Plame Explained
The Plame Kerfuffle presents a conundrum: why is Judith Miller in jail for refusing to reveal a source if the source is Karl Rove, who has given blanket permission to all reporters to reveal him as a source? The answer logically must be that Karl Rove wasn't the source for Judith Miller's information, but someone else was. Who?
The answer is relatively simple if you use your imagination and think about how a Joe Wilson op-ed piece might get onto the New York Times' op-ed page in the first place:
1. The NYT is always looking for copy that will blast Bush.
2. Meanwhile, getting an op-ed column in the NYT blasting Bush is a big deal, a career-enhancer, a ticket to book deals and face time on the networks. The NYT wanted a blast-Bush piece; Joe Wilson wanted to be the guy to give it to them.
3. Some editor either met Wilson at a cocktail party or met someone who had met Wilson at a cocktail party and they were hooked up. But the NYT needs to know why Wilson is the guy to write the piece… does he have credentials that are weighty enough so that his bashing of Bush will gain some traction?
4. So they ask Wilson to provide his bona fides and he tells them that his wife is in the CIA.
5. Or they ask Plame herself to provide his bona fides because they met her at the same cocktail party.
6. Or they ask other Washington-based reporters whether Wilson has bona fides and they say that his wife is in the CIA, which they all know because they all go to the same cocktail parties.
7. They don’t publish this fact, of course, because it’s not germane to Wilson’s bash-Bush piece, it’s only germane to whether they are going to choose Wilson to bash-Bush from among the hundreds of liberal Democrats/ex-government hacks who would like to punch their ticket to talk shows and book deals by bashing Bush.
8. Q.E.D. The NYT is probably hiding their sources because their sources are either Plame and Wilson themselves, or (more dangerously) other NYT reporters or editors, who themselves might be liable for “outing” Plame.
9. The fact that other reporters may be the sources for the Plame information may also account for the brief the major news organizations all filed arguing that Plame wasn’t “covert” to begin with.
BTW, every single story by the AP, the NYT, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., that does not state the fact that they have already taken the position in court documents that there was no crime committed in revealing Plame’s identity because she wasn’t covert to begin with and the CIA wasn’t trying to keep her identity secret is a LIE. In the law they would be “estopped” from arguing that any crime had been committed. And, having failed to alert the court to the existence of their prior positions, they might even be sanctioned for violating their duty of "candor to the tribunal."
The answer is relatively simple if you use your imagination and think about how a Joe Wilson op-ed piece might get onto the New York Times' op-ed page in the first place:
1. The NYT is always looking for copy that will blast Bush.
2. Meanwhile, getting an op-ed column in the NYT blasting Bush is a big deal, a career-enhancer, a ticket to book deals and face time on the networks. The NYT wanted a blast-Bush piece; Joe Wilson wanted to be the guy to give it to them.
3. Some editor either met Wilson at a cocktail party or met someone who had met Wilson at a cocktail party and they were hooked up. But the NYT needs to know why Wilson is the guy to write the piece… does he have credentials that are weighty enough so that his bashing of Bush will gain some traction?
4. So they ask Wilson to provide his bona fides and he tells them that his wife is in the CIA.
5. Or they ask Plame herself to provide his bona fides because they met her at the same cocktail party.
6. Or they ask other Washington-based reporters whether Wilson has bona fides and they say that his wife is in the CIA, which they all know because they all go to the same cocktail parties.
7. They don’t publish this fact, of course, because it’s not germane to Wilson’s bash-Bush piece, it’s only germane to whether they are going to choose Wilson to bash-Bush from among the hundreds of liberal Democrats/ex-government hacks who would like to punch their ticket to talk shows and book deals by bashing Bush.
8. Q.E.D. The NYT is probably hiding their sources because their sources are either Plame and Wilson themselves, or (more dangerously) other NYT reporters or editors, who themselves might be liable for “outing” Plame.
9. The fact that other reporters may be the sources for the Plame information may also account for the brief the major news organizations all filed arguing that Plame wasn’t “covert” to begin with.
BTW, every single story by the AP, the NYT, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., that does not state the fact that they have already taken the position in court documents that there was no crime committed in revealing Plame’s identity because she wasn’t covert to begin with and the CIA wasn’t trying to keep her identity secret is a LIE. In the law they would be “estopped” from arguing that any crime had been committed. And, having failed to alert the court to the existence of their prior positions, they might even be sanctioned for violating their duty of "candor to the tribunal."
posted by PDB at 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home