In the coming weeks, we will hear much more of the Kristolean pissing and moaning about why the Plame scandal is not important. To counteract this bullshit campaign before it starts, I would like to share a letter I wrote to my NeoCon friend (at Reed College no less), that I hope gives historical context to the scandal. With the intense focus on who knew what when, we may have forgotten what the leak was about in the first place. The leak was intended to suppress the release of other information that could have shown that the government was making false claims about the threat that Iraq posed.
I include the text of my letter below the break
Hey,
This is an interesting article, and I've heard discussion of similar things in
the past. The prosecution of Rove under the espionage act is a questionable
tactic, particuarly if it leads to increased litigation against whistleblowers
in the intelligence community. However, the particulars of the case bring up an
important question regarding the legitimacy of government leakers. Are there any
leaks within government that are illegitimate? Put another way, is there any
information that it should be a crime to divulge publicily? I seriously err on
the side of disclosure, however, I think that there is some government
information that legitimately needs to be kept secret. I'd further argue
(though I know you contend with some of my facts) that this particular
circumstance warrents investigation and probably indictiments because A) the
leaked information had a legitimate purpose for being secret, and B) the leak
overall was damaging to the cause of whistleblowers. The irony of your
defending the leak of Valerie Plame's identity is that it was overall damaging
the very cause of dislcosure you claim you seek to protect.
On point A I would direct you to the appealete court decision to deny an
injunction against a subpeona for Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. The judge
who issued the decision began with the desire to establish the legal basis for
a federal shield to protect reporters. The facts of the case, however,
disallowed that possiblity because the crime committed was demonstrated to have
done significant damage to national security, and the rights of whistleblowers.
Somewhere you'll be able to find that decision, and I'd encourage you to do
that, because it includes 8 full redacted pages on the damage to national
security.
On point B, I think you need to reconsider the circumstances surrounding the
role that Joseph Wilson played in leaking the information that he had, and the
role that whomever in the Bush administration had in divulging his wife's
status. Whatever you think of the case for war, Joe Wilson believed that he had
legitimate information regarding the validity of the case that the people he
reported to had not considered. He came forward and put his name on the byline,
and backed up his assertion as best he could. He was gave his information to
Cheney's office, as he was sent to do, and then found them to making assertions
that directly contradicted his findings. In coming forth with this information
he was confronting the full power of the US government because they were
pushing an assertion that he believed he had knowledge to be false. What would
you have someone do in that situation? He came forth with his information, and
for it he was punished. If you believe that there was any other motive for the
leaking of his wife's name, I would refer you to this WaPo article from around
the time of the leak:
_________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27¬Foun
d=true:
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran,
two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and
disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just
revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium
claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account
touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the
case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said
of the alleged leak.
Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to
undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA
employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had
recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told
him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."
A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair
game."
The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the
journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the
calls.
It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about
the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were
"wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing
to diminish Wilson's credibility."
_____________
The leaker who gave Plame's name to Novak did so with the sole intention of
supressing the leak of other similar information by others who would counter
the claims the government was trying to make. There was a massive war going on
between neocons in the Pentagon and the White House and bureaucrats at CIA and
State over Iraq. This was a shot across the bow to intimidate people inside
Foggy Bottom and Langley who might have evidence that could counter the claims
the government was making.
On a personal note, I don't blame you for believing what the government was
saying about the war at the time, but at this point, its time to give it up.
While the arguement that you had for the war may have been legit (on the basis
of human rights and the international rule of law), the argument that the
government made was based on intentional misrepresentations about the threat
posed to the US by Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction, and connections to
terrorism. When people who had the knowledge to correct these
misrepresentations came to the public with that information, the Bush
administration did all that they could to smear them. Think of Paul O'Neill. Or
Richard Clarke. Or John DiIllio. Or Karen Kwiatzski. Or Rand Beers. Or Joe
Theillman. Or Eric Shinseki. Or the Abu Ghraib whistleblowers. And if you can't
think of these people, google them, and then tell me what you think, because you
will find there were plenty of government officials who came out and spoke the
truth about the fraud that was being perpetuated on the public by a corrupt
administration. The Bush MO is to smear those people with all they got (example
190908: the election). This was just another example of a smear campaign against
a legitimate government leaker.
I agree that the right to expose the public to information that counters the
claims of government is vital to a functioning democracy. That is why I support
Joe Wilson. I don't agree that the government should have the right to
intimidate such whistleblowers from coming forward.
A historical example might seal the deal here. Consider the case of Daniel
Ellsberg, and you will see why I said what you were defending was similar to
Watergate, but worse. In the case of Watergate, Daniel Ellsberg went to Vietnam
and found that many of the claims the government was making were false. He wrote
a report that was ignored by the powers that be, because they didn't want to
admit it was true, because it didn't serve their agenda for war. When the
government continued to make the claims he knew to be false, he went to the NYT
with his report. You may have heard it; it became known as the pentagon papers.
Then, Nixon decided to go after him and smear him with all he had at his
disposal. They authorized the CIA to write up a report on him, check his tax
returns, and tried to break into his psychologists office to read he notes on
his meetings. In this situation, would you defend the disclosure of the
information that Nixon found, under the basis that it discredits Ellsberg? And
yet you support the disclosure of information about Wilson's wife, that was
found through similarly nefarious means, and is of similarly dubious
importance, to counteract a claim that has similarly proved true?
It is one thing to defend the prosecution of Rove under the espionage act,
because the right to leak is vital. It is quite another thing to defend the
leaking of Valerie Plame's name- that is indefensible. Whether or not a crime was committed under the law, a crime was committed to the democratic process.
Whoever is guilty of that crime should pay.