Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Top Nine Plamegate Lies

By Josh Kalven, Media Matters for America. Posted October 25, 2005.


As the possibility of high-level indictments increases, the misinformation battle intensifies; get the truth behind the major falsehoods.
Advertisement

As U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald's two-year investigation into the CIA leak case reportedly draws to a close, the long-standing debate over the origins of the scandal, the merits of the federal investigation, and the legal authority of the prosecutor has intensified greatly. At issue is the disclosure to the press of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, which first appeared in syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Bush administration officials allegedly leaked her identity in order to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a vocal critic of the White House's decision to go to war with Iraq.

In this rhetorical environment characterized by limited information and boundless speculation, those defending the officials at the center of Fitzgerald's probe have advanced numerous falsehoods and distortions. As Media Matters for America documents below, the media have not only failed to challenge many of these claims, but also repeated them.

Falsehood: It is legally significant whether the leakers disclosed Plame's name in their conversations with reporters

Shortly after Newsweek published an email by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to Time Washington bureau chief Mike Duffy saying that, according to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA, Rove's lawyer responded by noting that his client had not stated her actual name. Several news outlets went on to report Rove's response as if his reported omission of Plame's name was relevant to whether he violated the law. Simultaneously, commentators such as former presidential adviser David Gergen and Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro, as well as the Republican National Committee (RNC), began to advance the argument that because Rove didn't specifically name her, he did not reveal her identity.

But whether leakers identified Plame as "Valerie Plame," "Valerie Wilson," or "Wilson's wife" is irrelevant, both as a practical matter and likely as a legal matter. Practically speaking, a quick Google search of Joseph Wilson at the time would have produced Plame's actual name. As such, administration defenders have declared that whether her name was mentioned to reporters likely has no bearing on whether there was a violation of the law. Despite having previously implied that there is a meaningful distinction between disclosing her name and her identity before, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, later conceded that drawing such a line was "too legalistic." Similarly, Victoria Toensing, the Republican lawyer who helped draft the potentially applicable 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), agreed that the use of her name is "not an important part of whether this is a crime or not."

Nonetheless, numerous media figures recently revived this claim in the wake of New York Times reporter Judith Miller's revelation that the source who told her that Plame worked at the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also never disclosed her actual name.

Falsehood: Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger

An RNC talking points memo made public on July 12 accused Wilson of falsely claiming "that it was Vice President Cheney who sent him to Niger." The allegation that Wilson had lied about the genesis of his trip was soon repeated by RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who argued that this fact justified the purported leaking of Plame's identity to the press and that the White House had simply been attempting to set the record straight.

New York Times columnist David Brooks made this argument at least twice (here and here). And a string of journalists and commentators -- including CNN's Dana Bash, the Washington Post's Mike Allen, Newsweek's Jon Meacham, and U.S. News and World Report's Michael Barone -- parroted the allegation during news reports and media appearances in the following weeks. NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell recently repeated the claim as a guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.


Digg!

Josh Kalven is a member of the Research Department at Media Matters for America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Anonymous
Posted by: Bedingo on Oct 25, 2005 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tenth falsehood is that lying under oath (perjury) is a "technicality" according to Sen. Hutchinson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anonymous Posted by: woodford54
» RE: Anonymous Posted by: adp3d
It's Over!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 25, 2005 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Fitzgerald wouldn't have spent all this time on this investigation if he didn't have a whole lot to investigate. Remember it was only slightly over two years from the break-in at the Watergate Hotel in 1972 to the moment Nixon resigned in disgrace. How far up this will go is hard to say but I have no doubt that Bush was involved in a very big way. I've been saying for slightly over four years that he will be remembered in history, primarily, as the first and (let us pray) last former chief executive to go to federal prison. I am as sure of that as I am my own name.

It really is a beautiful thing watching this disgraceful administration unravel before our very eyes. And now even Liddy, er, Libby and Cheney are starting to turn on each other! I LOVE IT!! I mean, let's face it, folks: This is the gift that just keeps giving - politcal theater at it's very best!

And now the GOP talking heads are invading the Sunday talk shows with the same talking points - no doubt from Rove's embattled office - telling the American people (with straight faces, no less) that no one should be indicted on a mere technicality. Do these deplorable people remember 1998 when they tried to remove a president from office for lying about having a harmless fling with a half-witted intern?

