he sticks to journalistic principle and refuses to give up his sources.
Yes, it troubles the WSJ almost as much as it troubles the person or persons who leaked her name. Interesting how their interests should intersect here.
Oh, and since Novak has given up a source before and the WSJ didn’t seem to care, what does that say about their deep concern for journalistic principle?
And it’s not just Mr. Novak: Earlier this week Newsday reported that prosecutors are seeking all records of any Administration contacts with two dozen other newsmen, including Journal reporter Greg Hitt and Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot.
WSJ reporters are on cozy terms with Senior Administration Officials who might have leaked Valerie Plame’s name in order to discredit Joseph Wilson? I’m shocked, SHOCKED to learn this.
And I’m also shocked to learn that DOJ is subpoenaing records of Administration media contacts in a case that involves the Administration giving the name of a CIA officer to the media. Gosh, WSJ, what did you think an investigation of this kind would involve — the declaration that the media was off limits, and the investigators should focus on Valerie Plame and nepotism?
If the legal push in these cases does come to shove, we may well end up with a Supreme Court pronouncing even more definitively that the First Amendment includes no privilege covering the protection of confidential sources. And the road to that blow to a free press will be paved by all the liberal writers who thought they could discard Bob Novak with no effect on their own journalism.
And Bob could prevent it all by voluntarily coming forward and telling the prosecutors which Senior Administration Official(s) apparently committed a felony by leaking the Plame information to him. Or is the WSJ saying that revealing the names of covert intelligence officers, destroying cover mechanisms, and potentially endangering CIA sources are just fine, as long as nothing interferes with that cozy relationship the WSJ has with Senior Administration Officials?
*Here are some other suggested replacements for “kerfuffle,” which is just plain annoying now: balderdash, blatherskite, bosh, bushwa, claptrap, codswallop, eyewash, flapdoodle, jiggery-pokery, pishposh, tosh, and wangdoodle.
Yeah, why doesn’t the WSJ drop the “kerfuffle” and try making “wangdoodle” synonymous with their fine newspaper?
The CIA has said that the document had it wrong, but thus far the press corps has been decidedly uninquisitive…
Actually the CIA has said that the agency officer identified in the document as discussing Plame’s participation could not have attended the meeting.
Which sorta calls into question the authenticity of the doc, but, hey, who you gonna believe?
I just love *bushwah*. (That’s how I’ve seen it spelled, plus the —-wah improves its accuracy by adding the trademark GWB whininess.)
Here’s something else to add to the pot: a recent WaPost story revealed that the Preznit sometimes talks to useful idiots/media asslicks as the “senior administration official” later quoted in their stories. IIRC Novakula (also known as Novferatu) got the leak from two members of the “White House staff” and verification from a “senior administration official.”
Watergate redux.
Or is the WSJ saying that revealing the names of covert intelligence officers, destroying cover mechanisms, and potentially endangering CIA sources are just fine, as long as nothing interferes with that cozy relationship the WSJ has with Senior Administration Officials?
Not at all! They’re saying that revealing the names of covert intelligence officers, destroying cover mechanisms, and potentially endangering CIA sources are just fine, as long as they’re done by Republicans. There’s a big difference, y’know!
Like “lucky duckies,” “kerfuffle” sounds more at home in the context of a children’s book, so maybe it’s an attempt to cast the discussion in terms the president can appreciate. Because he was just a monkey after all…
Of course, if the WSJ editors, in a conniption over a kerfuffle, were ever to acknowledge the serious nature of outing Plame, they’d be forced to acknowledge that it’s not a kerfuffle at all.
It’s a hurly-burly.
I’m sure the WSJ is working on a HUGE expose of “corrupt nepotism” involved in giving the Secretary of State’s son a job running the nation’s communications regulators, not to mention deciding that the only man in America who could handle the country’s medical issues just happened to be the brother of the White House press secretary.
PS: an excellent source on the “Kerfluffle” business would be the invaluable Slang and Euphemism: A Dictionary of Oaths, Curses, Insults, Ethnic Slurs, Sexual Metaphor…and Related Matters by Richard A. Spears. Last update was in 1991 so recent material is lacking, but indispensible for historical references. š
If the legal push in these cases does come to shove, we may well end up with a Supreme Court pronouncing even more definitively that the First Amendment includes no privilege covering the protection of confidential sources.
There is no need, of course, for the Supreme Court to do this, because it’s acknowledged that the first amendment shield is a limited one.
It’s in the interest of a liberty-lovin’ state to protect its citizens from the excesses of that state, by encouraging a free press to expose those excesses with the aid of those in a position to know– whistleblowers, in other words– and to protect those whistleblowers from retribution by the state, by permitting the press to shield their identities.
Unless, of course, the state is so fundamentally contemptuous of liberty that it attempts to use that shield to protect an act of retribution by that state (outing Plame) against a whistleblower (Joe Wilson)– standing the concept on its head.
Why, it’s downright unamerican.
According to The Big Book of Filth, flapdoodle and wangdoodle are synonyms for…um…something else.
It’s not my book, by the way. Someone gave it to me as a gift, and I was too embarrassed to go to the store and return it. Really. Ahem…guess I’ll be getting back to my Bible studies now.
I am still of the opinion that Novhack’s printing of the name is in itself a violation of the law, since that act revealed the agent’s name to the world, when the “leak” revealed it to only six journalists. Even that leak to six is illegal, too, but I’d love to have both Novhack and the leaker put in the prisoner’s box.
… and if we’re at war, isn’t it treason to have published that name, giving, as it were, aid and comfort to an enemy? However that knowledge was gained, publishing it cannot have been legal.
Ed
Ed, Novak’s a dope to be sure, but he’s not in a position to know the nature of the damage. The criminal act was committed by those who fed this story to Novak. Please, don’t let your eyes be taken off the ball. By way of warning, there will be many more attempts.
I second your suggestion regarding the Wall Street Journal’s epithet of choice. That word is like a sharp steel spike being shoved through my brain. Specifically, the part of my brain that wants to believe that other people are decent, reasonable, and don’t deserve to be punched in the face.