There haven’t been any major updates lately on the investigation into the Plame Game scandal, but I’ve noticed that a handful of conservative outlets are still trying to undercut the seriousness of the controversy. I may be biased, but I’m finding these criticisms terribly unpersuasive.
First up is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is deeply concerned about the fate of Robert Novak.
It’s called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and it was passed in 1982 to stop renegade CIA officers such as Philip Agee and his allies from exposing covert U.S. intelligence agents overseas. That law warrants closer reading today, especially by those journalists who don’t seem to understand the First Amendment implications of egging on prosecutors pursuing the sources of a fellow newspaperman.
The easiest conclusion from reading this law is that Mr. Novak didn’t violate it. In the only section (Title 50, Section 421 of the U.S. Code) that deals with non-officials, the act limits prosecution to those who expose agents “in the course of a pattern of activities” they had reason to believe would undermine U.S. foreign intelligence activities. That’s because this was a law written with such anti-intelligence publications as CounterSpy and the Covert Action Information Bulletin in mind.
If all of this seems terribly irrelevant to determining which White House officials were responsible for releasing the name of an undercover CIA agent to at least six DC reporters, then we’re on the same page. The WSJ is terribly troubled by the possibility that Novak may face charges in connection with the crime, and goes to great lengths to argue that he didn’t violate the “Intelligence Identities Protection Act.” All of this entirely secondary to the real question: Who outed Valerie Plame? On this, the WSJ is passively disinterested. What a shock.
The WSJ added:
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.
This is completely bizarre and obviously the latest effort to distract attention from the real scandal here.
The WSJ, for some unexplained reason, still buys the long-discredited notion that Plame had something to do with Joseph Wilson being sent to Niger to investigate the uranium cake claim. The press hasn’t been “uninquisitive” (which isn’t actually a word) about this; reporters have discovered that the claim simply has no merit. Why the Journal continues to even consider this as a serious question is a mystery. I suspect the editorial writers are uncomfortable with addressing the fact that unidentified felons are serving in the White House, so the paper is doing its best to change the subject. It’s not working.
Alas, the WSJ isn’t the only one missing the point. Matthew Yglesias noted that LA Times columnist Max Boot offered a similarly misguided take on the Plame Game last week, trying to attack Joseph Wilson’s credibility, which has been Karl Rove’s plan all along. Boot said:
Wilson is now notorious as a world-class publicity hound who makes Paris Hilton look meek by comparison. Since l’affaire Plame broke last summer, Wilson has been making paid speeches denouncing the president, writing a memoir and even appearing with his wife in a Vanity Fair photo spread.
Wilson is motivated by more than a desire for fame and fortune. He’s also an ideologue. On March 3, 2003 — long before the contretemps over his wife — he was denouncing the invasion of Iraq in the Nation, a leftist magazine. He claimed that “the underlying objective of this war is the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations.” Since then, Wilson has emerged as an active Democrat who has advised John Kerry on foreign policy. He was quoted last year explaining what he’s up to: “Neoconservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both.”
It’s as if Bush’s lackeys haven’t been paying attention for the last year. Boot can accuse Wilson of everything under the sun, prove his motives impure, and label him a “publicity hound,” but none of this matters. Not even a little.
Let me say this slowly in case Boot is reading: At least two White House officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent out of spite. That’s illegal and it undermines our national security.
It simply doesn’t matter what they throw at Wilson — he’s not relevant to this controversy, except to explain why White House officials committed their crime in the first place.
It’s so simple, it’s scary. Every tangential and irrelevant question is discredited with a simple, four word response. The WSJ believes Novak shouldn’t be charged with a crime. Who outed Valerie Plame? Reporters aren’t looking into charges of nepotism. Who outed Valerie Plame? Joe Wilson likes to go on TV. Who outed Valerie Plame?
See how easy this is?