Reading around at TPM and Orcinus today I can see the outlines of a White House defense for the burning of deep-cover CIA agent, Valerie Plame.
First, they will assert that the two senior administration officials (Possibly I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Elliott Abrams) who told Robert Novak that Joseph Wilson’s wife was CIA and had recommended him for the Niger reconaissance job did so without knowing this information was classified. This would reconcile both the rumormill that fingered those two and the nondenial denials that say that they were not involved in and would not condone any “leaks of classified information.”
This would also, presumably, clear them of criminal liability based on their lack of intent.
All other calls from the White House would then fall into the class of Rove’s follow-up notifications to Washington journalists that Wilson’s wife had become “fair game” due to the “inadvertant” leak of her undercover status.
In fact, a close reading of Novak’s original column shows that sentence-by-sentence, Novak first asserted Valerie Plame’s CIA status and in the subsequent sentence claimed that two senior administration officials told him merely that she was involved in the decision to send Joe Wilson to Africa. This makes it possible to assert that Novak may have learned of her status outside of the conversation in which he learned of her presumed involvement in the CIA decision about who to send to confirm or debunk the “yellowcake uranium” claims.
Between these clues, a presidential slip of the tongue, and a new Newsweek article by Michael “I Shot the Sheriff” Isikoff, a picture is taking shape of a White House more interested in identifying the “senior administration official” who tipped off the Washington Post to the referral from CIA to Justice than in outing the top aides who burned the CIA operative.
So there you have it, an innocent chance burning of an agent’s cover (oopsie!), and then “fair game” to go after an administration critic’s family (just politics as usual), capped by the leak to the Washington Post (betrayal!). I can see it now. How long before we hear that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
White House Plame defense shaping up
by
Tags:
Comments
2 responses to “White House Plame defense shaping up”
There is much speculation in this entry. It reminds me of the crazy stuff that used to be said about Clinton and the Mena airport.
An admirable thing about Novak is that he takes his credibility seriously and tries to report only facts, or apologizes when his stories are contradicted, and he tries to minimize his errors.
His articles are not filled with speculation, as this entry is.
>> There is much speculation in this entry.
>> It reminds me of the crazy stuff that
>> used to be said about Clinton and the
>> Mena airport.
>
> How does it remind you of that?
> Does it post some involvement of
> Bush with some criminal activity?
The post was speculative of, yes, criminal activity and its coverup.
It’s no crime to speculate. Speculate on. Have fun. I, for one, tend to dismiss speculation as an indication that someone has taken off their “thinking hat” and put on their “opinion hat” or maybe even their “team spirit hat” (sorry about the hat metaphor).
>> An admirable thing about Novak is
>> that he takes his credibility seriously
>> and triesto report only facts,
>> or apologizes when his stories
>> are contradicted, and he tries to
>> minimize his errors.
>>
>> His articles are not filled with
>> speculation, as this entry is.
>
> I’m open to criticism. I’d like to
> know what parts of the post you find
> objectionable.
> As you know, I am commenting on
> the news. I am not functioning
> here as a professional journalist
> with primary Washington, D.C.,
> source.
It’s really cool of you to gently solicit criticism in this way.
I understand. A blog is just for commentary, entertainment, amusement, edification, letting off steam, etc. Speculation on your part is not damnable, whereas, Novak has to be much more circumspect about what he reports as fact and what he is guessing at. He does both, but I think he tries to distinguish the two. Witness that he guesses that Plame’s cover employer was fictional. He cannot confirm it, and says so. But it’s not an unreasonable guess, as the Washington Post article you linked to on Oct 6 makes clear (see “all-new … brainless blabber”).
That’s also why he seems to regret reporting Plame was an operative when all he could confirm at the time was that she was an analyst. This was minor misreporting, even though it turned out to be true, since he could not have confirmed it when he wrote it.
[BTW, I don’t consider Novak’s columns to be brainless blabber. That seems to me to be a completely ill-fitting description. I think his stuff is quite respectable and intelligently written. It’s also mostly reporting — I try to read every column, it’s one of my favorites].
I re-read your post and I don’t think you explicitly denote your speculation as such. Perhaps it’s the nature of blogging that we write quickly and a bit less carefully. As I said, I mentally shift gears when I see this, but it’s not objectionable to me.
I think what I object to is that you seem to really be pissed off at George Bush, whereas, at this time, I prefer him to the alternatives. Put against any and all of the Democrats running for the nomination, I very much prefer him, despite his flaws. I didn’t vote for him, but I am favorably impressed by him. (I didn’t vote for Gore, either — the thought of Gore as President nauseates me, by virtue of his association with Clinton — but I allow that I might have been favorably surprised by Gore had he won the election).
So, I think what I find objectionable is really just that the slant in your writing is so anti-Bush. It doesn’t gibe with my personal take on the President.
That’s no reason to alter your direction (which frankly seems unlikely), nor is it really a criticism. I think you could do more to elucidate the reasoning behind your animosity toward Bush, Arnold and all things Republican. I generally take it as the mark of an open mind when one is willing to explain one’s thinking rather than merely cast aspersions (which really seems to be the thrust of this post and the blog in general, or am I reading it wrong?).
Well, I could go on for a thousand more words explaining why I have become alienated from the Democrats, but I doubt you’d want such seditious thoughts filling up your blog. ;-) Besides, I’ve strayed off topic as it is.