« Make A Joyful Noise Unto The Lord, All Ye Lands | Main | Something For Everyone »
August 28, 2006
NY TimesWatch: The Agony! The Irony!
Sacre bleu! Can anything be more delicious than watching L'Affaire Plame unravel? Unless, perhaps, it would be watching the New York Times twisting in the wind?
At the beginning of this month we reminded the readership of the Times' perfidy in this sordid affair: how, when Val Plame's "secret" identity first came out, the Times was in the vanguard of those clamoring for a special prosecutor. How they demanded Robert Novak reveal his source, though journalists from time immemorial have claimed the right to shield their sources from scrutiny, citing a non-existent federal shield law.
How they howled about the sanctity of protecting classified information (!) and the importance of the IIPA - a law the Times itself had campaigned against on the grounds that it was "dangerously unconstitutional" and would likely lead to frivolous prosecutions. Oh the humanity!
But the Times was stern in the face of those who pleaded for leniency... that was, until some of its own journalists were (predictably enough) caught in the crosshairs of Patrick Fitzgerald's out of control investigation.
Now that the long list of actors who seem to have "forgotten" their lines in the feel-good hit of the season just keeps growing and growing, of course, the Times seems to feel that clemancy should be extended.... to everyone but Scooter Libby, that is: the only person in this whole theater of the absurd who is not to be forgiven for having an atrociously bad memory. Let's review the cast of characters.
First there's Judy Miller. It took Dame Judy 85 days of funneling quarters into the Snickers machine in the Alexandria detention center to suddenly "remember" a prior meeting with Scooter Libby. Seems La Miller squirrelled the evidence away on a notebook she'd somehow also "forgotten" during earlier questioning. (Hmmm... squirrelled... could it have been all those nuts?). The upshot of this modern-day medical miracle was an indictment for Herr Libby and a complete whitewashing of Ms. Miller's history of blowing federal terrorism investigations.
Then there's Carl Woodward, who for two years was just "too busy" to drop by the courthouse and testify. We know how that is, don't we? Civic duty can be so inconvenient and there again, one keeps forgetting. Update: Clarice corrected me here in the comments section, for which I thank her. I don't want to be unfair. I had based my criticism on an article I read sometime back, Woodward's own statement that he didn't want to become embroiled in the investigation because he was writing a book. I was unaware of this, and am happy to be able to provide more information:
...one small correction in defense of Woodward. He has said he tried in 2004 to get a waiver from his source to speak to the prosecutor about the investigation and that his source (surely Armitage) refused. When he read Fitz' presser saying Libby had to be prosecutor because he was the first to leak, he called his source and said he had to go talk to Fitz.That makes Woodward look better, and Armitage look worse. Because only after he knew that Woodward was going to tell, did he disclose the conversation to Fitz.
I agree with Tom Maguire BTW that Armitage probably spoke to Miller and others as well and never revealed this to the prosecutor nor granted them waivers to disclose this to him.
Finally we come to that fateful day when Robert Novak published those words which were to come to haunt the White House:
In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."
If this is true, it would seem to be something of a bombshell, would it not? And for more reasons than one. From an exerpt in Tom Maguire's post:
Though Armitage's role as Novak's primary source has been a subject of speculation, the case is now closed. Our sources for this are three government officials who spoke to us confidentially and who had direct knowledge of Armitage's conversation with Novak. Carl Ford Jr., who was head of the State Department's intelligence branch at the time, told us--on the record--that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."
Why didn't Armitage come forward earlier? And more importantly, why didn't Powell come forward publicly? And it would seem that this has been something of an open secret for some time now within the press community. As I noted back in March, just as Val Plame's "secret identity" was common knowledge on the Georgetown dinner circuit, Richard Armitage's leaker status seems to have been something of an open secret within the press community. So why, with all the talk of transparency, hasn't someone come forward to clear Scooter Libby before now?
As Clarice Feldman notes, this raises some very interesting questions about just what Patrick Fitzgerald has been doing with our tax dollars for two years:
Tom seems as well to suggest that Armitage may have been blabbing not only to Woodward and Novak but as well to Andrea Mitchell and others.This certainly is not the first instance of someone considering protecting his own-um, skin-by keeping silent and letting others bear the cost of a political vendetta, as the Plame case was. But Armitage’s silence was inexplicable and perfidious.
Had he spoken out publicly immediately, could there have been a reason for the press to have demanded the appointment of the feckless special prosecutor?
Had he spoken out publicly, could Fitzgerald have represented to the Court of Appeals that Judith Miller had critical information and had to be forced to testify or jailed for contempt?(And created a precedent, I might add, ironically causing never ending problems for the press.)
