Conservatives can't make the "Who leaked Valerie Plame's identity?" story go away.
So instead, they've tried to diminish its importance. They've suggested Plame wasn't covert, but a recently leaked 2003 memo put that falsehood to rest. They've said that senior White House officials Karl Rove and Lewis Libby merely repeated information from reporters, but as more leaks come from testimony given to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, that argument increasingly lacks credibility.
And of course, they've tried to discredit Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, though what Wilson said in a 2003 New York Times editorial, or whether he assisted 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, is irrelevant to Fitzgerald's prosecution of White House leaks.
The latest salvo from the conservatives is a New York Post story that made the rounds this morning, and which no doubt you'll be hearing a lot about from talk radio today, and probably from at least one of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews tonight.
The story, from Hardball favorite Deborah Orin but based on information on Time magazine's web site, offers the following scandal: Plame gave $372 to America Coming Together, an "anti-Bush group," for two tickets to a concert starring Bruce Springsteen.
"It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA," Orin writes.
Oh my goodness!!! Stop the White House leak investigation!!! Plame is a Democrat!!! How scandalous!!!
But, as Orin notes late in the story, "CIA rules allow campaign contributions."
So, maybe it's not so scandalous after all.
But certainly the Wilsons are trying to hide the fact that they supported the "anti-Bush group," right? Nope. Wilson told Time that the anti-Bush concert was "great."
***
"CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows," Orin writes.
Article comments
1 - Steve S
Great post. What a circus this whole thing has become. I've given up waiting for the day when conservative America quits condemning Democratic officials for being immoral or unethical and looks at the behavior of those they tout as the answer.
2 - chris
one of the more repugnant things I have seen. It is amazing how low conservative media is willing to go for saving a felon.
3 - Dave Nalle
>> They've suggested Plame wasn't covert, but a recently leaked 2003 memo put that falsehood to rest<<
How you can make any claim not to be spinning when you post simple, straightforward lies like this is beyond me. Parts of the memo are classified, but it contains no indication one way or the other about Plame's status and in fact does not even refer to her by her professional name, but as Valerie Wilson. Other names are mentioned in the memo as well. Are you going to claim that they all have covert status too? This is just a pure lie and it shows how untrue your claim to not just be out to make partisan attacks is. If you're so concerned about Bush's BS, why don't you tell the truth yourself? Countering one lie with another just perpetuates the culture of disinformation, which you're apparently a proud member of.
Dave
4 - MillionthMonkey
Dave,
If she wasn't covert, then please enlighten us as to why the CIA referred the matter to the DOJ for prosecution.
5 - Temple Stark
Of course just liking Bruce Springsteen probably has nothing to do with buying the tickets to see Bruce Springsteen.
6 - David R. Mark
"A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contains information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret ... The Wall Street Journal first reported the three-page memo's existence in its July 19 edition."
That's good enough for me.
And the fact that the CIA asked for the investigation, and the fact that numerous intelligence officials have spoken out about Plame's covert status. And the fact that by all indications, Fitzgerald is working from the starting point that Plame was covert. All that supports the claim -- vs. the RNC talking point -- that Plame was covert.
7 - Dave Nalle
>>If she wasn't covert, then please enlighten us as to why the CIA referred the matter to the DOJ for prosecution.<<
I never said she wasn't covert, though I beleive her covert status had been compromised long before this leak. I was talking about the memo, which doesn't actually address her covert status one way or the other.
David, regarding #6. As a journalist you can clearly write. Is it possible then that you cannot also read? Read that quote from the WSJ. It clearly does NOT say that the memo expressed one word about Plame's covert status. It says that parts of the memo were classified. The contents of the memo being classified does NOT mean that the names of the people IN the memo were classified in any way except in terms of what was being discussed in the memo. There are classified documents which include Karl Rove's name and George Bush's name. Does that mean that their identities are secret?
