enceladus
2005-07-04 00:18:32 UTC
What did Bush know and when did he know it, and what did he do about
it?
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00121
Let's get on with the Novak/Plame case
July 04, 2005
The secrets in the Valerie Plame outing case may finally be coming to
light.
As they do, here are some questions that need answering.
By Barry Sussman
Q. President Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of this case.
He could have done so, regardless of any court action, long before
now.
Has he?
If not, why not?
If yes, what action has he taken?
Q. Reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper seem to have been
protecting malicious political hatchet throwers, not exactly
whistleblowers deserving of protection in the traditional sense.
The theory for protecting them is that if reporters reveal their
names, there will be a chilling effect on real whistleblowers in the
future.
But do these sources deserve protecting?
Q. In the face of all that has gone on in the past two years, why
haven't these sources gone public and come out with their versions of
what happened?
Why have they instead let the two reporters twist slowly in the wind?
Q. Was Time Magazine correct to turn its reporter's notes over to the
court?
Would Time's CEO, Norman Pearlstine, have taken the same action if the
sources seemed more deserving of protection?
We may know the answer to some of these questions soon, as reporters
Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time
Magazine go before U.S. District Court judge Thomas Hogan once again.
The chances are, however, that we won't know the answers to all of
them, and all are important.
This story isn't over until they are answered.
When the facts are out, some of the questions may seem naïve, or even
stupid.
But they aren't naïve or stupid now.
First, Time Inc., in a decision by its editor in chief, Norman
Pearlstine, said it would turn over to a grand jury documents
concerning its reporter Cooper's confidential sources.
Pearlstine said that Time had pursued the matter in court as far as it
could and that, in the end, "We are not above the law and we have to
behave the way ordinary citizens do."
Second, in a July 1 editorial supporting a shield law for journalists,
the Washington Post said that damage from the blowing of Valerie
Plame's cover, "If there was any, was not the result of misconduct by
Mr. Cooper or Ms. Miller--or by columnist Robert D. Novak, who
originally reported the story."
Such phrasing suggests the Post knows a lot about this case, a
necessary requirement for virtually absolving Novak of any wrongdoing.
Also, after Time turned over Cooper's documents, a lawyer for Karl
Rove, senior adviser to Bush, said Rove was one of the people Cooper
called during the week before Novak's story appeared.
According to the lawyer, Rove "has never knowingly disclosed
classified information."
In an account in Time, the lawyer also said he has received repeated
assurances from the special prosecutor's office that Rove is not a
target in the case.
Some have said the Administration sources who outed Valerie Plame,
regardless of malicious intent, are not guilty under the law as long
as they didn't know she was an undercover agent.
That seems to me a very thin reed.
After all, had these sources exerted due diligence, they would have
known.
So how will the special counsel handle that?
Indict or not indict?
If not, is that treatment less highly placed officials would get?
The Administration sources may have testified before the grand jury,
or at least talked to the special counsel, but in their long public
silence they have let Miller and Cooper twist in the wind.
Such conduct seems indecent.
What's the explanation for it?
Who gained from it, and what was gained, aside from the buying of
time?
Who in the Administration, aside from their legal counsel, did they
consult as they decided to stonewall it?
Well, he has had plenty of time to do that; there has been no need for
him to wait for court action.
In February 2004, Bush told reporters, "If there's a leak out of my
administration, I want to know who it is."
He's been waiting all this time to find out?
Do you think the leakers would still be around if the leaks were
damaging to Bush, instead of supportive?
So as stories begin to flow from whatever court action takes place,
What did Bush know and when did he know it, and what did he do about
it?
There is also more to be heard from Time Inc.
On July 1, The New York Times, recounting an interview with Pearlstine
(who is a Nieman Foundation board member), said "he still believed in
the confidentiality of sources but that each situation had to be
determined on its merits."
The suggestion, at least to me, is that he left some wiggle room and
might have made a different decision had he felt the sources worthy of
protection.
At some point it might be worth hearing more from Pearlstine on this.
As for Novak, perhaps after the next round of legal activities there
will be a set of questions for him.
And the Washington Post, along with others who published the Novak
column, can, at long last, give their account of events, explaining
what they did when they found out their pages had been used to out a
CIA secret agent.
Did they interrogate Novak afterward?
Set down any rules or guidelines for him or for other columnists?