Had he spoken out earlier could the prosecutor have had any reason to compel Rove and Libby’s repeated grand jury appearances all of which occurred well after the prosecutor knew they were not the sources of the leak?
Had he spoken out earlier would Fitzgerald have had the nerve to indict Libby and carry out his outrageous press conference performance?
Had he spoken out earlier could anyone have missed the tensions between the Department of State and the White House which was certainly the basis of innumerable anonymously sourced stories harmful to the white House?
Had he spoken out earlier could there have been any justification of the millions spent pillorying the Administration, besetting staffers and officials with distractions and legal costs, and disrupting its work as the prosecution continued?
I’m no innocent in the ways of Washington, but it seems to me that this was a particularly eggregious case of self-serving, gutless conduct.
Clarice is dead on in my opinion. I have said before that the real crime here was never investigated: a shameless attempt to meddle in and undermine our foreign policy by a disaffected group within the CIA, quite possibly aided and abetted (if only by negligent inaction where there was a clear duty to come forward) by a sympathetic element at State. It's long past time to drain the swamp.
A little straight talk would be amusing for a change. But at this point it might be more shock than the system can withstand.
Posted by Cassandra at August 28, 2006 07:24 AM
Comments
Hold on a second there! Armitage wasn't the Novak leaker! I was. He's just trying to take attention away from my soon-to-be-published Washington insider tell-all: "Delusion: The Inside Story About How I Changed the Course of History All by Myself."
Posted by: spd rdr at August 28, 2006 10:07 AM
I have no bone to pick with your blog but one small correction in defense of Woodward. He has said he tried in 2004 to get a waiver from his source to speak to the prosecutor about the investigation and that his source (surely Armitage) refused. When he read Fitz' presser saying Libby had to be prosecutor because he was the first to leak, he called his source and said he had to go talk to Fitz.
That makes Woodward look better, and Armitage look worse. Because only after he knew that Woodward was going to tell, did he disclose the conversation to Fitz.
I agree with Tom Maguire BTW that Armitage probably spoke to Miller and others as well and never revealed this to the prosecutor nor granted them waivers to disclose this to him.
Posted by: clarice at August 28, 2006 01:44 PM
I did not know that, Clarice - I will put a correction in the text. Thanks so much for the information.
That's good to know. I have been so disgusted with so many of the actors in this affair. My statement that he was "too busy" was based on his own remarks earlier this year that he was caught up in a book deal and if he'd had to testify it would have been too time consuming. That really, really frosted me. If he did indeed make the attempt then I'm being unfair to him, but I was only aware of the reason he gave for not having come forward sooner.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 01:52 PM
[correction:'Had to be prosecutED'}
Posted by: clarice at August 28, 2006 01:53 PM
I guess the other thing that still bothers me is, what is this all this 'waiver' business? There still is no federal shield law and if a law was broken (of course we all know it wasn't, but that's beside the point when there is a federal investigation into whether a law has been broken - we don't get to selectively obstruct grand juries in the commission of their duties) then they have a duty to cooperate with the special prosecutor. A person cannot be bound by an illegal promise.
Or perhaps they can, but they must pay the price for having made a promise that they knew at the time broke the law. I just have no patience with this whole business of pretending these journalists are shielding whistleblowers when in fact the subject of this investigation is, by definition, if guilty, not a whistleblower but the subject of a criminal investigation: the very type of person NOT meant to be shielded by whistleblower statutes.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 01:58 PM
What? No oinkers have shown up yet?
First!
[deleted]
Naw, it woulda just been mean.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at August 28, 2006 01:59 PM
Sorry for the rant. I am just so tired of the endless prevarication :D I'm just a former housewife with a blog, but even I have limits.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 02:00 PM
No, it would have been funny. The oink cadre must be slipping, John me lad. You could have posted it, but maybe it's better you didn't.
I knew someone would get it :D No one ever said you weren't sharp enough to cut yourself on.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 02:10 PM
So, here's the point if I see if your head explodes:
How does this ruling fit in to this whole thing? Do FISA courts now have jurisdiction over Plame-style cases? Is the New York Times subject to surveillance of that type? If so -- if it's lawful under FISA -- what does that mean for cases related to war, assuming the President's authority to conduct wartime surveillance without FISA court oversight is upheld on appeal (as seems likely, given the combination of a defensible legal position by the executive with a judge's unreported conflict of interests)?
