Washington File

Gil, that's a beautiful Cree greeting. Thank you.

Search on msnbc.com for a NBC Nightly News piece called "Blue state blues cure in Canada?" by George Lewis. However, it should be noted that many Americans (like Canadians) live outside their country and there's nothing wrong with that. One can love Paris not because one dislikes America (20,000 Americans live there including actor Molly Ringwald). Retirement in Mexico and Panama is a growing trend. Lots of Americans settle in Canada but not for political reasons (e.g., Joel Otto, Cammi Granato) but for business, family, fishing, etc. I have Canadian friends in the southern US because they like the weather and they are extremely conservative in their outlook. Chacun a son gout ...

To "Why?": while more Americans have looked into moving to Canada, based on news about immigration workshops in LA getting packed and quadrupled hits from the US on Immigration Canada's web site, please consider a) most independent applications take 2-3 years, maybe more if the system is filling up in Ottawa, before we know how many Americans are serious (but who is keeping up Canada's real estate market all across the counry?) and b) US tradition is being a country of immigration not emigration so a greater mental shift is required (yet 20,000 Americans live full time in Paris). I am familiar with B since I have worked for a couple of multinational companies and getting Americans to take expat assignments is really hard. In one case, a Chicago project manager freaked when he saw the words "Immigration" on his forms from Ireland, threatened to resign, etc. Then it turned out, a clever lawyer discovered that his grandfather was an Irish immigrant who settled on the West Side and qualified him to already be an Irish citizen so he wouldn't be "leaving America" even for a short while but going to his second home! He took the assignment but that incident probably hurt his chances for promotion. Myself, I used to get one or two enquiries about Canada when folks consider expat assignments or kids university (Toronto, Queens, McGill). Since late 2004, it has been more like once a month. Most people probably don't do anything about it. When I'm asked, it is usually in a very discrete, hush-hush manner. And those LA workshops banned press coverage, with CBC's cameras shooed out of the hotel. The bottom line: it's hard to move within a city, harder within a state or province, between states or provinces, and between countries even the US and Canada. (Within the EU's open borders, there's still a lot of coaxing but at least no/little paperwork and Customs.)

Kari: tawow! (Literal translaton from Cree: "there's lots of room". Basically, welcome.)

p.s. To "Why":

Can only speak for myself, moving takes time, maybe years. Finding new job, leaving family. etc. Still serious about it though.

I hope the CBC continues to cover how the Plame / Libby story pans out especially in the world of journalism and the fairness of the trial. To me it is both an intensely political and personal story of a CIA husband and wife.

Jerry you're such a kidder.....

Kari you are suffering here in the US. Having to live in a land with a deficiency of "human correctedness" must be murder. Especially for someone such as yourself who yearns for that sense of community which is to be found in abundance north of the border. Kari I think you may be able to infer what I am driving at here. I am sure they could make room for another human who has been corrected up there in the Great White North. Maybe you could plan on returning when Hillary is elected. She and Bill have been corrected humans for years. (K, this is just a little fun. Don't leave.)

Kari I have to ask a question that many of us wonder about. You say it is hell. So why do Americans stay in a country that has been hijacked by the likes of Bush and the Republicans? After all these years many of us up here expected a mass exodus to countries where freedom is not just a word that the president uses to create hatred.

Regarding the original subject at hand: I heard just this afternoon on NPR (Jerry and I disagree on how great NPR is) about the process of jury selection for this case, it has become a huge difficult mess because the jury will be unbalanced if there is anti or pro Bush jurors making the decisions.

And just so you know, Diane, at least half of Americans were insane with anger after Bush was "elected" but then 9/11 happened and intense intimidation of journalists or anyone who were against Bush (as is evidenced by this very story.)

The reason Canada is better than the U.S. is because you all have a great sense of community, Americans are good people but America is completely devoid of human connectedness.

I have to say it again, the most vile part of this story is that the White House intentionally put Plame and her colleagues in danger of being executed overseas. They did this as retaliation for speaking out against Bush. Disgusting, criminal. But this is what we have lived with in America,over and over and over again. It's been hell.

Read the link I posted previously if you don't believe me.

I won't pretend to know why it has taken Americans so long to see the Bush administration for what it is, but I do think they view the Presidency differently than how we Canadians view, for example, our Prime Minister. I once read - can't remember the source - that Canadians tend to view their politicians/leaders as being out on day parole. To me, Americans seem to view the Presidency as something removed from and above its occupant - almost a God-like position - and I think this makes it very hard for them to be critical. And when the actual occupant wraps himself and his administration in the cloak of religion, it's even harder for a nation that is quite religious.

