This is the rightwing spin we're contending with re: Rove/Plame

[Emit]

NRO (and WorldNetDaily) is one of the main sources of internet info for rightwingers. This is their take on the matter:

<<snip>>
July 18, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.

Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different?

The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard? Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.
<<snip>>
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. The national review isn't fit to be used as toilet paper, or anything

else. Irresponsible fascist yellow journalism.

[Emit]

3. I agree totally

And so is WND. But, this is what Bush & Co. supporters are reading. I contend with it every day when people I know forward me this crap, and want to debate issues. While I can barely muster through some of the crap I read from those sources, it has given me some insight into how things are being spun.

It's part of the right's overall propaganda media machine.

[nyhuskyfan]

2. What's laughable is the phrase "manufactured scandal"

Gee - and how much time and energy did we spend for a bazillion investigations that produced nothing more than a tryst with a chunky intern?

Hypocrites

[VOX]

22. Nailed it: Clinton. SwiftBoat Vets, etc. = ALL manufactured scandals!

Manufactured scandals are a right-wing *specialty*, along with the false crisis, i.e., Social Security, WMD, etc. :grr:

[skids]

4. The CIA just changed her cover when she came back to the U.S.

...they didn't revoke it.

Here's why: when CIA agents work overseas, they usually use an alias. So, if her cover was blown back then (and they are not sure if it was, they just pulled her out to be safe) it was probably an alias that was blown, not her real name. The CIA has plainly and in no uncertain terms stated that the recent exposure by the WH DID blow cover that Plame was under.

[Emit]

6. Okay, thanks for that info

I'm trying to refute this article with someone ( a far-right, evangelical Bush-can-do-no-wrong-cause-he's-gonna-bring-on-the-second-coming-Lover). I'll look into it from that angle.

[shraby]

8. If the CIA hadn't thought her cover was blown

they wouldn't have called for an investigation.

[Emit]

19. 'nother good point n/t

[ClassWarrior]

5. Wow, someone else just cited this same article on another thread...

What a coincidence!! Two posts from two different people citing the same Radical RW article. What are the odds?

NGU.

[Emit]

9. I almost posted it on a thread @ Rove/Plame as comparison

to some of the discussions that are going on about this. But I didn't want to hijack their thread, or disrupt their flow.

It's important to understand their spin, IMO. It gives insight into their thinking. Gives us a chance to prepare, so to speak, for what all the propaganda spin machines will counter with.

[ClassWarrior]

11. I sure don't disagree with oppo research. I just thought it was funny.

NGU.

[Zodiak]

17. Yeah, the RW likes this article

I have seen it used on this new board I am growing roots into. I posted the USA article from today and there came the National Review article. I came here to see if anyone has already debunked this tripe and was going to post this article if no one had seen it yet.

We have to be fast about this...a new Republican talking point comes out each day.

This one says that 36 media organizations said that Valerie was well-known in a statement filed with the Appeals Court. This talking point has potential to be damaging in that it is something deperate for them to hold on to. We have to debunk this now and get on the same page now before this meme sinks into the RW "everybody knows" category.

Failure to act puts us behind in the framing wars.

[ClassWarrior]

20. I'm sure they do. That's why it was so ironic that two people claiming...

...to be Progressives posted it at almost the same time. What are the chances?!

NGU.

[Emit]

21. Claiming to be?

I can't speak for the other poster (haven't seen who posted it), but I can tell you that I initially had doubts about posting it for the very reason that your response here suggests---

But, considering that I have spent a lot of time following this issue (Plame/Rove/etc.), esp. here at DU over the weekend and before, and then had this article thrown at me today from a nut job, well, I just thought it important that "progressives" understand what we're up against. That's all. No big deal.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Well, I've never seen you before, so I don't have a point of reference.

NGU.

[Zodiak]

24. No need to be paranoid..this is RW talking point du jour

We have to realize that many DUers have low post counts because they lurk here and spend their time in the trenches battling RWers on other boards. I was like this for years before I actually joined (which is why you probably haven't seen me, either). The reason this is coming up is that a few of us have seen this National Review article and think it worthy of debunking because of its levl of penetration into RW thinking.

