Monday, October 13, 2003
Remember Victoria Leggett?
Familar name? To me, too.
Matt Blivens of The Nation's Daily Outrage column, reminds us of who she is by way of a compare and contrast story of the treatment by Ashcroft's Justice Dept. of two journalists, Robert Novak, and this "novice crime reporter." Coming back to you, is it?
In both cases, the reporters in question refused to reveal sources. I'll bet you can guess the difference in the outcomes. Even if you can, take a look at Matt's post.
This is not a story about leaks in any case. This is a story about the White House attempting to dirty up an administration critic by suggesting that there was something fishy about his Niger trip undertaken at the behest of the CIA because his wife also worked for the CIA and she might have had something to do with his appointment. All this blather about how difficult it will be to prosecute is beside the point, which should be about following up the leads already out there in numerous WaPo stories in order to see not only who leaked to Novak, but if the White House took further advantage of his column by calling the attention of journalists to it. It's a story about the administration's attitudes towards those who disagree with it. This is about politics and governance, not about crime and punishment.
What amazes me is the willingness of so many on the right to dirty up the CIA itself, one its own favorite institutions in the past, or perhaps they now think of it as Clinton's CIA, a CIA not utterly subservient to the administration's desire to use it as a ministry of propoganda.
For any of you who missed the NIGHTLINE of Oct 6th, in which four ex CIA operatives, all self-pronounced Republicans spewed forth their contempt and disgust at administrationi's actions against the Wilsons, you can look at some video and read a summary of what got said here.
Matt Blivens of The Nation's Daily Outrage column, reminds us of who she is by way of a compare and contrast story of the treatment by Ashcroft's Justice Dept. of two journalists, Robert Novak, and this "novice crime reporter." Coming back to you, is it?
In both cases, the reporters in question refused to reveal sources. I'll bet you can guess the difference in the outcomes. Even if you can, take a look at Matt's post.
This is not a story about leaks in any case. This is a story about the White House attempting to dirty up an administration critic by suggesting that there was something fishy about his Niger trip undertaken at the behest of the CIA because his wife also worked for the CIA and she might have had something to do with his appointment. All this blather about how difficult it will be to prosecute is beside the point, which should be about following up the leads already out there in numerous WaPo stories in order to see not only who leaked to Novak, but if the White House took further advantage of his column by calling the attention of journalists to it. It's a story about the administration's attitudes towards those who disagree with it. This is about politics and governance, not about crime and punishment.
What amazes me is the willingness of so many on the right to dirty up the CIA itself, one its own favorite institutions in the past, or perhaps they now think of it as Clinton's CIA, a CIA not utterly subservient to the administration's desire to use it as a ministry of propoganda.
For any of you who missed the NIGHTLINE of Oct 6th, in which four ex CIA operatives, all self-pronounced Republicans spewed forth their contempt and disgust at administrationi's actions against the Wilsons, you can look at some video and read a summary of what got said here.
