« Meet the New Boss... | Main | Crassroots Politics? »
What He Said
Billmon has a very good analysis of the President's speech on Tuesday night and its more subtle signals in language change that are very instructive. With apologies to Billmon to reprinting his column here:
Same Old Same Old
With only a few interesting twists. I'm going to let others parse the recycled evasions, half-truths and downright lies in Bush's speech. (160,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi forces??? That ain't true even in Shrub's parallel universe, much less ours.) I've been doing this kind of thing for more than two years now, and it's grinding me down.
I'll also dispense with the detailed analysis of whether the speech will help Bush or not. The New York minute version: It buys him a favorable news cycle and a week, maybe two, of extreme lapdog obedience from the corporate media. It could move the polls his way by a couple of points. But after a month, and another 40 or 50 dead GIs, nobody will remember a word of it, not even G.W.
But I do want to take a longer minute to point out a subtle, and at times bizarre, shift in the propaganda rhetoric -- one that, as predicted, appears to set the stage (or at least leaves the door open) for further negotiations with some of the bad guys. It starts with this line:
Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. (emphasis added.)
Many of them?? So what murderous ideology do the rest of them follow? Utilitarianism? Bush's use of an adjective that's at least several terrorists short of "all" or "every" is echoed in this line:
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. (emphasis added)
I suppose Bush could be pointing out that other factions -- the U.S. Army, for example -- are also contributing their fair share to the mayhem in Mesopotamia. But that hardly seems likely, given the audience and the message. No, I think the partial pronoun is the tee up for the actual change in the party line, which is slipped in here:
They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. (emphasis added)
If you go back and look at the old party lines (versions 1.0 and 2.0) you can quickly see that something new has been added. Heretofore, the "anti-Iraqi forces" have consisted of:
1.) Foreign Terrorists (aka "assassins") 2.) Regime Remnants (aka "dead enders") 3.) Criminal Elements (aka "thugs")
But now we have a fourth category, one with a nice neutral name that doesn't allude to hacking people's heads off or gassing your own people or hating our freedoms:
4.) Iraqi Insurgents (aka "negotiating partners.")
From there on out, the speech carefully and repeatedly distinguished between the terrorists and the insurgents, who are now -- in the fantasy world of the White House propaganda shop at least -- two unique and different populations, where before they were one and indivisible:
Iraqi forces have fought bravely – helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. (emphasis added) To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. (emphasis added)
Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. (emphasis added.)
We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents. (emphasis added)
And so on. It would seem the error in the historical record has been rectified (although the gang still hasn't gotten that memory hole thing completely down yet.) But the policy -- "no nation can negotiate with terrorists" -- hasn't changed one bit. It remains as a monument to our leader's moral clarity and unflagging resolution.
It really is amazing what you can do with -- and to -- the English language.
Nice job of finding the most important frame and dissecting both the framing and what it may signal.
Meaning, how long before we hear the shift from "Iraqi Insurgents", to "Iraqi Freedom Fighters"?
Casey,
Some interesting posts on d.u. about Bush's lies too. And now, it appears even articles from yahoo are finally laying his lies on the line. So far, that's 1800 dead soldiers PLUS the ones that die in Germany too late.
Somebody asked the other day, "How can Bush sleep at night?"
Well, I expand that to everyone who intentionally spread propraganda--the administraion, the repubicans who currently "support" NOT the troops, and the MEDIA.
Each cute little personality sitting on the tube telling us lie upon lie, just to get a paycheck is equally at fault for the deaths of these people. Why them too? Simple, becuase they could stand up for integrity and tell the truth and INVESTIGATE before they pretend it's real news, but instead they knowingly don't investigate and they don't tell us "This is the spin we got from the W.H."
VERY interesting WaPo article today by Peter Baker and Dan Balz:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902792.html
It seems the White House is using academic consultants on how to frame the Iraq War PR. Shocking, isn't it?
"But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is "mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail," he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain "why he thinks it's working and why he thinks it'll win.""