__________________________________________________________
Harry
it?
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00121
Let's get on with the Novak/Plame case
July 04, 2005
The secrets in the Valerie Plame outing case may finally be coming to
light.
As they do, here are some questions that need answering.
By Barry Sussman
Q. President Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of this case.
He could have done so, regardless of any court action, long before
now.
Has he?
If not, why not?
If yes, what action has he taken?
Q. Reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper seem to have been
protecting malicious political hatchet throwers, not exactly
whistleblowers deserving of protection in the traditional sense.
The theory for protecting them is that if reporters reveal their
names, there will be a chilling effect on real whistleblowers in the
future.
But do these sources deserve protecting?
Q. In the face of all that has gone on in the past two years, why
haven't these sources gone public and come out with their versions of
what happened?
Why have they instead let the two reporters twist slowly in the wind?
Q. Was Time Magazine correct to turn its reporter's notes over to the
court?
Would Time's CEO, Norman Pearlstine, have taken the same action if the
sources seemed more deserving of protection?
We may know the answer to some of these questions soon, as reporters
Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time
Magazine go before U.S. District Court judge Thomas Hogan once again.
The chances are, however, that we won't know the answers to all of
them, and all are important.
This story isn't over until they are answered.
When the facts are out, some of the questions may seem naïve, or even
stupid.
But they aren't naïve or stupid now.
First, Time Inc., in a decision by its editor in chief, Norman
Pearlstine, said it would turn over to a grand jury documents
concerning its reporter Cooper's confidential sources.
Pearlstine said that Time had pursued the matter in court as far as it
could and that, in the end, "We are not above the law and we have to
behave the way ordinary citizens do."
Second, in a July 1 editorial supporting a shield law for journalists,
the Washington Post said that damage from the blowing of Valerie
Plame's cover, "If there was any, was not the result of misconduct by
Mr. Cooper or Ms. Miller--or by columnist Robert D. Novak, who
originally reported the story."
Such phrasing suggests the Post knows a lot about this case, a
necessary requirement for virtually absolving Novak of any wrongdoing.
Also, after Time turned over Cooper's documents, a lawyer for Karl
Rove, senior adviser to Bush, said Rove was one of the people Cooper
called during the week before Novak's story appeared.
According to the lawyer, Rove "has never knowingly disclosed
classified information."
In an account in Time, the lawyer also said he has received repeated
assurances from the special prosecutor's office that Rove is not a
target in the case.
Some have said the Administration sources who outed Valerie Plame,
regardless of malicious intent, are not guilty under the law as long
as they didn't know she was an undercover agent.
That seems to me a very thin reed.
After all, had these sources exerted due diligence, they would have
known.
So how will the special counsel handle that?
Indict or not indict?
If not, is that treatment less highly placed officials would get?
The Administration sources may have testified before the grand jury,
or at least talked to the special counsel, but in their long public
silence they have let Miller and Cooper twist in the wind.
Such conduct seems indecent.
What's the explanation for it?
Who gained from it, and what was gained, aside from the buying of
time?
Who in the Administration, aside from their legal counsel, did they
consult as they decided to stonewall it?
Well, he has had plenty of time to do that; there has been no need for
him to wait for court action.
In February 2004, Bush told reporters, "If there's a leak out of my
administration, I want to know who it is."
He's been waiting all this time to find out?
Do you think the leakers would still be around if the leaks were
damaging to Bush, instead of supportive?
So as stories begin to flow from whatever court action takes place,
What did Bush know and when did he know it, and what did he do about
it?
There is also more to be heard from Time Inc.
On July 1, The New York Times, recounting an interview with Pearlstine
(who is a Nieman Foundation board member), said "he still believed in
the confidentiality of sources but that each situation had to be
determined on its merits."
The suggestion, at least to me, is that he left some wiggle room and
might have made a different decision had he felt the sources worthy of
protection.
At some point it might be worth hearing more from Pearlstine on this.
As for Novak, perhaps after the next round of legal activities there
will be a set of questions for him.
And the Washington Post, along with others who published the Novak
column, can, at long last, give their account of events, explaining
what they did when they found out their pages had been used to out a
CIA secret agent.
Did they interrogate Novak afterward?
Set down any rules or guidelines for him or for other columnists?
__________________________________________________________
Harry