Plame and Watergate, The Difference Is All In Media Perception

[Annie]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/852rwufk.asp

EARLIER THIS SPRING the journalistic world celebrated the most famous of all anonymous sources, Deep Throat. More than three decades after he inadvertently began the Age of Anonymous Sourcing, Mark Felt became the toast of media circles when he acknowledged his role in Watergate, the scandal that broke the presidency and gave birth to the modern era of investigative journalism.

The media, stung by recent debacles like the Killian memos at CBS and the ignominious departure of Eason Jordan, toasted Felt as a true American hero. Newsweek had just turned an anonymously-sourced and ultimately false story about Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay into wild Muslim riots that killed 17 people, but reporters suddenly remembered how anonymous sources could help bring out truth and justice and hold the powerful accountable. Kurt Anderson informed us that "Journalism exists to get us closer to all sorts of truth, and anonymous sources are essential to the endeavor. Even now, they provide more social benefit than they extract in moral costs." Woodward himself told the Wall Street Journal that, fearing a "secret government," he thinks the press doesn't make enough use of anonymous sources.

Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote just last month that Mark Felt's nameless assistance to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein gave Americans a "chance to learn just how perverse were the values that infected the Nixon White House." He scolded Chuck Colson and Pat Buchanan for pointing out that Felt broke the law and claimed that they provide an example of why journalists have to have access to anonymous sourcing:

In these comments, Americans born in the 1970s, '80s and '90s can learn everything they need to know about the dangerous delusions of the Nixon era. The mind-set that created enemies lists, the blind loyalty to a deeply flawed individual, the twisting of historical fact to turn villains into heroes and heroes into villains--they are all there.

And yet, over the past week, we have an example of an anonymous source who warned a reporter about an abuse of power in a secretive government agency, involving an operative who deliberately spread misinformation about intelligence work--and the press has spent their energy castigating him for his efforts. The efforts to blame Karl Rove for the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame in a Robert Novak column is hypocrisy from the same media that lauded an FBI agent for leaking material to the Washington Post to stop an abuse of power three decades ago.

Last week, Matt Cooper of Time testified that he spoke with Karl Rove on "double super secret background" shortly after an editorial written by Ambassador Joseph Wilson appeared in the New York Times. Wilson wrote that he had been sent to Niger based on a request from Vice President Dick Cheney to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium, banned in the sanctions placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. Attempts by Saddam to acquire nuclear material would suggest that Saddam planned on rebuilding his WMD programs. Wilson claimed in his editorial that he had found no evidence of such an effort and that President George W. Bush had lied in his State of the Union speech by claiming Saddam had tried to buy the material.

Cooper called Rove--not the other way around--days after its publication, and after discussing an unrelated issue, asked him about the Wilson report. After ensuring that the conversation would remain confidential, Rove warned Cooper not to let his magazine get "too far out on Wilson." He told the reporter that Wilson, despite his claims, did not get authorization for the Niger trip from Cheney or CIA Director George Tenet, but instead got the assignment from his wife, who "apparently worked at the agency on WMD."

As it turns out, Rove gave Cooper a good tip. Not only did Wilson misrepresent the nature of his selection for the Niger mission, he lied about what he found there, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later determined:

...

Sounds just like Watergate, except in this case, the White House told the truth while low-level elements at the CIA appear to have twisted intelligence reports into lies to undermine the government--a clear abuse of their power and position. An anonymous source had once again proven its value . . . right?

NOT EXACTLY. Suddenly, the media seemed to have acquired an allergy to nameless sources within administrations, guiding reporters to the truth. The New York Times, whose reporter sits in jail for refusing to talk about her sources, runs story after story about Rove while continually mischaracterizing Wilson's track record. They now also claim that Wilson's lies and misrepresentations--primarily in their own op-ed section--have nothing to do with Rove's whistle blowing. "In fact," their July 19 editorial states, "Mr. Wilson had excellent credentials for the mission, and the entire Niger story had already been pretty thoroughly debunked by the time Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rove spoke." As the SSCI report clearly shows, it hadn't.