I think that Canadians believe that their country works - for better or worse - almost irrespective of its leadership, because of its citizens - in other words, we have a good amount of trust in the "citizen fabric" of our nation and don't much fear the "fabric" of others. We can see that, at times, we and others can be ill-served by leaders. Americans seem more concerned with leadership (parents? gods?) and, similarly, they seem to judge (and fear) other nations by and because of their leaders, those leaders being symbols of the people they rule or respresent. I think that we'd fall into anarchy if we did not at least have some respect for and trust in our leaders and laws, but too much respect - if it's blind - can be a dangerous thing. I think that it's far more important that we trust the "citizen fabric". And have you noticed that the one thing leaders most like to do to retain power is have us distrust, even hate, each other?

Chris, Canada has had its share of unfulfilled campaign promises, promises that were reversed etc. and leaders that have twisted argument in favour of those changes. We are by no means innocent.

What is different is that not being a 2 party system, Canadians are not polarized which allows for a broader debate on issues. If there is any devisiveness here, it is regional; Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Western Provinces and BC. This ignores the northern territories. With these geographical separations come some very poignant differences of political viewpoint.

We are actually still healing from the scandal of Adscam that brought down the government of the day. That presented some very polarized debate and spin on both sides.

Canadians also look for neutral reporting or in the case of its absence, we will frequently look at both sides of an issue. This is the juggling act the CBC has to perform, often getting the thumbs down from government or special interest groups. It has a mandate to serve Canada not the government.

Yes Gil that's my point. I don't like people's "opinions" inserted into the news I get. On the other hand I appreciate solid commentary to enlarge and elaborate on certain news items. To me for someone to "report opinions" is an oxymoron. But, maybe that's just me.

Regarding the reference to Fox News' tag line "Fair and balanced coverage"... Fox News does not claim that THEIR coverage is fair and balanced, rather, that they make American news as a whole, fair and balanaced (they see the other news orgs as too liberal). Its all about the spin. ;)

Regarding the ethics of attacking someone you know to be innocent, to get at the guilty... You could apply a greater good argument here and say that if Bush and/or Cheney truly are guilty (and I believe they are), it might be worth sacrificing Libby to get at them.

Here's what I don't get. In Canada, it seems that while politicians have been forced to change direction on policy or never got around to fulfilling a particular element of their platform (seen as a promise), they haven't out and out lied for political advantage. I don't understand how its taken until the 6th year of the Bush administration for American's to stand up and say enough is enough.

Jerry, did you fail to notice that this is a COLUMN by a REPORTER. Just because Mr. Champ is a reporter does not mean he isn't entitled to an opinion. Especially in an opinion piece.

We know the Bush administration was behind the leak but what we don't know is who will take the fall. Not any of them, I'll bet!!

Thanks all, including Mr. Champ, for the responses to my question. As to Jerry/Seattle's question - reporter or commentator - Mr. Champ should probably answer that one. However, as a CBC fan for years, I would say that what I most appreciate is the range of reporting and commentating, all from one source. Anyone who believes that there is some kind of absolutely objective reporting out there is delusional - even the process of selecting from available facts is a subjective process. The parts of the "news", whether print, broadcast, or internet, that are most obviously commentary are, to my thinking, the most interesting. Accordingly, any news source that thinks it needs to advertise itself as "fair and balanced" is highly suspect. I feel the same way about any government that finds it necessary to label itself "new".

Diane in Calgary, the answer to your question about the high level of offerings to HC's column by Americans might be found in the title of it. (Washington File) Since he writes almost exclusively about US issues it would seem reasonable for American readers to respond. Henry is good at what he does but my question to him is; is he a reporter or a commentator?
It would seem the two should not be mixed.

I read the website of a former CIA employee and he also thought the outing of Plame could put her life in danger.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Jerry, in all seriousness I appreciate your comment.

Diane, I began reading CBC when I considered moving to Canada. The rumors are true - Canadians are way kinder and more reasonable than Americans, in forums especially.

America's online news sources are an ugly swamp of hostility and divisiveness; notice how Americans see the truth of the Valerie Plame story differently depending on whether we are democratic or republican.

