THIS is from the Washington Post????
This is from an editorial from today in the Washington Post, concerning Plamegate (or NadaGate) the majority of it deals with Judith Miller and her stand on the first amendment.
However, the last two paragraphs really stuck out to me....
This affair began with a trip to Niger undertaken by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, which he said disproved one of the Bush administration's contentions about Saddam Hussein and nuclear weapons. Columnist Robert D. Novak reported that Mr. Wilson had been chosen in part because Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA; Mr. Wilson then charged that administration officials had deliberately blown his wife's undercover status to punish him for his truth-telling.
If so, they should be punished. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may have evidence that they did; there is a still a great deal that is not publicly known. But so far, in the accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials, no such crime has been described. What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers.
Is the Post actually taking the side of many conservative commentators, saying this really wasn't the crime some folks would like it to be? If so, that would be two generally liberal major daily newspapers who've editorialized that this is a case of nothing. The Nadagate title was coined by an editorial writer for the N.Y. Times in July of this year.
A few points the editorial doesn't make, Valerie Plame returned to the US in 1997, six years before the Novak story. The statute that folks would like Rove, et.al. prosecuted under states the agent had to be posted overseas in the last five years. She returned because the CIA thought she'd already been outed to the Russian's; at least according to her story in Vanity Fair; so the idea she was still a deep cover agent sounds pretty silly.
However, the last two paragraphs really stuck out to me....
This affair began with a trip to Niger undertaken by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, which he said disproved one of the Bush administration's contentions about Saddam Hussein and nuclear weapons. Columnist Robert D. Novak reported that Mr. Wilson had been chosen in part because Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA; Mr. Wilson then charged that administration officials had deliberately blown his wife's undercover status to punish him for his truth-telling.
If so, they should be punished. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may have evidence that they did; there is a still a great deal that is not publicly known. But so far, in the accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials, no such crime has been described. What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers.
Is the Post actually taking the side of many conservative commentators, saying this really wasn't the crime some folks would like it to be? If so, that would be two generally liberal major daily newspapers who've editorialized that this is a case of nothing. The Nadagate title was coined by an editorial writer for the N.Y. Times in July of this year.
A few points the editorial doesn't make, Valerie Plame returned to the US in 1997, six years before the Novak story. The statute that folks would like Rove, et.al. prosecuted under states the agent had to be posted overseas in the last five years. She returned because the CIA thought she'd already been outed to the Russian's; at least according to her story in Vanity Fair; so the idea she was still a deep cover agent sounds pretty silly.
posted by Crazy Politico at 3:38 PM
1Comments:
I agree with Phantom (no surprise there!)
It's my understanding that "Valerie Flame-Plame" hadn't been working undercover for over four years, so I don't understand what the big deal is anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home