This is too good to be true. Schadenfruede? It's not shameful to be happy when perfectly despicable people exposed and punished for their deeds. What is shameful is the fact that so many people in this country were stupid enough to send so obviously unqualified a man to the White House to begin with. Couldn't they see that the guy had the IQ of a half-eaten box of Milk Duds?

This is a political junkie's dream.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Over! Posted by: Barbara
» RE: It's Over! Posted by: rkewen
» RE: It's Over! Posted by: Kevin R. Hoskins
» RE: It's Over! Posted by: cstriker
» Tom... Tom... Tom..... Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Tom... Tom... Tom..... Posted by: cstriker
» Let them stay as a shell Posted by: truthteller
» RE: Let them stay as a shell Posted by: gltirebiter
Perjury
Posted by: paulaH on Oct 25, 2005 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could not believe the audacity of the Repugnicans when I heard that comment about "perjury technicality". Funny, they didn't think it was a technicality when they were screaming to impeach Clinton on that very same technicality. All I ever read and heard during that time was, "it isn't about the sex, it's about the fact that he LIED under oath. If he'll lie about that under oath, what is he lying about to the American people?" That was the justification for trying to bring down a sitting President because he had sex. And they used that technicality because after several years of investigation and trying to get Clinton on something, anything, they finally settled on that because that WAS ALL THEY HAD TO GO ON.

For the people who claim Clinton was immoral, I want to ask them to, please, point out to me where in the Ten Commandments they're so adamant about displaying everywhere does it say, "thou shalt not have sex"? Sure, it says not to covet the neighbor's wife, but Monica was unmarried, was she not? On the other hand, "thou shalt not kill" figures rather prominently and Bush and Cheney and the whole lot's lies--and perjury technicalities--have killed a great number of people. Who's immoral here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perjury Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Perjury Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Perjury Posted by: justthefacts
» RE: Perjury Posted by: dharmabum
over
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Oct 25, 2005 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And as we post ,the soldiers die,children are maimed for life,waters rise,the air we breath gets worse,......and thats okay .Suppose to be that way ....cause JESUS is coming back ! hallalua. THATS the problem folks. This country believes in Myths ,Legends,and Fairytails. When you believe in that ,..shucks anything is possible. Cause folks just love a leader that is one of them. You know ,Godfearing,compasionate.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: over Posted by: Seraphim
Karl Rove's Blowback
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 25, 2005 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a political observer over the last 45 years, I have witnessed some nefarious dirty tricks by political operatives who put winning over integrity, principles and decency. Karl Rove wins the gold medal for dirty tricks.

All political campaigns involve some dirty tricks. Kennedy benefitted from organized crime when the mob in Chicago pulled the vote in Cook County and Major Daily, who allegedly has double vision when counting ballots (I know that he does not actually count them himself), guaranteed Kennedy a victory in Cook County.

When President Johnson won a Senate Seat for the first time, there were strong evidence suggesting that the counting of ballots was not very accurate. Then there's Richard Nixon. Enough said. As a former political operative myself I am well aware of the temptation to win at any costs.

Karl Rove is in a class by himself. In a State Election for Governor, he falsely exposed his candidate's opponent as being gay at the last minute. The swift boat ads were a vicious attack on the character of a veteran who valiently fought for his country in the Vietnam war while Rove's own candidate not only used his father's connections to jump the queue for the Texas National Guard during the same war, but also disappeared for a year during his service.

Outing an undercover CIA agent goes beyond political dirty tricks into the realm of criminal offenses. Not only did he risk the life of Valerie Plame but by naming the undercover organization, he risked the lives of anyone who ever worked there.

It seems that Mr. Rove committed one too many dirty tricks. If the Fitzgerald investigation ends his political career, political campaigning will have been purged of a malicious cancer.

AUTHOR OF "LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO WIN WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Karl Rove's Blowback Posted by: dale0k
» Kissinger? Posted by: canuckistani
» RE: Karl Rove's Blowback Posted by: cyclone
Criminalizing Conservatives
Posted by: feduphoosier on Oct 25, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Criminalizing Conservatives'... now that one always makes me laugh.

