Semi-retired New York Times columnist William Safire makes a guest appearance today with a column ostensibly in defense of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. Instead, we’re treated to the kind of distortions that readers have come to expect from Safire.
Indeed, instead of making the case for journalists protecting anonymous sources, Safire explains his unusual beliefs about why the Valerie Plame scandal is much ado about nothing. True to form, Safire’s misstatements and half-truths are overwhelming.
The Supreme Court has just flinched from its responsibility to stop the unjust jailing of two journalists — not charged with any wrongdoing — by a runaway prosecutor who will go to any lengths to use the government’s contempt power to force them to betray their confidential sources.
Did Ken Starr recently get named to the Plame case? Safire’s proof that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, widely respected in the legal community, is on some kind of witch hunt is that he wants to talk to some reporters about their contacts with the administration. One can argue whether journalists should have some kind of shield against testifying in a case like this, but to call Fitzgerald a “runaway prosecutor” is absurd.
The case was about the “outing” of an agent — supposedly covert, but working openly at C.I.A. headquarters — in Robert Novak’s column two years ago by unnamed administration officials angry at her husband’s prewar Iraq criticism.
Plame was a covert CIA specialist on weapons of mass destruction. Her contacts in the Middle East were put in jeopardy by a White House leak and a Novak column. There was nothing “supposed” about it.
To show its purity, the Bush Justice Department appointed a special counsel to find any violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Showing purity had nothing to do with it. The CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate, there was clear evidence of wrongdoing, so a special counsel was named. It’s not like Bush and/or Ashcroft were proactive about it.
Evidently no such serious crime took place.
Safire has no way of knowing if that’s true. In fact, many observers believe, based on the way in which the investigation has progressed, that Fitzgerald may be pursuing perjury and/or obstruction of justice charges against administration officials and/or journalists. We don’t know, and neither does Safire.
After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October.
What a ridiculous cheap shot. Fitzgerald was charged with the task of investigating a felony involving multiple White House aides exposing the identity of a CIA agent. Yes, that takes time and money. It’s as if Safire is arguing, “If we investigate White House wrongdoing, the terrorists win.” The man is practically a parody of himself.
What evidence of serious crime does he have that makes the testimony of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine so urgent? We don’t know — eight pages of his contempt demand are secret — but some legal minds think he is falling back on the Martha Stewart Theory of Prosecution. That is: if the underlying crime has not been committed, justify the investigation by indicting a big name for giving false information.
More baseless, and largely nonsensical, speculation. If Fitzgerald is pursuing perjury and/or obstruction of justice charges, Cooper’s and Miller’s conversations may be significant. And more importantly, if Fitzgerald was looking to indict “a big name,” why would be going after Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper? In what universe are they famous?
Oddly, I think Safire’s ridiculous accusations about the Plame scandal may be a good sign. If he’s is so anxious to smear Fitzgerald and dismiss the seriousness of the crime, Safire may actually be nervous about the potential this controversy has to further erode support for the Bush presidency.
Safire’s protestations notwithstanding, this one’s not over yet.