The issue was even mentioned by some RWer on the Ed Schultz show and Ed just told him to produce the affadavit. I came home and checked on the board I have recently joined, and there it was after a long, thoughtful post I had just constructed, accompanied with the words "nice try".

I thought "oh, the National Review (roll eyes), now THERE is an unbiased source!!" However, that is not a smackdown enough....I would rather argue the facts, not the source (because RWers say their sources are unbiased and legitimate neutral sources are "liberal bias"...read the National Review article to see what I mean). So I came here today where there are many other progressive minds to think about this article rather than just Mr. Newbie (me) and a couple of outgunned liberals who have been worn out by these RWer for years.

My online activities are much like Emit's (which is why I speak up in his(?)defense), so never bothered to start a profile here until I got disgusted with a board that I was on earlier and parked here as a temporary respite from non-politicals (actually can be more annoying than RWers if you can believe that).

So it's not that "funny" that this shows up twice....just people in the trenches noticing a new RW talking point that the RWer are touting BIGTIME! Shoot the message, not the messenger.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Ohhhhhh... Thanks for explaining that to me.

:thumbsup:

NGU.

[Emit]

28. Thanks

Yes, I, too, have been following DU for some time now, but don't post here a lot. I tend to post more on another discussion board (NOW-PBS), where there is a mix of liberals and conservatives, and a great deal of fanatics of the rightwing nut evangelical persuasion. This is the stuff they post. This is the stuff they believe.

[Zodiak]

31. And this is the stuff that we partially debunked on this thread

Keep up the fight....every message board counts. Mine is extra fun because it is a project to make a forum community where no one insults or derides anyone else. I joined to find a nice place to discuss politics with the other side, and it was 75% populated with talking-points spouting right-wingers. My first post there a few days ago got jumped on from all sides (I won, though...without insults, RWers have no teeth...even sarcasm is banned).

If you want to go there and have fun (but play nice and win with facts!!!), go to

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/forumdisplay.php?f=38

Also, please note my latest post to your OP (#28 or so) to see what I dug up on one of these lies.

We should have a sub-forum for message board warriors to coach each other in battles with RWers on other boards. A LOT of people read message boards, and RWers love to try to rule them with ridicule and bullying behavior. Oh well, just a thought.

[Emit]

30. Understood

I'm a newbie--been around since the (s)election--mostly lurking, following issues of concern. Don't post much, but check DU out every day.

You can check out my posts---with your gold star I think you can, anyway. I don't have a star---Back in May, I had $25 in my pocket to contribute, DU's address in one hand, and Andy's address in another. Figured DU could wait for my $25, but Andy couldn't. So I sent it to Andy's cause, instead.

So, regardless, I understand your concern--but I'm more interested in what some DUers, such as yourself (whose posts I have followed), have to say about this rightwing propaganda. I'm less interested in trying to prove myself worthy of being progressive enough to risk posting it, however.

[Doctor_J]

7. It's not working this time

Only the sickest of *'s sycophants believe that he and his brain aren't traitors who deserve to go to Levenworth. drool on, wingers, the jig is finally up.

[rateyes]

10. The people at National Review...

ought to be indicted for the killing of trees to make the paper that their shit is printed on. Talk about a heinous crime!

[infinitehangover]

12. I wish the CIA could and would clear this up

It seems whenever I read about Rove, there are two very different points of view both claiming to have the inside scoop on the CIA, it's really annoying cuz now I'm utterly confused. I do wish the media would allow a guilty until proven. Just cuz I think the fuss over Clinton has a good chance of being highlighted by this mess. Besides the only media source that should be covering this is E! I thought they did an amazing job with Jacko.

[Emit]

13. It is amazing how biased and polarized some media sources are

And when you know people who get all their info only from NRO, Weekly Standard and WND, they are in their own little world--the one created and perpetuated by Bush & Co.

Yes, I wish some credible source would clear up the disinformation.