It is ALL about keeping the American people tied into thinking the war is winnable. These guys (Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi) have reviewed history and decided that the reason public opinion lost faith with the Vietnam War, for example, is because:
"Bush advisers challenge the widespread view that public opinion turned sour on the Vietnam War because of mounting casualties that were beamed into living rooms every night. Instead, Bush advisers have concluded that public opinion shifted after opinion leaders signaled that they no longer believed the United States could win in Vietnam."
Hang on, folks, while my head spins around and finds front again....
Ok, QUESTION: WHY did the opinion leaders decide that the United States could no longer win in Vietnam?
Did they just get together in partisan packs and think about whether or not the War was a winning election strategy?
Not at all, peeps. They changed their opinions because that war was WRONG, morally, we were LOSING it, and there was NO EXIT STRATEGY.
In other words, it's not about a GI Joe fantasy--it's about REALITY.
jeez.
Good point, Karen!
http://www.actforchange.com
(If you like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, do this).
Demand Iraq Exit Strategy
Support Senator Feingold's resolution for clear military goals and a timetable for bringing our troops home.
Support "Homeward Bound"
Ask your representative to support the bipartisan Abercrombie-Jones resolution in the House.
Scrap the Illegal Pentagon Recruiting Database
It's invasive -- and illegal. Let's shut it down.
Demand an Iraq Exit Strategy
In April of 1999, then-Governor Bush said: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." We couldn't agree more. Senator Feingold has now introduced a resolution calling on the President to clarify our military goals and set a timetable for ending our occupation of Iraq. His resolution needs your support.
Unfortunately, in his speech Tuesday, the President failed to explain a strategy to get our troops out of the Iraq quagmire. He offered no new course of action; he exaggerated progress in training Iraqi security forces; and he continued to deceptively imply a link between Iraq and 9/11.
Tell your Senators -- we need an exit strategy from Iraq.
Ask the House For a 'Reality Check' on Iraq Policy
Meanwhile over on the House of Representatives side, momentum is also building to demand a 'reality check' from the Administration when it comes to Iraq. Representative Jones (R-NC) -- who created "Freedom Fries" in government cafeterias last year -- is now co-sponsoring the "Homeward Bound" resolution calling on the President to develop an exit strategy.
Ask your Representative to support the "Homeward Bound" resolution.
Recently both the U.S. commander and chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq admitted1 that the insurgency cannot be defeated militarily -- so it's time to start developing the exit strategy. Keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely will only inspire more terrorists and force our armed forces to resolve political and social problems that must be solved by the Iraqis themselves.
Scrap the Pentagon's Illegal New Database
It's recently come to light that if you're between the ages of 16 and 30, the Pentagon has been secretly collecting information about you since 2002. Data from various sources -- such as your social security number, height, weight, ethnicity, email address, grade point average and cell phone number -- have been merged into a giant database and outsourced to a private corporation with no published privacy policies or opt-out procedures.
Ask your Representative to investigate and shut down this database.
Only last month did the Pentagon announce the existence of this mega-database, and invite comment from the public. This late notice -- as well as government collection of data from commercial vendors -- are clear violations of the Federal Privacy Act. This database needs to be shut down.
http://www.ActForChange.com/Working Assets
--War is wrong. Thou shalt not kill. Lying to the people to get them to go to war is wrong.
http://www.juancole.com
Arguing with Bush
"The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent."
"Terrorists" are not a cohesive ideological category like "Communists" as Bush suggests. Lots of groups use terror as a tactic.
The Irgun Zionists in 1946 and 1947 did, as well. Also ETA in Spain, about the terrorist acts of which Americans seldom hear in their newspapers (they are ongoing). The Baath regime in Iraq engaged in so little international terrorism in the late 1990s and early zeroes that it was not even on the US State Department list of sponsors of terrorism. Bush could take the above rationale and use it to invade most countries in the world.
"To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill: in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere."
Yes, and these were al-Qaeda operations, and you haven't caught Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri.
"The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."