And what does David Broder have to say? After all, just a few weeks ago, he defended the use of anonymous sourcing in Watergate to help reporters determine the path to truth. Surely Broder sees the service that Rove performed. Or perhaps not:

The obvious intent of the leak--and of the column, which ran in The Post and other newspapers--was to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had just published an op-ed article in the New York Times challenging a presidential claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase nuclear material in Niger.

Wilson had been sent to Niger to see if that had been attempted. He concluded that it had not--knocking one more hole in the administration case that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. By exposing his wife's supposed role in sending Wilson on that mission, the White House was trying to link his finding to a well-publicized bureaucratic war in which elements of the CIA were doing all they could to undercut the case for going to war with Iraq. . . .

The only lesson I can draw is that reporters ought to be damned careful about accepting unattributed information. For every "Deep Throat," there are multiple Chalabis and Roves.

Anonymous sourcing seems to have gone out of style faster than a long hemline at a summer fashion show in Paris. Six weeks after pillorying the critics of Woodward and Bernstein for their use of an anonymous source who abused his power to leak information to the Post, Broder saves up his contempt for the man who attempted to tip off the press that Wilson needed more investigation. Broder also appears not to have read the committee report--a bipartisan report that contradicts Broder's assertions of Wilson's performance in almost every detail.

The media has made their position clear: Not all anonymous sources are created equal. Those who discredit Republican presidents, like Mark Felt and Joe Wilson, get celebrity treatment and the best rhetorical defenses. Others can expect contempt and ridicule.

 

[Zhukov]

This very idea occured to me while watching the Daily Show the other night (the best liberal news source in existence in my opinion because they don't hide their bias).

The sheer hypocrisy of having Woodward and Bernstein in one breath extolling the virtue of Felt, who actually did break the law by leaking what he did to them, while in the very next breath lamenting on the degradation that is Rove for clarifying the lies of Amb. Wilson and outing his already outed wife as an employee of the CIA.

I continue to find it impossible to believe that they buy the shit they're shoveling.

 

[Annie]

This very idea occured to me while watching the Daily Show the other night (the best liberal news source in existence in my opinion because they don't hide their bias).

The sheer hypocrisy of having Woodward and Bernstein in one breath extolling the virtue of Felt, who actually did break the law by leaking what he did to them, while in the very next breath lamenting on the degradation that is Rove for clarifying the lies of Amb. Wilson and outing his already outed wife as an employee of the CIA.

I continue to find it impossible to believe that they buy the shit they're shoveling.

I guess an idea who's time has come, cause here's another:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA072005.02O.gurwitz.ff9764.html

Jonathan Gurwitz: Like Felt, Rove exposed wrongdoing to the public

Web Posted: 07/20/2005 12:00 AM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

Karl Rove — whistleblower, patriot and hero. That's an epitaph you won't read with regard to the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. But those are precisely the words that dominated commentary about Watergate leaker Mark Felt little more than a month ago.

Felt, of course, did the country a great service by secretly revealing to the media the cancer that was growing on the Nixon presidency.

But Felt, it should be remembered, had more than simply altruistic motives for doing so. Richard Nixon slighted Felt by passing over him for the top job at the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover's death. That indignity was magnified by the efforts of elected officials to rein in and reform the FBI after Hoover's long and abusive tenure.

But there was more. As the third- and then second-ranking official at the bureau during this tumultuous period, Felt was in charge of uncovering the source of the Watergate leaks and silencing Deep Throat, whom he knew to be himself.

Yet Felt used his authority to direct the FBI investigation toward Richard Gerstein, a county prosecutor in Miami who was investigating the Watergate money trail. Does a hero and patriot put the nation's most powerful law enforcement agency on the hunt after a man he knows to be completely innocent?