>>And the fact that the CIA asked for the investigation, and the fact that numerous intelligence officials have spoken out about Plame's covert status. And the fact that by all indications, Fitzgerald is working from the starting point that Plame was covert. All that supports the claim -- vs. the RNC talking point -- that Plame was covert.<<
And not one of these things you mention originates in the memo you cite. In addition, each of the points you bring up is suspect. The CIA asked for the investigation in order to divert attention from its own irresponsibility in not protecting Plame's covert status in the first place. The former intelligense agents you mention were politically organized and motivated to make their statements - much like your friend the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
There's no question that at some point Plame was covert. The issue is who actually broke her cover and when it was done. The memo has absolutely nothing to do with this and your raising it as you have done is a red herring and basically a straight out deception.
Dave
8 - David R. Mark
I disagree. And you're trying to change the subject, once again, so that the topic is me (or my blog) rather than the issue at hand -- which is the effort to discredit Plame.
So nice try, Dave, but I'm not buying. I'm not going to go through another excercise in defending myself to you.
9 - MillionthMonkey
David, regarding #6. As a journalist you can clearly write. Is it possible then that you cannot also read? Read that quote from the WSJ. It clearly does NOT say that the memo expressed one word about Plame's covert status. It says that parts of the memo were classified. The contents of the memo being classified does NOT mean that the names of the people IN the memo were classified in any way except in terms of what was being discussed in the memo. There are classified documents which include Karl Rove's name and George Bush's name. Does that mean that their identities are secret?
Ho boy, we've got a great thinker here.
The secret isn't the name itself, it's the name identified as being associated with the CIA. Do you understand this point?
Maybe I can help you understand. Before Novak's article came out, Plame's neighbors knew her name. That doesn't mean they knew she worked for the CIA. Novak's article contained this sentence:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." After that article was published, her neighbors not only knew her name, they also knew she worked for the CIA.
I know they don't teach this stuff in grade school, but it's pretty simple. Presumably you were smart enough to know how to set up and turn on your computer, so there's no reason why you shouldn't have the intelligence to figure stuff like this out for yourself without us having to spell it out for you.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>I disagree. And you're trying to change the subject, once again, so that the topic is me (or my blog) rather than the issue at hand -- which is the effort to discredit Plame. <<
If you didn't consistently misrepresent the facts the way you do then you would not be at issue.
>>So nice try, Dave, but I'm not buying. I'm not going to go through another excercise in defending myself to you.<<
Frankly, your position is indefensible, so that makes a great deal of sense.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
Monkey, thanks for the personal insults. Coming from someone incapable of reading a simple English sentence yet willing to talk at length about a topic they apparently know nothing about, it's really quite amusing.
Read back through the thread. The memo does not refer to Valerie Plame, it refers to Valerie Wilson, which was her public personna.
Perhaps you should read this article in the Washington Post. Pay particular attention to paragraph four which says:
"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."
And earlier on note where it says that she was named as Valerie Wilson in the memo.
The secret discussed in the memo is clearly Plame and Wilson's activities, NOT her identity. There's no indication in the memo that her identity is at issue.
Dave
12 - Bryan McKay
I wouldn't really call anything he said a "personal insult." A little snide and sarcastic, perhaps, but nothing above the level that I've seen you go to. He didn't attack you personally or directly.
13 - David R. Mark
Actually, I was quoting from my blog post, not from the WSJ.
14 - El Bicho
Pay no attention to Nalle in regards to any Rove-Plame matters. He has already stated previously that if it were him in Rove's situation, he would have erred on the side of caution in regards to information that may or may not have been secret in the memo.
15 - todd
All this weaseling remind me of Clinton's "meaning of is" debacle.
So the right is hiding behind the ghost of Johnny Cochran now, huh?
Here's a clew: ethical moral people don't have to hide behind technicalities and grammar games. Only scheezers and liars.
16 - Phillip Winn
Todd, I agree. Someone blew it big-time here, and there remains only time to find out who it was.
17 - Dave Nalle
>>Pay no attention to Nalle in regards to any Rove-Plame matters. He has already stated previously that if it were him in Rove's situation, he would have erred on the side of caution in regards to information that may or may not have been secret in the memo.<<
Yes, but I'm a normal, sensible person, while Karl Rove is an ego-driven, machiavellian megalomaniac.
Dave