Well Here it is, the story (as recounted by crack “Pravda” stenographers Mike Allen and Dana Priest) that’s got Blogistan all atwitter. Even the usually unflappableJosh Marshall is flapping like a hummingbird.
But what’s going on here exactly? Is this THE Scandal — the Big Break everyone’s been eagerly anticipating that will bust BushCo. wide open? Far too early to tell. More important — is this story really about BushCo. at all ?
And who, praytell, would these “government sources” be?
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative’s identity is a violation of federal law.
The officer’s name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.”
Got that now? Novak was told by two (count’em) “senior administration officials.”
He knows their names.
“Pravda’s” editors know their names.
We don’t — and they’re not about to tell us.
Can we have a bit of clarity here? Are we talking about the same two officials, or were there two other officials who spoke to these six (count ‘em) “Washington Journalists.”
Alright now class, how many Beltway Whores, and the pimps they work for, know about this?
12? 24? The sky’s the limit, really.
Or more to the point the limit is anyone in the civilian (ie. non media) population. We’re not supposed to know. We’re supposed to just sit around guessing like a pack of idiot children.
“Alleged”? You know perfectly well that there was a leak — and you know perfectly well who leaked. So why the “alleged”? Don’t want to upset Karl Rove more than absolutely necessary, right?
What “reporter”? What “source”? The cast of characters is growing by leaps and bounds.
Don’t you just love that? No, not the “fair game” part — we all know we’re dealing with lower life forms. I’m talking about “a source said reporters quoted a leaker.” It’s like a game of “Twister,” isn’t it?
So is there any reason we should believe what this official claims?
Or maybe “appears to claim” would be the proper locution.
Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife’s occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush’s senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest to him ‘to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.’ “
A lovely thought, I must admit.
McClellan, who Rove had speak for him, said of Wilson’s comments: ‘It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true.’ McClellan was asked about Wilson’s charge at a White House briefing Sept. 16 and said the accusation is ‘totally ridiculous.’ “
Hardly an unexpected response. Likewise Miz Condi “Don’t know nothin’ ’bout CIA leaks” — one of a long list of things this top administration advisor claims not to know about.
An intelligence official said Tenet ‘doesn’t like leaks.’ “
“An intelligence official”?
No, there’s no point in asking who.
Tenet issued a statement taking responsibility for the CIA’s approval of the address before it was delivered, but made clear the CIA had earlier warned the White House not to use the allegations about uranium ore. After an ensuing rush of leaks over White House handling of intelligence, Bush’s aides said they believed in retrospect it had been a political mistake to blame Tenet.
The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.
Members of the administration, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have been harshly critical of unauthorized leakers, and White House spokesmen are often dismissive of questions about news reports based on unnamed sources.”
Are they really? But since “Pravda” knows who the leakers are, shouldn’t they be in a position to tell us if the administration is “shading the truth” as they say in the Beltway?
Neat move, Karl. Change the subject. Bait and switch.
When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson’s wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name ‘for security reasons,’ according to one CIA official.”
And this last-mentioned CIA official was speaking to. . . .whom?
Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson’s trip to Niger and his wife’s role in it. ‘They said it’s doubtful she’ll ever again have a foreign assignment,’ he said. ‘They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn’t use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it.’
After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said.
The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame’s name.”
Well that’s a relief. But what about the other names? I lost count as to how many people are involved in this story some time ago.
Wilson said he believes an inquiry from Cheney’s office launched his eight-day mission to Niger in February 2002 to check the uranium claim, which turned out to be based at least partly on forged documents. ‘The way it was briefed to me was that the office of the vice president had expressed an interest in a report covering uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger,’ Wilson said in a telephone interview yesterday.
He said that if Novak’s account is accurate, the leak was part of ‘a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward.’
Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson’s report about Niger.”
And what provoked such “discomfort”?
No shit, sherlock.
In what way?
Well, like so many things that’s simply not for us to know. We’re supposed to trust that our famous and allegedly “free press” will tell us everything.
And of course they don’t.
Everybody knows the drill. Reporters are supposed to be able to quote from unnamed sources all the time, at will.
You see in our famous allegedly “free” press people with important information often can’t supply their names for fear of retaliation on the part of other parties. So we’re supposed to trust the judgement of the reporters and the wisdom of their editors in denying us the “who” of the “what, where and why.” And we’re all supposed to be absolutely delighted about this. There was even an episode of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” in which Our Mary went to jail rather than disclose an anonymous source.
How noble, and what a crock.
Anonymous sources are a con game by which the Powers That Be get to control the press. And the press, in exchange, gets to be part of the power structure. No wonder a reporter for NBC news is married to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. No wonder a “journalist” for the PBS “News Hour” is such a close, close, close friend of Miz Condi’s.
No wonder about any of this in fact.
Ending the World on Time
Excerpt: Whenever I return from the cabin I am constantly amazed that the world has not ended. You could say I look forward to that eventual day. Of course, the paradox is I may not even notice the world had ended….
Weblog: Michael McInnis’ Grouchland
Tracked: September 29, 2003 04:50 PM