[ClassWarrior]

14. I wish the Bush** Crime Family would clear this up.

And they CAN.

But they choose to continue to betray the American people.

NGU.

[rasputin1952]

18. Welcome to DU...

:D...:hi:

The situation w/Rove is that the administration thought the whole thing had died off...they really blew it when Miller was jailed/Novak wasn't/and they crowed 'victory'.

The CIA will never confirm nor deny anything, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. I am sure that the belittling of the CIA by the administration is part of the reason this has taken on a new life. Most of those that work there are career public servants, many of them for over 30 yrs. They have seen many things, and have worked for plenty of 2-3 year directors.

In any case....the WH is scared shitless...that is why they now have a few people running around saying anything to cast doubt on the story. Fact is, the Wilson report was correct, it embarrassed the WH and they tried to skewer Wilson through Plame. Not a bright nor an ethical thing to do.

[Lefty48197]

15. They would have hung Bill Clinton if he had done this

what sort of mental disease allows them to think like this?

[skip fox]

16. Spin will only work until Fitzgerald issues indictments/report.

Likely the Republicans are so obviously spinning only to take people's attention away from case. (This is also why W. will announce SC nominee tomorrow--so Rove can be put on back burner--and, by the way, a contentious nominee would be a greater distraction, so guess what we'll be getting?)

But by the time Fitzgeral is thru, Rove will be discredited toast.

In fact, the more we learn, the more it seems as though Rove orchestrated the leaking. Today we learn in the NYT that he was rabidly out to get Wilson, a bit rabidly even for some WH staffers. This weekend we learned Cooper probably had more than the two named sources (Rove and Libby) he gave to the grand jury. We also know Rove was the primary source for Cooper and Libby one of his confirming sources. We so know there were at least 6 primary contacts (incl. Miller, Cooper, Novak, and Pincus) as reported. We also know that there were at least two different primary sources (Libby for Novak and Rove for Cooper) and maybe more (remember Miller's source did not explicitly release her, but Cooper's gave him an explicit waver). And we know that 3 contacts confirmed their stories with one or more other "high administration officials." Therefore, there were minimally 9 calls/contacts. All this with every thing we know about Rove strongly suggests coordination, collusion, and/or conspiracy.

Anyone in the administration who discovered the Plame-Wilson-Niger connection would have taken the information to the world master of personal assassination: Rove. (I'm guessing the VP's office first learned the information since they would have felt somewhat responsible for Wilson's trip to Niger. I'm also guessing the topic of leaking the Plame information was discussed at an emergency meeting of the White House Iraq Group). With 6 original calls, Rove would have to make sure that no two officials tried to act as a primary source for a single reporter (it would appear too eager) He would make sure the primary contacts pitched the information in an off-hand manner, not as the main subject, to make the contact think the source is trying to do him or her a favor ("Don't go too far out on this Wilson thing, I don't want you burnt."), etc. He would also have insured that no two official had exactly the same pitch. Then he would have to arrange for a number of officials (probably 3-4) would be ready and willing to confirm the story. Some of the confirming sources could be primary sources for other reporters, but JUST DOING THE NUMBERS one realizes that there had to be at least 4 officials involved and that they coordinated the leak (and maybe later their responses to the prosecutor).

Therefore an indictment appears likely for Rove and 3 others. In addition, Rove will either be indicted for or censured for his role in the coordination.

Rove would have more to coordinate! To establish guidelines like: No source should call another's contact, Pitch the information off hand, not as the main subject, Make the contact think the source is trying to do him or her a favor ("Don't go too far out on this Wilson thing, I don't want you burnt."), etc. AND Rove would have had to field a group of officials to support the sources stories.

And then we haven't even begun to ask the question of how Rove got the information. (Doesn't leaking the information to him also constitute a crime?) Did Plame give information to officials as one report suggested? Why did Ashcroft recluse himself? (This rings of possible involvement of Cheney or W.) Did Rove have the proper clearance prior to becoming Deputy Chief of Staff to have seen the material? Or were other federal laws broken to the effect that classified information was used for political purposes? Etc.