This is monstrous and ridiculous at once. The people in Fallujah and Ramadi were not sitting around plotting terrorism three years ago. They had no plans to hit the United States. Terrorism isn't a fixed quantity. By unilaterally invading Iraq and then bollixing it up, Bush and Vines have created enormous amounts of terrorism, which they are now having trouble putting back in the bottle.
"Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others."
Maybe 8 percent of the fighters in Iraq are foreign jihadis. Of the some 25,000 guerrillas, almost all are Iraqi Sunni Arabs who dislike foreign military occupation of their country. You could imagine what people in Alabama or Kentucky would do if foreign troops came in and tried to set up checkpoints in their neighborhoods.
Moreover, many of those jihadis fighting in Iraq wouldn't even be jihadis if they weren't outraged by Bush's invasion and occupation of a Muslim country.
The fact is that the US went in and convinced the Sunni Arabs of Iraq that we were going to screw them over royally, driving them into violent opposition. They aren't inherently terrorists and could have been won over.
There are no Iraqi military units that can and will fight independently against the Sunni guerrillas, so all those statistics he quoted are meaningless.
Almost all the coalition allies of the US have a short timetable for getting out of the quagmire before it goes really bad. Bush's quotation of all that international support sounds more hollow each time he voices it.
An interesting Flash presentation on Coalition casualties can be found here, demnstrating their geographical extent throughout the country.
The political process in Iraq has not helped end the guerrilla war. It has excluded Sunnis or alienated them so that they excluded themselves. It offers no hope in and of itself.
There was nothing new in Bush's speech, and most of what he said was inaccurate.
http://www.Tomdispatch.com takes apart Bush's moral relativism or amoral relativism and is worth a read.
AND here's some more from the Dept. of NOW-Do-You-Believe-We-Are-in-Trouble?
NPR's Morning Edition today:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4724317
"Last year, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting secretly hired a consultant with conservative ties to conduct an analysis of the political ideology of guests on four PBS and NPR public affairs shows.
CPB has declined to release the report. But NPR has obtained the consultant's study. And those documents show the consultant graded guests not just on ideology, but on whether they explicitly supported policies of the Bush White House."
--snip--
"The consultant hired by Tomlinson -- Fred Mann -- sorted people who appeared as guests on the shows into three camps: conservative, liberal and neutral. For the program NOW, he also defined each guest as a supporter or opponent of the Bush administration.
Mann labeled many reporters as "liberal," such as Robin Wright of The Washington Post. She appeared on The Diane Rehm show in June 2004. On what grounds did Mann make his assessment? He wrote: "Ms. Wright's viewpoint was that U.S. intelligence was geared to fight the Cold War and did not adapt to the new threat of terrorism."
Chuck Hagel was also judged to be a liberal. That's Nebraska's Republican Senator. Last year, Hagel earned a 100 percent voting record from two conservative organizations -- the Christian Coalition and the Eagle Forum."
--snip--
"Tomlinson did not consult with the CPB board in arranging a contract with Mann, according to CPB sources, who spoke on condition they not be identified. Nor did Tomlinson inform the senior staff, according to The New York Times, which reported Mann was paid more than $14,000 by CPB to conduct the study."
--snip--
"Diane Rehm says she hadn't known she was being monitored by CPB until recent press reports disclosed Mann's activities. In an interview, Rehm says the message she hears should be chilling to all journalists:
"If I investigate you, Diane Rehm, you will tone down your program and you will make sure that there are more conservative opinions on the air than there are liberal opinions -- because we want to make sure that the conservative perspective is out there."
Rehm says she works fiercely with her producers to provide balanced panel discussions. And she says the ability of listeners to call into the show allows for all views to be heard.
"I am stunned that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be spending money to monitor my program," Rehm says."
****************
So this quote came to my mind:
"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
Book One, Chapter 3
Nineteen Eighty-Four
George Orwell
’In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. Thewar is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.”
George Orwell, "1984"
Neocon plan for war (by year)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
George Lakoff posted a very poignant reframing piece on The Huffington Post RE: how Rove beat us again with his pithy remarks. This is a must read. It's not too late to follow Lakoff's reframing advice about Rove et al when talking with others. We all know (or hope) that everyday conversations go a long way towards helping others understand the lies & mistakes of this regime.