We now know, from Time magazine journalist Matthew Cooper's own words, that Rove did not disclose the name of a covert CIA officer. What Rove did tell Cooper was that former Ambassador and Kerry campaign adviser Joseph Wilson's wife had a hand in sending Wilson to investigate claims Saddam Hussein wanted to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger.

...

 

[bock2911]

Well, here is a contrasting media view on politicians:

Mark Shields is a nationally known columnist and commentator.
How dumb do they think we are?

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- In my line of work, you get lied to a lot.

There are the generally forgettable fibs, like a senator who's making his seventh political trip to New Hampshire since the first of the year insisting he has made no decision about a White House run.

The falsehoods you remember are bold and brassy. I will never forget President George H.W. Bush stating with a straight face that the nominee's race had never even crossed his mind when he picked Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court.

Presidential candidate Bill Clinton demonstrated early his flair for fiction by contradicting all his campaign's previous statements on his non-service in the military when he admitted that, yes, during the Vietnam War he actually had received a draft notice calling him to military service.

Why had Clinton never mentioned this fact before during the endless Q-and-A sessions about his military record? In a polygraph-punishing explanation, Bill Clinton lamely explained he had just "forgotten."

Let's be clear: If you were a young man of draft-eligible age during Vietnam, you might be excused for forgetting your first kiss or your first beer. But you would forever remember that ominous moment when the letter, carrying with it the full force and power of the U.S. government, arrived summoning you to bear arms.

So, too, did George H.W. Bush fully understand that his nomination of Clarence Thomas, an African-American jurist of modest legal achievement, would discomfort and demoralize many Democrats.

Today in Washington, the big, barefaced lie is very much back.

For two years, the George W. Bush White House had asserted that Bush's closest political advisor, Karl Rove, had nothing to do with press leaks revealing that the wife of the former U.S. ambassador whose report had publicly refuted administration claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for nuclear weapons was an undercover CIA officer.

Scratch those assertions: Karl Rove did tell Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

A senior Bush administration official told The Washington Post that, shortly after the publication of Wilson's piece in the New York Times -- which undercut the administration's case for launching a pre-emptive war against Iraq -- two top White House officials had called six journalists to disclose the identity and the position of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife.

That same senior administration official said: "Clearly it (the leak 'outing' Plame) was meant purely and simply for revenge."

Are you ready for a barefaced lie? Listen to the Republican talking points. It is true that Rove did talk to Matt Cooper. But he was not trying to smear Wilson and thus silence a formidable critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

No, Rove's only motive was to make sure that Cooper and Time did not publish something that could turn out to be false. This is a side of the man we have not seen before -- selflessly saving gullible newsmen from publishing anything inaccurate.

Imagine how busy Rove must have been during Bush's 1994 race for Texas governor, when his campaign was accused of launching a whispering campaign in East Texas about Democratic Gov. Ann Richards' affinity for gays. Try as he must have, Karl just couldn't stop the circulation of those ugly rumors.

In 2000,George W. Bush's campaign was accused of spreading the vicious charge that Bush's main rival, Sen. John McCain, was unstable because of the time he had spent as a POW in isolation.

You just know Karl must have been speed-dialing reporters, valiantly trying to kill that slander. In 2004, the man who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry was one of Rove's oldest Texas allies.

Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News, who has covered Rove long and well, puts it this way: "Throughout his political career, bad things happen -- sometimes involving dirty tricks -- to his enemies or rivals." Is that because he's evil? "He's amoral. He doesn't set up a plan to damage, defeat or destroy his enemies because he's evil. He does it because he's so unbelievably competitive and amoral."

All of this raises one nagging question: Just how dumb do the Bush people believe we are, that we would swallow, for even a nanosecond, the fabrication that Karl Rove's only motive in calling reporters was to discourage inaccurate stories? Do they really think we are that stupid?



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/how.dumb/index.html

 

[Annie]

I wonder just how closely Steyn has been following this, time will tell. He has come out before and said that his initial take was wrong on some issues.

