SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (10438)10/2/2003 8:00:02 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793699
 
I bet it will turn out that someone in Cheney's shop gave Novak the interview. The Post beat the Times on this story, and the Times will now see how long they can keep it on the front page. In the meantime, it is turning into "silly season." The Politicians want the same rules as the Mafia Dons get. "It's Business, not Personal."

"There's an unwritten rule in politics that no matter how rough the politics gets, families are off limits, particularly spouses and children.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

October 2, 2003
Inquiry Into Leak About C.I.A. Officer Is Said to Widen
By DAVID STOUT NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — The uproar over who disclosed the name of a Central Intelligence Agency officer to a newspaper columnist intensified in both a political and a bureaucratic sense, as three senators who are women denounced the leak as an affront to women and reports emerged that the federal investigation was widening.

The Associated Press, citing a senior Justice Department official it did not identify, said the inquiry could extend beyond the White House and the C.I.A. itself, to include the State and Defense Departments and possibly other agencies.

At the White House, the chief presidential spokesman, Scott McClellan, said at an early-afternoon briefing that as far as he knew, no one at the White House had yet been subpoenaed or interviewed. He added that President Bush "wants everybody to focus on getting to the bottom of this investigation" and that administration staff members had been instructed to cooperate fully.

The White House has asserted that the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom Mr. Bush nominated for the post, can do a professional and thorough inquiry. But Capitol Hill Democrats have said an outside counsel is necessary to avoid conflicts of interest.

The name and occupation of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, was disclosed in a July 14 column by Robert Novak shortly after her husband, the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly questioned the value of intelligence that the Bush administration had cited to justify the military campaign against Iraq.

Critics of the administration have asserted that someone leaked the information about Ms. Plame to get back at her husband. Mr. Wilson himself suggested early on that Karl Rove, the president's top political strategist, was behind the leak, but the White House dismissed that notion as "ridiculous."

Mr. Novak has recently written that the identity of Ms. Plame was made known to him in an almost offhand way, that the C.I.A. never told him beforehand that disclosing her name would endanger anyone, and that he would not have named her if he had thought there would be any danger.

The uproar over the disclosure has become, at the very least, a big distraction for the White House just as Mr. Bush and his strategists would rather be gearing up for the 2004 election. And the three senators' complaints today would not be expected to help Mr. Bush's standing among women who vote. In the 2000 election, Mr. Bush fared badly among women, capturing 43 percent of their vote to the 54 percent that Al Gore got. (Ralph Nader got the remaining 2 percent.)

On Capitol Hill, the three senators held a news conference to denounce the leak as both a shabby political move and an insult to professional women.

"We women senators are here to call attention to the dangerous precedent set by the unlawful disclosure of a C.I.A. operative in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the Bush administration," Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said. "As mothers, as women in nontraditional careers, this situation is most troubling to us."

"Now, we have seen arrogance from this administration before, but now we see intimidation," Ms. Boxer said. "Wives and other family members are fair game. They are sending the signal that nothing is off limits in politics. And speaking for myself, let me just say this: While we in public life expect the attacks, expect the slings and arrows, we do not believe that our families deserve this kind of treatment."

Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said: "There's an unwritten rule in politics that no matter how rough the politics gets, families are off limits, particularly spouses and children. This administration or some part of this administration, or maybe the whole administration's political machine, has abandoned that long-standing principle."

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, complained that "we now have a professional woman who may in fact see her career as she knows it gone, certainly in the situation that she is in." The senator said she had received calls "back in Michigan from women that are very outraged, as well as from women's organizations, who are extremely offended."

In a separate news conference, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, the House minority leader, said it was "very important" that an independent outside investigator be appointed.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (10438)10/2/2003 8:29:55 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793699
 
Good post. And Glenn Reynolds over at "InstaPundit" comments on Josh's post. (Ain't light speed grand?)
----------------------

I don't know if it's true, but the CIA did drop the ball before 9/11 and its performance since then, except for the generally successful paramilitary operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, hasn't seemed especially impressive either. It's certainly the case that we shouldn't have this sort of internal warfare going on at the same time that we're fighting a real war.

Which is why I think the smart thing to do is to subpoena all the principals in this scandal and find out who said what to whom, when. This will disappoint scandal-mongers, and it might hurt some people in the White House (or it might not). Howard Kurtz comments that "Politically, though, that would be a PR disaster."

But would it? I've noticed a certain coolness from members of the professional press since I started suggesting this, but I don't think this would be a PR disaster, except maybe for the press if it resisted. I think that the public would support such an action, and that the press -- having played this up into a big national-security issue -- would do very badly if it tried to claim persecution.

The New York Times is already sounding worried about this, with an editorial that Chris Kanis summarizes as follows:

As near as I can figure, the Times' take is that Bush must do absolutely everything in his power to figure out who leaked, because his failure to do so will prove that he is Richard Nixon. However, Bush must absolutely not conduct any investigation of the journalists involved, nor try to compel them to reveal their sources, because doing so would prove that he is Richard Nixon.

But even that editorial, which Kanis correctly characterizes as muddled, says this:

As members of a profession that relies heavily on the willingness of government officials to defy their bosses and give the public vital information, we oppose "leak investigations" in principle. But that does not mean there can never be a circumstance in which leaks are wrong — the disclosure of troop movements in wartime is a clear example.

Well, if the most serious charges are true -- which we don't know yet, but that's what investigations are for, right? -- we have the outing of an undercover agent, which is pretty close. (Note to the NYT -- it is wartime). The editorial says that the investigation should focus on the White House, not the press -- but the members of the press are witnesses. If this is as important as we're hearing, they shouldn't stand on (largely bogus) First Amendment claims. (If it's not as important as we're hearing, then, well, we shouldn't be hearing that it's so important.)

This wouldn't be a scandal, or a national security issue, without the involvement of the press. The press isn't just reporting this story. It's part of the story. To a large degree, it is the story.

Bush should lance this boil by finding out what happened, and getting rid of who's responsible. And he shouldn't be afraid to put the press on the spot. That will prevent similar future events, from both ends.

So there's what I think. What's it worth? Every penny you paid to read it!

posted at 08:13 PM by Glenn Reynolds

instapundit.com



To: JohnM who wrote (10438)10/2/2003 8:42:21 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793699
 
Another "shoe" dropped. I have been waiting for something like this. ABC News
-----------------------

‘I Admired Hitler’

Yet even as he tried to put out that fire, another broke out.

ABCNEWS obtained a copy of an unpublished book proposal with quotes from a verbatim transcript of an interview Schwarzenegger gave in 1975 while making the film Pumping Iron.

Asked who his heroes are, he answered, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

He is quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."

The author of the book proposal, Pumping Iron's director, George Butler, told ABCNEWS today that the quotes needed to be seen in context, and that Arnold never said anything anti-Semitic.

"I cannot remember any of these," Schwarzenegger told ABCNEWS. "All I can tell you is that I despise everything Hitler stood for. I despise everything the Nazis stood for, everything the Third Reich stood for."

In the final days of his campaign, Schwarzenegger may be battling yet another opponent: his own past.
abcnews.go.com