The latest twists and turns

The New York Times’ Douglas Jehl had what can only be described as a complicated story about the Plame scandal today, but, after reading it twice, I think there are some key details in it.

Specifically, the number of leakers who spread classified information about an undercover CIA agent seems to be growing. Whereas the conventional wisdom said there were two (Rove and Libby), there now appear to be three.

In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband’s mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.

The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.

In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, “an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention” to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV “because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction.” […]

Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus’s own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.

In addition to the new idea of a third leaker, Pincus’ experience also suggests, as Mark Kleiman noted, that the Bush gang was proactively getting the word out to as large a number of reporters as possible about Plame. They were, in other words, indiscriminate when leaking classified information.

We’ve heard hints about this before, but the more recent GOP claim — reporters told the Bush gang about Plame, not the other way around — looks increasingly ridiculous.

Mr. Pincus’s most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.

Pincus knows who his source is and knows the source leaked classified information. This same source told prosecutors that he or she talked to Pincus, which led Pincus to talk about his conversation with the grand jury. And yet Pincus still won’t tell any of us about his source.

It’s only a matter of time…

But when, gosh darn it all! In the meantime, the Repugs are managing to get bills through. (CAFTA, Energy Bill *added 1.5 bonus by Delay, etc.).

While not saying ‘yay’/’nay’ to Roberts (need more info), I suppose as long as it (the arrival at watershed) occurs prior to the confirmation, then any political capital/twisting that Bush & his cohorts could expend would be gone.

  • The so-called “jounalist-source privilege” to not reveal their sources, even if or when codified at the federal level, would NEVER extend to such a a point that Cooper, Miller, now Pincus, and (most) all of their self-serving apologists in the media bleat repeatedly in the CCCP: the journalists will never be allowed to shield criminals whose very use of the media was a part or element of the crime — or as with the disclosure of the classified Plame information, THE CRIME ITSELF!!

    Should there be a journalist-source privilege to sheild their sources? Of course; no one seriously disputes that. But any similar privilege, such as with doctor-patient or attorney-client, is not absolute — it must and does give way to the greater public good. To protect whistleblowers, such as Deep Throat, the privilege will and should apply. But where the source uses the journalist as (maybe) an unwitting accessory to the crime, then no, the need for keeping national security secrets, and apprehending criminals, outweighs any “loyalty” the journalist might otherwise owe to the source.

    I think it was Editor & Publisher that ran an op-ed recently about three elements that are necessary to the creation of a true “journalist-source” situation giving rise to a privilege for a PARTICULAR story. Just because a person has been a “source” in the past doesn’t make him/her a source forevermore; it only applies where there is a “news-worthy” piece of information imparted by the source; there is a need to keep the source secret, as it will be damaging to the source if his/her identity is revealed; and the public interest is served should the journalist reveal the information to the public. That situation does not apply to Plame, as revealing her identity as a CIA operative was actually NOT in the public’s best interest.

    Finally, why these “journalists” continue to honor over and over again that so-called “anonymous” sources, who use the journalists as dupes to further the source’s personal aims — whether political or otherwise — instead of “burning” the source by publicly revealing the source’s deception, is beyond me. Used to be “3 big lies” that most people were well aware of, “The check is in the mail; I’ll love you in the morning; and I won’t c___ in your mouth.” I guess the media has added a fourth for themselves, “I believe what you, my source, tell me is the truth, even though you’ve lied to me at least a thousand times before.” Uh Huh. Suuurrrre.

    As Bush said, …”Fool me once…won’t get fooled again.” Guess these “journalists” really are as stupid as we believe them to be!!

  • Comments are closed.