BBC and Al Jazeera are okay but CBC is like a good local farmer's market - balanced, well moderated and aesthetically elegent.

Whether Plame was overt or covert, the Bush administration attempted to underhandedly undermine her career in order to discredit her husband. I must say that I am fascinated by the number of American commentators on this, a Canadian broadcasting, website. Can anyone tell me why? I don't object - indeed, the opposite - I'm just curious. Thanks.

diane...The editors say this column gets about twenty-five percent of it's postings from the u.s...we don't know why..but we value their contributions....
we also think their participation and point of view is welcomed by our canadian readers.....although occasionally a ideological brushfire has been known to break-out...h

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that there was no conspiracy to out Ms. Plame - her identity was revealed inadvertently by Richard Armitage.

Mr. Champ, do you think this would have been good to mention in your posting?

Robert--You're correct that Armitage contacted the prosecutor early on in this case to say that he had mentioned the Wilson/Plame situation to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. What's important to remember is that the Libby case is not about the leak itself--that remains under investigation. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for telling the grand jury that he never mentioned Plame's identity to journalists who said that he did. He has subsequently acknowledged the conversations, but said that at the four times he denied them to the prosecutor and grand jury it was not because he was intentionally lying, he simply forgot in the crush of important government business....h

Come on Herb/SD stick to the point of the article. This case is very similar to the travesty going on in North Carolina with the out of control presecutor trying to hang some kids to win an election. Here the prosecutor has let an innocent man (at least of the leak) hang out to dry for the press jackels to savage when he knew all the time someone else did the leaking. Then instead of apologizing to Libby he puts him on trial for telling an alleged untruth to an FBI man. No matter what one thinks of the situation in Iraq, this Libby case stinks like bad fish.

I have to think that the Fourth Estate itself, not just a few journalists have to accept responsibility for much of this.

They have allowed themselves to become the voice of the administration then gone forward without checking information, without questioning and finally, under the threat of legislation designed to allow government unfettered access to personal information while overriding some of the most poignant parts of the constitution allowed itself to be manipulated.

The media cannot protect sources because any attempt to do so can be considered subversive under the Patriot Act.

Without freedom of the press democracy disintigrates. When the press take sides without question, they are an instrument of that demise. A lot of this trial should focus on the Fourth Estate and its role over the past 20 or so years. This has not been a sudden change but gradual.

America needs to do this, not only for itself but as a leader in the democratic world. Other democracies are watching intently.

Regardless of what Jerry/Seattle and defenders of the Bush Administration say; facts are: Ambassador Wilson told the truth and Bush lied to the American people in order to invade Iraq.
As a result of the war; America and the world is less safe and there is no good solution to the problems this illegal war created.

Henry,
It was FAWN, not Faith, Hall. You are mixing her up with Faith HILL, the country singer.

it's age john...to think i was there when she said she took the documents out under her blouse...h

Kari, I am correcting you because you ARE wrong. First of all, the law against "outing" a CIA agent says the agent must be covert and must have been on covert assignment outside the US in the past five years. Plame was neither and so is not covered by the law as she just drove a desk in Langley and was not a covert agent. So much for getting informed by NPR.

Since the prosecutor knew from the beginning who actually made the leak (And it was not Libby. His supposed crime was to lie in the investigation of the noncrime), the only facinating feature of the upcoming trial remaining will be to see many of Henry's reporter friends squirming on the witness stand explaining what they knew and when they knew it. One can easily see the irony here and you can bet Libby's lawyers will get revenge for what has been a press driven attempt to bring down Bush at the expense of anybody who stood in the way. Better check your mailbox Henry, you may have a summons in there yourself.

nothing yet, jerry...h

Journalists shouldn't reveal sources if the sources are truthful. But journalists also have to have some means of protecting themselves from being duped and manipulated. If the 'unnamed source' has lied as a way to spread malicious untrue facts -- and the WMD story is a perfect example -- then the journalist is perfectly entitled to come forward and reveal the source.

I was driving when I first heard this story on NPR. It made me sick. I was so angry I almost couldn't drive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, outing a CIA operative can put their life in extreme danger.

The word in the U.S. was that (allegedly) Cheney was ultimately responsible for this.
We all knew about the WMDs cover up, no surprise there, but the outing of Valerie Plame was tantamount to a mafia hit.

Regarding the journalists, it's tough but how can a they get good and reliable information if they give up their sources?