Curiouser and Curiouser
This past week we've seen yet another permutation of the on-going story of who outed Valerie Plame and why. Regular CNN contributor and author of the column that started the whole thing off, Robert Novak stormed off the set of CNN after spouting a curse word. The host of the show had planned on asking Novak about the Plame matter later in the show and had advised him of that fact.
In an article written by Jay Rosen at PressThink, we learn that Mr. Novak has become downright cranky when questioned about his role in this whole affair, terminating an interview by walking away from it prior to the same act seen on CNN.
I think Novak's behavior is a pretty good indicator of how nervous the various people connected with the federal grand jury investigation into the matter must be getting. The grand jury term will close in October, and the prosecutor is clearly trying to wrap up the investigation. While the general public still does not know just what and whom Mr. Fitzgerald is aiming for, that hasn't stopped the coverage of the various facets of the issue.
On July 30, 2005, an article in The Star Tribune attempts to parse just why this story won't go away.
In today's media hothouse, when a story becomes the story, it metastasizes into many competing narratives, making it difficult to know what the story is essentially about. Here are five versions:
It's about the war
The op-ed appeared at an awkward moment of transition in the national mood toward the Iraq war. Three months after U.S. troops had occupied Baghdad, the expected stockpiles of illegal Iraqi weapons were not turning up. Questions were percolating about how pre-war intelligence could have been wrong.
But the White House has never agreed with those accusing it of deliberately twisting the intelligence to justify the war.
It's about the law
Most commentary about the question of who might be indicted and for what has focused on Rove, vice presidential aide Lewis Libby (who has also been identified as discussing Plame's CIA work with a journalist), and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That 1982 law makes it a crime to reveal the identity of covert agents but sets a high bar, requiring that the disclosure be made "knowingly" and "intentionally."
It's about credibility
Three times, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan flatly rejected any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak. He said he had been told that directly by Rove. On one occasion, he said any such implication was "a ridiculous suggestion."
Now that Luskin has confirmed Rove's involvement, McClellan won't revisit his earlier statements, saying it would be inappropriate to talk about an ongoing criminal probe.
It's about journalism
Judith Miller of the New York Times, who did not write about Plame, is in jail for refusing to testify about her conversations with unnamed officials on the matter. Unless she agrees to testify, she will presumably remain behind bars until the grand jury adjourns, possibly in October.
Miller's plight has led Congress to consider a federal shield law that would protect reporters who refuse to reveal sources in federal cases, unless the case involved national security.
It's about politics
The Rove case fits nicely into the broader Democratic effort to portray Republicans as arrogant, vindictive and dangerously unmoored from facts or truth. According to this line of attack, Wilson spoke the truth about Niger and manipulation of pre-war intelligence, so the White House had to punish him, even if in so doing they outed a covert CIA operative.
I think the analysis pretty much correct, but the part that I hope Americans are paying attention to is Eric Black's first point: it's about the war. Joe Wilson made it clear he believed the White House had effectively lied us into a war, a war that has cost more than 1,800 American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives. For that belief, Wilson had to be punished, had to be buried.
And that is why the media should continue to cover this story relentlessly.
In an article written by Jay Rosen at PressThink, we learn that Mr. Novak has become downright cranky when questioned about his role in this whole affair, terminating an interview by walking away from it prior to the same act seen on CNN.
I think Novak's behavior is a pretty good indicator of how nervous the various people connected with the federal grand jury investigation into the matter must be getting. The grand jury term will close in October, and the prosecutor is clearly trying to wrap up the investigation. While the general public still does not know just what and whom Mr. Fitzgerald is aiming for, that hasn't stopped the coverage of the various facets of the issue.
On July 30, 2005, an article in The Star Tribune attempts to parse just why this story won't go away.
In today's media hothouse, when a story becomes the story, it metastasizes into many competing narratives, making it difficult to know what the story is essentially about. Here are five versions:
It's about the war
The op-ed appeared at an awkward moment of transition in the national mood toward the Iraq war. Three months after U.S. troops had occupied Baghdad, the expected stockpiles of illegal Iraqi weapons were not turning up. Questions were percolating about how pre-war intelligence could have been wrong.
But the White House has never agreed with those accusing it of deliberately twisting the intelligence to justify the war.
It's about the law
Most commentary about the question of who might be indicted and for what has focused on Rove, vice presidential aide Lewis Libby (who has also been identified as discussing Plame's CIA work with a journalist), and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That 1982 law makes it a crime to reveal the identity of covert agents but sets a high bar, requiring that the disclosure be made "knowingly" and "intentionally."
It's about credibility
Three times, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan flatly rejected any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak. He said he had been told that directly by Rove. On one occasion, he said any such implication was "a ridiculous suggestion."
Now that Luskin has confirmed Rove's involvement, McClellan won't revisit his earlier statements, saying it would be inappropriate to talk about an ongoing criminal probe.
It's about journalism
Judith Miller of the New York Times, who did not write about Plame, is in jail for refusing to testify about her conversations with unnamed officials on the matter. Unless she agrees to testify, she will presumably remain behind bars until the grand jury adjourns, possibly in October.
Miller's plight has led Congress to consider a federal shield law that would protect reporters who refuse to reveal sources in federal cases, unless the case involved national security.
It's about politics
The Rove case fits nicely into the broader Democratic effort to portray Republicans as arrogant, vindictive and dangerously unmoored from facts or truth. According to this line of attack, Wilson spoke the truth about Niger and manipulation of pre-war intelligence, so the White House had to punish him, even if in so doing they outed a covert CIA operative.
I think the analysis pretty much correct, but the part that I hope Americans are paying attention to is Eric Black's first point: it's about the war. Joe Wilson made it clear he believed the White House had effectively lied us into a war, a war that has cost more than 1,800 American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives. For that belief, Wilson had to be punished, had to be buried.
And that is why the media should continue to cover this story relentlessly.
posted by Diane at 8:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home