Washington File

The article says that Ms. Plame's "identity was made public by senior officials in the Bush White House, ostensibly to get back at her diplomat husband..."

Doesn't "ostensibly" mean "outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended"? Isn't that rather the opposite of what was meant here, i.e., they "actually" did it for that reason, rather than professing to have done so?

michael,

your query is late in the game...but correct
...h

Roger, Ottawa, Canada. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your stand on the issue, the faulty logic of the argument itself is absolutely frightening. Using the same logic one could say, "Well, bank robbers rob banks so why shouldn't politicians? The banks are already being robbed, after all."

It is one thing to defend a person but it is quite another to justify an illegal act by using equally heinous criminals as a precedent.

I am stunned by how readily the US press and even the congress jumped on the White House and proper civil servents for the 'outing' of a fairly low level CIA employee.
There are,I am told,several sites where each week 'unsavorys' provide and post the latest disclosure of "CIA" agents.How accurate they are is anyones guess but they are based in the UK and Germany.In my opinion the only people they serve are press related and fringe groups.Todays intelligence services seem to know who is on the other side quite well,and dont need 'outings' by politically motivated people to tell them friend from foe. Enough already!

Why is the campaign contribution of any interest or importance in this discussion? Since when do public employees have to abandon their private convictions? People have their job mandates but hopefully are still entitled to think for themselves in their private lives.

Why does any accusation of bashing the right (or left) enter the discussion? If these facts are true, then the U.S.A. is not quite what it used to be. Blindly taking sides along one's own partisan lines will enable this kind of frightening behaviour to continue. We're all in the big salad and we have to try to see things for what they are no matter who has been elected.

Hello:

It's tiresome repeating this for the millionth time:

-The Iraqis WERE in Niger looking for nuclear material (contrary to Joe Wilson)
-Joe Wilson WAS selected for his "mission" by his wife, Valerie Plame
-It was Wilson, not somebody else, who revealed classified information in his leaking info to the newspapers
-Plame's identity was NOT revealed by Lewis Libby; it was revealed by anti-"neocon" ally of Sec of State Powell, Richard Armitage, who has not been charged with any crime because THERE WAS no crime
-for Lewis Libby to face decades in jail while Alexander `Sandy' Berger gets a slap on the wrist for stealing and destroying classified documents with regard his Clinton years on anti-terrorism, is the real obscenity...

I wish some of the self-righteous here would actually care to discover the facts before they open their mouths...

thanks
R.B. Glennie

2 things recent things on CBC.CA and my accompanying reflections upon them have caused me to wonder if I should actually fear for the future of the Canadian political system.
It just hit me after reading Mr. Bryson's comment on this blog: "It seems that idiocy that passes for reason is one thing that the far right have in common in both countries [the USA and Canada]."
I agree with Mr. Bryson. But it is also true that the far left has a major problem with "idiocy that passes for reason" as well.
In America, the far right have only one place to go: The Republican party. And the far left have only one place to go: The Demmocrat party.
Maybe that's why these "far" idiots have a national outlet, and even power! I mean, they have no choice, right? They need the weight of a party behind them, right? So why not make the most of which ever party you think can advance your specific idiotic agenda?
This 2 party system has been and is now a seriously well thought-out complaint and lametation, has it not?
There does seem to be the need for AT LEAST one more party in American politics. A party that can, shall we say, occupy the center (without the need nor even desire to pass idiocy for reason!).
Meanwhile in Canada, Larry Zolf's latest article in this here CBC.CA's "Analysis and Commentary" suggests a "uniting the left!" In other words: The Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens should "unite" to beat the Conservatives who have, As Mr. Zolf puts it, "occupied the center."
Bad idea!
We need more than two parties in Canadian politics! We need more than two so that the "far" idiots will be diluted in which ever party they choose to use to advance their own idiotic ideas and so they will not be able to have nearly as much sway in Canada as they do in America!
It hit me like a ton of bricks! The key to keeping idiots from having to much power is to KEEP THE IDIOTS SCATTERED!
We Canadians may soon have no longer a 3, but a 4 party system. YES!

The 9/11 report totally discredited Joe Wilson for those interested in facts. Joe even listed Plame by name as his wife in one of those Who's Who directories. As far as hypocrisy by Republicans, they let Sandy Burglar (er, Berger) get away pretty much scot-free for a much more serious breach of national security when he took home classified documents in his pants and destroyed them.

I find it fascinating that an editorial that takes a dim view of any particular goings-on in Washington is seen as a left-wing rant against all things Bush and the Republicans. What would these viewers have the media do? Perhaps role over and accept everything that comes out of the White House (and Ottawa) at face value?

The fact is a crime has been committed by people in positions of high authority in Washington. A career was destroyed for partisan reasons and, quite possibly, the lives of US intelligence agents were endangered as a result of this "outing". How is that not news? How is the reporting of that news another example of "reflexive anti-Americanism" or "CBC lib-left bias"?

If this were a crime committed by the Martin Liberals or the Clinton Democrats, I wonder what the commentary would sound like from the trogladites on the far right?

It seems that idiocy that passes for reason is one thing that the far right have in common in both countries.