The essence of the post is: The Democrats can learn from Bush and Rove: Stick to your guns and stay the course. But Lakoff gives some very specific points/reframes to use. Please read it!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/george-lakoff/rove-rides-again-with-_3414.html
Yep, I felt that at the time madame--that we were falling into Karls trap. Sure a quick response, but then a quick reframing to put the real issues to the forefront.
When you're dealing with evil, you have to not fall into evil's traps and instead, make your attack tougher.
OT, but here's an gem from David Sirota about the vote yesterday to ban the EPA from using studies that expose people to pesticides when considering permits for new pest killers. Luckily, the ban passed, but check out who voted against it and remember that when it comes election time... Culture of life? Right...
'Pro-lifers' support pesticide testing on fetuses
Check out today's Senate vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00162) to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that expose people to pesticides when considering permits for new pest killers. It's good that the measure passed, but look at the 37 Senators who voted against this - it reads like a list of the Senate's most ardent anti-choice (aka. "pro-life") Senators. Why is that relevant? Because, according to the Assoicated Press, Mr. "Culture of Life" himself, President Bush, is pushing the EPA "to accept data from human tests on children, pregnant women, newborns, infants and fetuses...Even newborns of 'uncertain viability' could be tested."
In other words, Bush and these 37 mostly "pro-life" Republicans, who claim they care about the unborn, support allowing corporations to test hazardous chemicals on fetuses and pregnant women.
I have written before about how the GOP's ideology on social issues - which they claim is unwavering - melts away as soon as it is pitted up against the wishes of Corporate America. In this case for these 37 Senators and President Bush, the chemical/agribusiness companies won out against the GOP's rhetoric about supposedly being devoted to a "culture of life."
Capitol Buzz has more on how absolutely disgusting it is for someone like Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to have voted the way he did.
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=C9D2F574-9E3A-2AA6-35185351ACCE0E8F
Casey,
Shifting the frames is what they are use to doing. Then they just repeat repeat repeat.
BUT I believe progressives have to not only repeat their own values, but they need to have a strong solid spine--not waver--and then speak to peoples' hearts.
But I'm really looking forward for the time when we have the 'indy' media on tv so that the other networks will HAVE to reform or go broke! Gotta love that!
http://www.iwtnews.com/
What a good moment to remind everyone to watch their video, take the survey, and do what you feel you must do...
Excellent article in the Washington Post. "Irak srategy: withdraw or fight on"
snip
"In the wake of president Bush's speech on Ira, international online commentaries are talking about something American pundits are not : political negociations to blunt the military insurgency in Irak.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000530.html
"Clearly the debate about the merits of negociating with Iraki insurgents has begun in the foreign media. WETHER THIS DEBATE COMES TO THE UNITED STATES REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
It's up to you now! And good luck...
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2005 09:47 AM
Brilliant article, and we've been saying the same exact things since Kerry wimped out last fall, and Lakoff had a good analysis of Kerry and that situation.
Act; stop reacting!!! (Think Lakoff said be proactive, not reactive?) It's one of the reasons I like Howard Dean. He speaks up, and then the neoCons have to react to his remarks... which is the position the neoCons/Repukes have had Dems in for five years now.
I'm tired beyond the point of exhaustion of wimpy Democrats who are not willing to speak up against the "power" of the Bu$hCo administration. Tact and diplomacy and trying to get along with the administration has gained us absolutely nothing, and the Bu$hCo administration everything, in spite of the incessant lies - and worse yet, the Dems have given him (and his cronies) almost everything they've wanted for five years. The fact that the Dem legislators have given in to Bu$hCo for five years and not stood up to those idiots in the White House is one of the reasons we are now a fascist nation in all but name only. Not good. We need to speak up more, and put the Bu$hCo administration on the defensive for a change....
Act; stop reacting....!!!
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2005 10:12 AM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00162
If madame dafarge's link above does not work, try this one. (There needed to be spaces between the parentheses to get the link to work properly, since they are not part of the URL - I removed the parentheses marks.)
