It has been interesting to look at how much media coverage the outing of a covert CIA agent received. Up until her hearing, where she declared under oath and Senator Henry Waxman opened the hearing by declaring she was covert, we have been told she wasn't covert. She was just classified... and that makes it okay that Cheney, Bush and Rove decided to ruin her cover. Except now there are declarative words-- under oath-- that she had made trips overseas within the last 5 years that were secret. She was, by the law, covert.
Oh yes, Victoria Toensing, who (as deputy assistant to the attorney general in 1982) helped write a law legally deciding who was covert, testified next that Plame was not. Toensing said she had not asked the CIA or Plame about her status (because she is more of an expert than the CIA-- plus from other things she's written she thinks they are major goof ups). She knew this based on her own intent-- nobody is covert who doesn't live overseas under a secret identity. Living here and traveling overseas to spy does not qualify. So if any enemies want to know who is a spy, they can now be sure nobody is spying who isn't living overseas.
One might reasonably ask why the Reagan administration wanted to limit the definition of being covert to living overseas (if they did), but if you actually read the law, it defines covert as anyone has been engaged in secret work overseas. That means, to my un-legal mind, that the little Bush attack dog, who obviously hopes for some bones for what she has been doing, was trying to parse out the truth and get her owners slack for assuming they didn't out an actual agent. Could she be trying to pad her retirement by more lucrative jobs in her senior years (which from what she looks like are coming soon)?
So, back to the issue, let's see what did these loyal, patriotic leaders accomplish by outing Valerie Plame? In the minds of those who believe only what the flakes at Fox say, it gave them reassurance that everything the Bush people had done was okay.
Can you imagine the uproar if it had been the Clinton administration who had done this to a CIA agent? Accusations at Fox would have flown out that it was treason, that those doing it wanted to destroy our intelligence network because they hate spies. There would have been talk of impeachment-- with good reason. There should be now. A year ago, I never thought Bush or Cheney should be impeached but that's because who had any idea how low they had actually sunk, how little real concern they had for this country. What kind of damage can they continue to do while they are in power? Impeachment might slow down their destruction although maybe not.
Nobody who loves this country would do what these men did. Patriots would put the good of the nation ahead of their own partisan or personal egos, but that isn't what happened. They either didn't bother to find out about her status or knew if they didn't find out, they had an out-- in case anybody even cared.
There was nobody who has cared for the years after this happened-- except the legal system and it wasn't about what happened but only about lies to the courts and FBI agents. Because of Republican control of the House and Senate until 2006, this like so much else, has been ignored. This was Plame's first chance to testify as to her status and responsibilities. (In case you didn't hear about it, she was investigating weapons proliferation... minor issue in these days of terrorists, right?)
It's amazing. This is the party that loves our country most and yet nobody in it wanted to find out what Valerie Plame actually did. Republicans didn't care that someone deliberately outed her in either revenge or a cover-up because it was their own party. It was their power. These so-called patriots were willing to shove it under the rug, not care that along with Plame, anybody working at her dummy company was also outed, that years of investigations might have been endangered, not to mention the agents working over there. What kind of people are Cheney, Bush and Rove? Whose side are they actually on?
And back to that original question about how much coverage did all this receive? Not much from what I have seen. The media liked the story of a leading general who said homosexuality was immoral and the one about US Attorneys being fired, which even if Bush was trying to bury cases or punish those who had prosecuted Republicans, even then, Bush had the legal authority to fire... legal if not moral.
I have even read a few from the main media that said with derogatory disgust-- the reason the Plame case stayed alive was because of bloggers. How revolting. You mean a free media like blogging, where anybody can write what they choose (if they don't mind a few death threats) that it's the only place people were concerned with what our federal government might be up to? Amazing.
9 comments:
I am going to have do some research on this issue. I have not really studyied it much because I thought it was mostly politics as usual, but now that I read your report it gives me pause.
I heard Novak say that it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA.
Oh and Clinton did do something similar. They reviewed the FBI files of over 200 Republican political contributors at the Whitehouse. But that was quickly swept under the carpet.
Thanks to the Patriot Act, Bush can do any and all of that and not even get into trouble as Clinton did. Clinton though did not out one of our own spies... As for Novak. What else would he say? That he outed a spy and is proud of it? She said it was not common knowledge. Do you have reason to trust Novak with anything? Waxman read a statement at the start which he said was okayed by the CIA. She was still covert at the time Novak wrote his piece. Did Novak have one good reason to do what he did other than following the bidding of the Bushies? She also said under oath that she was not the one who recommended her husband for the mission. He had done other things. She was asked to write a memo to him but it was someone else's idea. This was under oath. You think she'd lie about it and risk jail?
Eeeek! I think I know more about what is going on from you than I do from the news itself. Where are the primary sites/sources you get your information from? Yesterday's Los Angeles Times had this story on political blogging: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blogs17mar17,1,6990783.story
Blogging is really a more powerful tool these days than anybody gives it credit for.
I read a lot of newspapers online (conservative and liberal), do searches for information (like about Toensing who I had never heard of before), read a couple of political blogs (but I always double check them) and my pieces are commentary. I try to find the facts but in most cases, and the Plame case is definitely one of those, there are two sides out there and we have to decide who we believe. As commentary, I feel I have the right to make that choice. Journalism would be harder
Is lying to Congress really a jailable crime any more? Just kidding. I dont know I listened to some of her testimony and she sounded like she is playing politics as much as the rest of them. I also read the AP timeline of the entire case. It looks like Richard Armitedge is the one who revealed her covert status. Has anything happened to him?
It's against the law to lie to congress under oath; so yes, you can pay a criminal penalty. It depends when you go there if it's under oath. She was.
At least Armitage didn't publish it. He had a big mouth and told Novak. Several revealed it at the same time. It's Novak who published it. Armitage is evidently a gossip and it basically says he never guessed she was covert. Somebody might have told him knowing he was someone who liked spilling all he knew. He didn't expect Novak to publish it either. It was what he thought was just a friendly conversation. He was wrong to put it out-- Newsweek story on the Armitage Plame connection.
As for me, I'd be fine with charging them all for doing it.. including him. A guy like that doesn't deserve to be in powerful positions, but the law is that you can't be charged if you didn't know. I bet Cheney knew... the rest may not have
Sadly, I think we're in a time when our idea of objective journalism no longer exists... or, at best, is severely challenged by the corporate ownership and control of mainstream media. If we don't learn to speak for ourselves no one is going to speak for us.
We watched the hearing on CSpan. It was quite riveting. Victoria Toensing has been around quite a while. She and her husband Joe DiGenova (a former US Attorney from the 80s) definitely convey the Republican talking points. I thought Valerie Plame did a fantastic job. I don't think she had a political agenda when she was a spy for our country. I do think she has been politicized by this administration because it serves their purpose to discredit her.
Thanks Rain That Newsweek article is one that I had read over the weekend when I was checking this mess out.
Post a Comment