Then again, Rove might be found guilty of something, though I do think this is one more of the MSM/DNC machination points.

 

[Zhukov]

For two years, the George W. Bush White House had asserted that Bush's closest political advisor, Karl Rove, had nothing to do with press leaks revealing that the wife of the former U.S. ambassador.......was an undercover CIA officer.

Scratch those assertions: Karl Rove did tell Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

If she was already known to work for the CIA when Rove talked to Cooper he leaked nothing.

Are you ready for a barefaced lie? Listen to the Republican talking points. It is true that Rove did talk to Matt Cooper. But he was not trying to smear Wilson and thus silence a formidable critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

No, Rove's only motive was to make sure that Cooper and Time did not publish something that could turn out to be false. This is a side of the man we have not seen before -- selflessly saving gullible newsmen from publishing anything inaccurate.

Selfless? Please.

It might not be a barefaced lie but Mr. Shields here just completely distorted the real situation. Rove wasn't concerned about TIME publishing anything inaccurate; Rove was concerned about TIME publishing Wilson's lies about the administration. He set the record straight. That's his job.

Selfless? It was a completely selfish act.

 

[bock2911]

If she was already known to work for the CIA when Rove talked to Cooper he leaked nothing.

Selfless? Please.

It might not be a barefaced lie but Mr. Shields here just completely distorted the real situation. Rove wasn't concerned about TIME publishing anything inaccurate; Rove was concerned about TIME publishing Wilson's lies about the administration. He set the record straight. That's his job.

Selfless? It was a completely selfish act.

I thought it was Rove's contention to do this to prevent TIME from publishing something in accurate? Anyway, from what I have been hearing from the grand jury, I trust ROve about as far as I can throw him.

 

[freeandfun1]

I thought it was Rove's contention to do this to prevent TIME from publishing something in accurate? Anyway, from what I have been hearing from the grand jury, I trust ROve about as far as I can throw him.

WOW you have contacts inside the Grand Jury? I would be careful disclosing that here as anything said in a Grand Jury is secret and whomever is talking to you could be prosecuted.

 

[Zhukov]

I thought it was Rove's contention to do this to prevent TIME from publishing something in accurate?

Yes but he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart like the article implies.

It's not like he went on a personal fact finding mission to make sure they got their Norwegian monarchial timeline correct because he didn't want them to have to write a correction.

Here it is in a nutshell:

reporter: this guy, Joe Wilson, who's report contradicts the adminstration, says you guys sent him to africa.

rove: woh woh woh, we didn't send him, he's a liar, i heard his wife at the CIA sent him. we don't have anything to do with this guy.


Now you tell me, does that sound like the selfless act of a man only concerned about making sure TIME published something accurate out of the goodness of his heart (like your article says), or the act of a man correcting a lie before it made it to print and was repeated, ad infinitum, by the media?

 

[Annie]

Yes but he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart like the article implies.

It's not like he went on a personal fact finding mission to make sure they got their Norwegian monarchial timeline correct because he didn't want them to have to write a correction.

Here it is in a nutshell:

reporter: this guy, Joe Wilson, who's report contradicts the adminstration, says you guys sent him to africa.

rove: woh woh woh, we didn't send him, he's a liar, i heard his wife at the CIA sent him. we don't have anything to do with this guy.


Now you tell me, does that sound like the selfless act of a man only concerned about making sure TIME published something accurate out of the goodness of his heart (like your article says), or the act of a man correcting a lie before it made it to print and was reporduced ad infinitum by the media?

Exactly. I read Steyn a lot, and like him. In this case it sounds like he may be busy and is trying to be 'fair' on what he's reading bits of. I certainly could be wrong, but he's written that before.

 

[Zhukov]

Exactly. I read Steyn a lot, and like him.

Steyn? It says the guy's name is Mark Shields.

 

[Annie]

Steyn? It says the guy's name is Mark Shields.

Damn, I MUST stop skimming so! Now from Mark SHIELDS this makes much more sense.

Sorry- I need to myself!