I think the great thing we have going for us on this case is Patrick Fitzgerald. By all accounts a fine prosecutor.

[Zodiak]

26. Here is an article discussing the friend-of-the court filing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61388-2005Mar23.html

I do not see anything in this article saying that everyone knew Plame was a covert CIA agent. All I see is an entreaty to protect Cooper and Miller by determining if a crime was committed first.

Perhaps there is more out there, but this is what I found thus far.

Media Groups Back Reporters In Court Filing
Judges Urged to Determine if Crime Occurred in Leak Case

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A03

A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.

The friend-of-the-court brief was filed by 36 news organizations, including The Washington Post and major broadcast and cable television news networks, in support of reporters at the New York Times and Time magazine who face possible jail time for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the allegations. Those two organizations filed a petition Tuesday asking the full appeals court to review the case.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled in February that two reporters -- Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time -- should be jailed for contempt if they continued to refuse to name their sources to the grand jury.

So we know Miller went to jail and Cooper sang. What I want to know is what this briefing had in it. My suspicion is that the RW National Review is putting words into these news organization's mouths, but I would like a little proof because I have a few RWers I would like to smack-down for daring to mention such a biased source and pass it off as evidence. This way we debunk the talkig points AND the source in one fell-swoop.

[Zodiak]

27. and a blog with a link to the brief

The blogger comments that the friend-of-the-court brief says absolutely nothing germaine to the case other than to cite press releases, web speculations, and other non-evidence as a reason to not force the journalists to reveal their sources.

There is nothing to say that these 36 organizations knew all about Plame long before this ever occurred. So far, this RW talking point seems to be based on nothing.

I sure would like someone with more bandwidth than I to look at the *.pdf and see if the NAtional Review even referenced this correctly.

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/week12/

[Zodiak]

29. OK, Emit...I have one point of this article debunked

OK....this is the line about the 36 media organizations who filed a friend-of-the-court briefing saying that Valerie Plame was well-known even before Novak publicized her name in the papers.

(This is also the line that I have heard used twice today by RWers)

I read the briefing (40 pages, but they were nice enough to make it organized with a table of contents). In it is the argument that Plame was outed before Novak's column, but it is not these 36 media organizations that say they all knew about it (as the RW spin goes), but there is ONE citation to a newspaper article that appears in the Washinton Times on July 23rd, 2004 (written by Gertz) that simply says this:

CIA officer named prior to column


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

That is th whole article, citing unnamed "officials" who spoke on condition of anonymity. No details...nothing!

So the whole inference that somehow these 36 media organizations ALL SAID that Plame was outed beforehand are relying on the most flimsy info from a proven Bush-friendly newspaper, written by a proven Bush-friendly reporter.

That is called a circuitous story, in my opinion. First, a Bush crony leak info on condition of anonymity to a conservative writer who reports it. Later, when Rove is in the hot seat, cite the article as proof that everyone knew about Plame long before Novak wrote about her. Every bit of this info was supplied by BushCo, from beginning to end. The lawyer for the reporters ended up doing the work for BushCo by citing the unsourced article in their deperate defense of their profession (not an unjust fight, but a real slime-ball to defend, that Miller).

Anyways.....when some RWer uses that article from th National Review, you can use this tidbit to show how dishonest this talking point is, how dishonest the National Review is, and how Rove may indeed be indicted. I can't wait to use it myself.

(wow...I debunked that RW talking point all by myself with research....first time ever!...I always relied on others' analysis before)

[Emit]

32. Thanks again Zodiak

I'm not that far along with this -- just reading the briefing right now. I saw the reference to the Washington Times (Gertz) article. I just briefly read that, and will read it again in a minute.

I see, though, what you mean about a circuitous nature of this story from your explanation here. I guess you could say that was a real full circle spin.

Who is this Gertz guy, anyway? Washington Times-- Don't they call that "the Moonie paper"? Not a very credible source, IMO, and it's curious why the "36 Major News Organziations and Reporters' Groups" would use them as a reference in their brief.

Good Job for stomaching this and congrats on your first solo debunking achievement!