It's always amazed me that the so-called "pro-life" cretins can say they are "pro-life" with a straight face... when they turn around and advocate such unethical and immoral things as testing drugs (or pesticides or any other toxic substance) on fetuses, young people, or anyone else. What a bunch of hypocrites!!! They're distinctly anti-life and anti-quality-of-life if they think it's ethical or moral to test pesticides on people, and then advocate killing so many people in an illegal, unethical, and immoral war.... Pro-Death is what they are!!!
In other words, Bush and these 37 mostly "pro-life" Republicans, who claim they care about the unborn, support allowing corporations to test hazardous chemicals on fetuses and pregnant women.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2005 10:12 AM
spread the word! spread the word! Expose the hypocrisy! They're just handing us opportunities to call them out for what they really are.
Especially important: Look who's one of the 37--
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Use this and defeat him!
This is the nauseating political posturing we should expect next year from Rick Santorum. One minute he is blocking Sen Murray's legislation increasing expenditures by an additional 1.5 billion dollars for the VA and mouthing the Bush line that it is unneccessary, busting the budget and a waste of money and then weeks later he has his name on legislation doing the same thing. But this time it looks like it was his idea in the first place. Shame on the Senate.
T"he Senate vote yesterday was on a bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who had opposed a past Democratic amendment to raise VA spending. He was given the honor of becoming lead sponsor because he faces one of the toughest reelection fights next year among incumbent Republicans.
Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who is orchestrating the party's campaign efforts, refused to give Santorum a free ride, noting that on three previous occasions, "Senate Republicans, including the lead sponsor [Santorum] . . . voted no. No to additional funding for our veterans. No to giving them the quality health care they have earned. No to keeping our nation's commitments to those who have served."
Blair Scoffs at Downing Memos
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/063005Z.shtml
[Looks like Blair is following the pResident's tactic of lying all the time about anything to do with Iraq....]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062903063.html?referrer=email
The High Cost of a Rush to Security
A federal audit calls into question $303 million of the $741 million spent to assess and hire airport passenger screeners for the newly created Transportation Security Administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr., The Washington Post)
[The Dept of "Homeland" Security need never have been created. All that was needed was to open the lines of communication between law enforcement agencies at the federal level.... IMHO. It would have been much, much cheaper!!! I've always distrusted the title of the dept, anyway... reminds me of "the fatherland..."]
FBI Whistle-Blower to Run for Congress
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905G.shtml
Repeating Rove's statement here, running it over and over again on Air America and then responding No we are not weak on terrorism, fell right into Rove's strategy and ignored the lessons we discussed here back in February when we analyzed Lakoff's book.
"The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy’s frame. Negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers, as Richard Nixon found out when he said “I am not a crook” and everybody thought of him as a crook. The very title of my book, Don’t Think of an Elephant makes the point: if you negate a frame, it reinforces the frame. "
I hope we remember this next time and there will be a next time.
This looks like a valuable tool for Political Research>
"Hard-to-Get Policy Briefings For Congress Are Now Online*
Technology Group Opens Access to Research Reports
By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
It's a bit like Napster -- but for policy wonks.
A Washington research group has created a Web site where the public can
read, submit and download the difficult-to-find public policy briefs
members of Congress use to get up to speed on issues.
The often-coveted but elusive reports are produced by CRS, a public
policy research arm of Congress. CRS, which boasts hundreds of analysts
and a $100 million budget, churns out hundreds of briefs each year on a
wide range of topics. It recently issued one, for example, called "U.S.
Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues." Another was
titled, "Gasoline Prices: Policies and Proposals." A third was
"Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs."
McGuire predicted the Web site, http://www.opencrs.com , will find an
audience among academics, reporters, bloggers, librarians, college
students and anyone else looking to bone up on an issue."