Posted by: Grim at August 28, 2006 02:50 PM
Grim:
The Geneva Convention (not to mention the Army Field Manual) prohibits the torture of Blog Princesses.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 03:10 PM
Oh, come on. It's got everything: FISA, warrantless searches and surveillance, and the total redefinition of the FISA law, so that 'agents of a foreign power' now need not have any connection to any foreign power, simply by judicial fiat! The FBI agent referenced says not to worry about the press, because it's only about classification as defined by the Espionage Act.
No problem! There's a whole NYT/Espionage-Act argument that gets thrown into the blender too! Ha ha! Whee!
It's a beautiful thing -- as nicely shaped a charge as I've ever seen a judicial legislator detonate. I wonder if he knows how well he shaped it or, as seems more likely, he just accidentally blew a major hole in a levee without realizing there was an ocean on the other side.
Posted by: Grim at August 28, 2006 03:19 PM
Note: Bob Woodward/Carl Bernstein.
"Carl Woodward" is probably an intersting guy (somewhere), but does not figure in big things at the Washington Post. :)
Kidding aside, Cass, isn't this about the weirdest thing ever? And how much did Colin Powell know about his bud Armitage's indiscretions? Maybe that's why he (and Armitage) quit after the 2004 election; his credibility with the President and Cabinet were shot.
I used to like Armitage, but this makes him look like a total crapweasel. Libby, Rove and Cheney were certainly hung out to dry for three years. Will the truth ever come out in the Big Media? Millions of Americans have a total misperception of this whole business, which I think was the purpose, after all!
And what about Brett Barboursville?
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at August 28, 2006 04:57 PM
Heh, Cassie me lassie, we Army folk are *famous* for not following our own doctrine.
Keeps 'em guessing.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at August 28, 2006 05:15 PM
Yet another reason (at the risk of being annoying) that Mr. Powell's stock is at a low ebb with me. There are several instances where I have seen him say one thing and do another. He can do that if he wants to, but I am not going to go on buying into the "he is the soul of integrity" argument while watching him do it.
Grim, stop trying to make me think. And I am not sure I buy into the total redefinition of FISA but I can't read up on it now. I will though.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 05:18 PM
I should have known it would be you anyway.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 05:22 PM
On a lighter note, after reading Tom Macguire's blog, I realized that Sir Richard is part of McCain's "Straight Talk Express", i.e., part of his foreign policy advisor team.
There are rich veins of irony to be mined here.
Heh.
Giuliani and Romney, 2008. Be there.
Aloha!
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at August 28, 2006 05:42 PM
Believe me, I was trying to write three posts simultaneously this morning and strangely enough this was the last one I started (at the last minute). That partially explains its complete and utter suckitude.
I had to bag the other two because my head was just spinning so.
I have been wrestling with some fairly major ideas lately but have not had any time to think. That doesn't lend itself to coherent writing, and then yesterday was kind of a sad day and then we had people over most of the day and then I was digging large holes in the dirt in the afternoon and now I am very sore.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 05:48 PM
I wish I had had time to wade into the delicious well of McCain schadenfreude, though. But Clarice did such a nice job it seemed overkill.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 28, 2006 05:50 PM
I'm sorry I forgot to check back earlier. You have an interesting point about the shield law. But the reporters involved refused to testify absent a waiver from their sources. Of course, they could be jailed and forced to testify any way, but Rove and Libby did give waivers. Woodward did not want to go to the prosecutor without one and Armitage twice refused to give him one. After Fitz' outrageous presser in which he charged Libby with being the "first" to tell a reporter, Woodward felt compelled to set the record straight, called Armitage again and then Armitage relented--BUT ONLY for testimony before the investigation, not for public disclosure (the same restriction he placed on Novak).
The NYT just now has an online article indicating Armitage has three years too late admitted he was Novak's source.
Investors Business Daily has a good article just up calling Fitzgerald a liar. Hitchens has a great piece up too accusing Tenet, Powell and Armitage of perfidy.
Posted by: clarice at August 29, 2006 11:41 PM
Clarice, I was pleased you stopped by in the first place! :)
We're all busy. This 'waiver' business just sticks in my craw. By repeating it over and over again in the daily fishwrap the media have gotten some traction for the argument but legally it's a total non-starter, at least in federal court.
I'm not an attorney, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that this relieves them of their legal duty. The only reason they keep getting away with it is that they keep playing 1st Amendment chicken with the courts and the courts keep blinking. People are such sheep.
If the Hitchens piece is the one that was in Slate yesterday, I saw it and it was excellent. Thanks for the other tips. I was tied up (not physically, mind you) in con calls after work yesterday evening so I couldn't even do any reading last night. So I'll have to try to catch up this morning.
Posted by: Casserole at August 30, 2006 06:02 AM