Who cares?

Ms. Toensing's just another spin-doctor, there are many such people in politics whose job is to come out to take facts out of the equation and throw in some kind of partisan nonsense. Even when faced with an obvious truth, the game seems to be to that if you contradict reality boldly enough, you'll always have some core group of people who are so partisan they'll believe you no matter how little sense it actually makes. We have them too, though I think Canadians are more skeptical of them.
In the Plame case, despite claims that Plame was not covert, she was a CIA agent and her identity was supposed to be secret. Even if she was not part of the CIA's more hard-edged activities (only a small number of their people would be), naming her puts her in danger: even just in doing her job, she could become a target of kidnapping or murder (someone in the CIA, regardless of duties, makes a juicy target for many groups). Naming her destroyed her career - and this was done out of spite towards her husband! This is not the only time the Republicans have burned people in the US military and intel community either - one wonders how long those people will put up with it.

Does Henry Champ have eyes? Every time I see him on TV or in a picture, he has his eyelids open so slightly that you can't see anything under them. It freaks me out.

It's of no consequence that Mr.Champ's column may not appeal to the narrow, nearsighted, hard right perspectives of a self-appointed CBC tax dollar sleuth or Republican "truth" meter inspector; his message speaks for itself, neither surprising nor offending anyone of reasonable intelligence with a questioning mind, a heart for humanity, and a sense of integrity.

Yes Plame gave $1000 to the Gore campaign according to Federal Elections Commission records. And her husband made a $1000 contribution to George W. Bush's campaign. So much for Wilson being a "partisan". But the latter is NEVER mentioned by the Conservative pundits.

Another fact ignored by the Right Wing is that the Washington Post is now owned by a Conservative Publisher who has filled the editorial board with Conservative hacks. So citing WashPo editorials is no more informative than citing the National Review in order to gauge "liberal" opinion.

The fact is that Plame, in sworn testimony, described in great detail the circumstances of Joe Wilson's mission to Niger...in which she neither requested, recommended nor suggested his selection. She pointed out that her superior in the CIA's Division of Operations wrote a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee protesting the misquoted and erroneous version of his testimony...and was told by the Republican Chair that his revisions would not be passed on to the committee as a whole.

The current CIA Director General Hayden, after years of stonewalling by the Director that resigned in a sex-scandal (Porter Goss), finally revealed that Plame was a COVERT OFFICER and had travelled abroad WITHIN the five years of her exposure. There was an "underlying crime" - Fitzpatrick simply couldn't prosecute that crime because of the Obstruction of Justice and Perjury that Libby was convicted of earlier this month.

Re: Jim Vice above; The Tories do have the Republican Campaign Masters-Puppet Masters working for their outfit and directing their media and direction. This should be illegal. It should be Canadians and not Americans that elect Canadians.

The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest. The freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly, the freedoms to make the engineering of consent possible, are among the most cherished guarantees of the constitution of the United States. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger"-Hermann Goering, Nazi Leader, at the Nuremberg trials. "If this was a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator- George W. Bush Dec18,2000

Are these not the facts?:
Ms. Plame was a CIA employee with intelligence duties during a time of war.
Her identity was revealed by "Scooter" libby to the press - selected for their sympathy to Pres. Bush.
Ms. Plame's career hs been damaged - purposefully.
Questions: Is that not treason? When will charges be laid?
Don't be misled by assertions that "no harm was done". Use "Deep Throat"s mantra: "Follow the money."

People like Victoria Toensing are professional liars, oops, spin doctors. Their job is to create a fog for their masters. The good ones do a good job because it seems that most members of the mass media buy what these people say; hey, just look how easy it was to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Henry is one of the few in the media industry who sees the lie, oops, the spin.

One often wonders why so much emphasis is placed on spin and image. You would think that on the whole the public would have the intelligence to see through that sort of thing for what it is. But then you only have to read as far as the comments by D. McLeod below to be reminded of just how little it takes to convince people of fairy tales. If people can believe baseless 9/11 conspiracy theories that defy all science and reason, what hope do we have?

This is another very interesting story. I believe that anything stated or published by a government whether the US Government and its agencies, the Canadian Government, the British or ANY other government cannot be taken at face value and believed. Their job is to obfuscate, confuse and convince listeners of whatever is their current line. That is why citizens must protest in various ways in the hope of getting another point of view into the public domain.

Censorship is not limited to government control of the media. Democracies have developed sophisticated spin to manage the message. Mr. Champ's report reminds us that unfettered access is paramount to a free press.

Odd--Champ is usually the most level-headed of CBC correspondents. Closer examination seems to reveal he is clueless as to facts even the liberal Washington Post now accepts (e.g., that there WAS no outing crime, that Plame DID suggest big-mouth Joe for the trip, that Joe's original CIA report confirmed that Saddam HAD likely tried to buy uranium from Niger, etc. etc.; see "The Libby Verdict", WaPo, March 7, 07.)

I'm glad your journalist has a built in "truth" meter that allows him to pick and choose who is telling the truth. In the United States, we have to go through the formality and cost of a proceeding or trial to do that! Sadly, his meter may need re-caliberation though as it only detects a lie when a conservative, or Republican talks. In the real world that would lead to a left-wing dictatorship, if he had his way!