Posted by: Ira at June 30, 2005 11:16 AM
I agree with you, Ira, in terms of not repeating what Rove said. (And I'm disappointed in that Air America et al are replaying it rather than following Lakoff's advice.) However, when the conversation comes up again in the media and among friends (as we all know it will, partially because Rove sees it as a win and wants as much mileage out of it as possible), we must refute and reframe it the way Lakoff suggests.
I just got done with errands. I just told everyone I saw about the DSM and that more importantly Bush led us to war before he went to Congress.
8000 killed in Iraq.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iraq.main/
Posted by: Karen at June 30, 2005 09:11 AM
So that would explain why Judy Woodruff has been seen on PBS political talk shows recently.
Truth,
Poor Judy. She finally was released from Fox and she winds up on the Newspeak network: PBS.
Here's hoping the Rebellion at PBS is successful. It is just beginning...
I'm sorry to go this far off topic, but I've been around the blogoshpere looking at posts about the Plame Affaire. Time Inc. is contemplating handing over Coopers notes, Miller and the NYT are standing firm, Novakula says he'll write an article when it's all 'over' I've been reading laments about how protecting sources is in danger and how this isn't about protecting a 'source' but that it's protecting a criminal. I know the supremes aren't taking the case. I admit that I'm confused.
If one asks a few simple questions, one is bound to get answers from every possible perspective. Are we worried about freedom of the press and confidentiality of sources? Are we worried about finding the leaker and reporters be damned? What exactly is a position a thinking person takes when the issue seems to get cloudier at every turn?
Who should go to jail, if anyone? Don't be snarky and talk about how hating Miller for her WMD crap reports were crap. Don't be snarky about Novak and how he somehow sems to be protected. Why is this so much about (so called) reporters doing the perp walk. Isn't there some criminal in the W/H that should be the focus? Are reporters protecting a 'source' or are they refusing to out a criminal? If the source and the criminal are one and the same, which takes precedent, protection or obeying the law?
Names are floating about everywhere--Rove, Libby, Bolton, Cheney, take your pick. Somebody was a bad guy and did a bad thing, and Novakula wrote up a story about it. It's like keeping a whacked out score card. Who was the badder of the bad guys, the one who leaked, or the person who wrote about it? Cooper wrote ABOUT Novak's article, and Miller didn't even write one. I keep reading that either Fitzgerald got something from Novak that he doesn't beleive, or that he needs the other reporters to confirm Novaks story. Aren't all these reporters in somewhat different positions at this point in time?
I can't for the life of me see why putting ANY reporter in jail sews up the case. There seems to be some kind of satisfaction/horror about how bad this is for journalism, but isn't there some way to come to an agreement that we are talking about source protection versus pointing out a criminal and that using their journalism credentials isn't the issue, it's doing your duty by coming forward and naming the prepatrator of a crime? Am I missing some vital aspect of the First Amendment here?
I love the Constitution too, but is it proper to hide behind if someone who committed treason goes free? Is treason protected if you tell it to a journalist? Do you see why the blogs are of different minds? Some are worried about ever getting good info from a source, if said source feels they may be given up in a legal action. Some say that in this case the source was not a source, but a person committing a crime.
Imagine someone telling you the name of a covert CIA official. They didn't 'just happen' to name drop. They wanted you to KNOW this name for some reason. They wanted this persons cover blown, right? Isn't that a crime? Politics and elections aside, any reporter who ended up getting this info must have KNOWN that such an action was the commission of a felony. They were not only journalists getting a 'scoop' they were witnesses to a felony. It's my thought that journalists have the same duty to report a crime as the rest of us, so if they KNOW who did it, telling investigators is their civic duty. Not telling by claiming it's source protection is a smokescreen, but it's NOT the main crime.
How does everyone feel about this? Is this a case of journalistic protections, or is this a criminal investigation being hampered by journalists for whatever reason? WHY are they protecting a criminal? I'm so confused......
Andree
I finally made it through both African articles.
I agree the debate is starting in the foreign press. It'll be harder to get it going here because of the MSM "spin" and also in the UK, Blair is doing things like "distancing himself" from the Downing Street Memo.
But they can't hide the bodies.
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
By E&P Staff
Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:
"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)