I sure enjoy these comments and background history , from your reporters.... in fact, I like it better than the broadcast news reports. Often when I see Champ on the tube I catch a twinkle to his eye suggesting there is more he would love to tell us...there is nothing anyone can do about the propagandists like Toensing and many others but at least we can get the real story

The Canadian correspondents who are working all over the world are informing us with what is happening in that world. We cannot live isolated from the others, especially our neighbours in the south. When Mr. Champ envoys the news or opens a discussion about the situation over there; it is his basic job to do this. We are very close to our neighbours in the south. We take a lot of their values and policies. How can we differentiate between the good and the bad if we do not discuss these values and policies???

Once again taxpayers money is spent on CBC reporters who love to bash Republicans and Bush.
What the heck is new!!!!

Why must there always be spin doctors? What has happened to integrity? When I was growing up a mans' word was his bond. Today you need someone to decipher the decipherer!

ry

Once again folks we see the arrogance of the current US regime. So arrogant in fact that this is the same group of thugs who have claimed that kerosene fires brought down WTC buildings 1 and 2 and 7 (which was not even hit by a plane). No steel structure building has collapsed in the history of construction due to fire EVER.
This is just more of the same from the terrorists in the White House.

She's a lawyer! Nuff said! We have lawyers in Canada too! And they are involved in running our country as well! Feeling smug? Here's a pefect example: A CBC reporter called to task Ujjal Dosanjh, then federal minister of health, for allowing the water situation (a health issue!) on a reserve (federal responsiblity!) to get so bad that a government from another jurisdiction (Ontario) had to air-lift the people off the reserve. The reporter was trying to find out why he and his fellow Liberal ministers (ie: the government!) allowed things to get so dangerous. Ujjal Dosanjh replied, "My job was to check." In other words, his ministry, and therefore he, was not to blame! Even though he was a member of the government! That's thinking like a lawyer! And Ujjal Dosanjh is a lawyer. He's also a father. Can you imagine the following scenario?: Ujjal's wife, says to Ujjal as she's off to work, "Dosanjh, will you check our water, I think it's hurting our children." "OK," says Ujjal, who then checks the water. That evening, she comes home and sees their children brushing their teeth. "Did you check the water, Ujjal?" she asks. "Yup," says Ujjal. "And?" She asks. "You were right," says Ujjal, "The water is hurting our children." "Well then why didn't you do something?" she asks. "My job was to check" replies Ujjal. Can you honestly imagine that? You can always tell if someone is thinking like a lawyer if you apply their philosophy to them, and ask them if they'd still think the same way if it happened to them. If they say no, or, much more commonly, if they avoid the question, you know they are thinking like a lawyer. It should be a law that lawyers have to say if they really think the excuses they give for their clients would be acceptable if these same excuses were given by someone who had done the same thing to them! Immagine if lawyers had to openly self-justify every word coming out of their mouths! But that will never happen. And so enter Victoria...

What's the point of this "Toensing has even charged Plame with making a campaign contribution to Al Gore's presidential campaign."

It's true and easy to check, look up at OpenSecrets.org

WILSON, VALERIE E MS, did give $1,000 to Al Gore, on 4/22/1999. Listing BREWSTER-JENNINGS & ASSOC. as her employer

I listened to Toensing's testimony yesterday and yes, she obfuscated. She was also incredibly arrogant, kept interrupting her questioners, answered questions that weren't asked and ignored questions that were asked. I'm not sure she was as successful as she would have liked. I especially liked Waxman's comment at the end that there would be fact-checking of all her comments. He did a fabulous job, IMHO.

The sad thing is not that Victoria Toensing will rewrite reality, it is that the American public don't care.

Victoria Toensing's acts are equally dangerous to those perpetrated by the White House itself in 'outing' Plame.

Hi....Henry
Just thought I'd let you know that I always look forward to your views on just about everything.
Been a long time since the old Brandon Manitoba days.
Hope we meet sometime down the road.

An old friend from way back
Marcel Bouvier

We'd have lots to talk about, wouldn't we...
particularily that snooker tournament you beat me in..
h

Fascinating story, Henry. I have seen Toensing on the tube dozens of times during the Clinton troubles. Guess which way she was arguing then?
We have a 'new' government up here who have perfected, via their PR people,( and probably imported from the Bush people) the knack of having their cake and eating it too. On this front Victoria would score about 99 out of 100. Cheers.

Is there a new kind of law required, that has to do with the prevention and punishment of obscurationism?

It would be applied to people like Victoria Toensing or the scientists who (on behalf of major tobacco companies) found that smoking did not significantly contribute to lung cancer and, of course, today's scientists who (on behalf of major energy companies) deny the reality of climate change...

It seems that anyone who contradicts truths which are, well, inconvenient for the powerful rich is given equal time on the public airwaves. Why? This is not science, where many possibilities are considered and tested, but a deliberate use of speech to deceive the public and protect private (greedy) interests.

Hmmm. Sounds like I think the pendulum of social theory needs to swing back over to include the public good in its considerations.