Looking back at the Nixon/Watergate era, then the Reagan era Iran/Contra scandal... and now witnessing the unveiling of the Bush/Cheney Plame scandal (among others you know are coming), all I can say is - gosh - conservatives seem downright determined to 'criminalize' themselves just about every chance they get. They sure do not appear to need any help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

amazedagain
Posted by: amazed again on Oct 25, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watch in wonder as your News Media in USA try to back stab legal officers who are doing the job they were given by your President. My thoughts are what are they the Media trying to hide? Are they also on shaky ground? or are they trying to change the outcome for the American people. It was always my contention that the Media was to report the facts and not color the news to suit their own agenda. Now I believe Media are out to support their own Political Party. So what do they get out of it? they are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. Perhaps news moguls should be very careful how they tread, their hip pocket might weigh a little lighter or perhaps they should have their toys [their news papers] taken away from them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: amazedagain Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: amazedagain Posted by: amazed again
» RE: amazedagain Posted by: dale0k
» RE: amazedagain Posted by: amazed again
» RE: amazedagain Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: the system explained Posted by: ScottP
» RE: amazedagain Posted by: polyquats
» If you haven't checked... Posted by: cstriker
resada
Posted by: resada on Oct 25, 2005 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think its funny that the tactics that the Republicans thought were fair and right when applied to Clinton[after all, he lied under oath about having SEX!} are so "criminalizing and partisan" when applied to themselves. They seem to have conveniently forgotten that they tried to crucify Clinton on much weaker charges. And charges that had the potential to do far less damage to the nation than the things the Republicans are accused of[money laundering, illegal use of federal funds, breaches of national security, torture of captives]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: resada Posted by: cstriker
» RE: resada Posted by: cstriker
ITS THE ARROGANCE STUPID
Posted by: krose on Oct 25, 2005 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always the arrogance that gets them in the end! You would think they would have been more careful in carrying out their nefarious deeds! They saw Nixon and his cronies go down. They saw Reagon's bunch get caught. But the problem with arrogance is that, when one is consumed with it, one doesn't believe one has it. One thinks one is just "SO SPECIAL!" "I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT!" "THE LAWS DON'T APPLY TO ME!" "I'M DIFFERENT!" Oh well, I guess you are no different than the rest of us, neocon Bush Bunch, & CO. (ITS THE ARRROGANCE STUPID!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ITS THE ARROGANCE STUPID Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: ITS THE ARROGANCE STUPID Posted by: cyclone
Plame's Covert Status
Posted by: wobblies on Oct 25, 2005 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
Regarding Plame's covert status, hasn't one blown her status if one informs the public that a person works for the CIA when that person is working under cover. It keeps being asserted that one must not only assert that an agent is in the CIA but also that she is under cover for a crime to have been committed. One's cover is, by definition, blown if it is revealed that the person works for the CIA.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plame's Covert Status Posted by: cyclone
Spinning Out of Control
Posted by: jobie1kno on Oct 25, 2005 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The White House would not be in the position they are in, if they hadn't been pulverizing the pupulation for four years, with their spin. Imagine if they hadn't used these corrupt news people to relay their messages to us. The dots are now connected simply because the dots (lies) were all put out there by this administration, to fool us all.They couldn't mould 'popular opinion' without spinning the facts, and now each of those communications are the firm proof of the White House's illegal actions. Nice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spinning Out of Control Posted by: polyquats
US PERSON
Posted by: US Person on Oct 25, 2005 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, what a tangled web it is, when first we practice to deceive!

My apologies to the poet who wrote this line since I probably have quoted it inaccurately--but you get the idea

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: US PERSON Posted by: jwg
» RE: US PERSON Posted by: bookwormnj
» RE: US PERSON Posted by: JoeBuddha
TennBlue
Posted by: TennBlue on Oct 25, 2005 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't recall hearing allegations of partisanship when this investigation began. Now that it seems a real possibility that Fitzgerald has uncovered crimes and will issue indictments, he is suddenly branded "partisan." Limbaugh and O'Reilly, accomplished and proven liars, will now work overtime to paint Fitzgerald as a politically motivated witch hunter. I'm not surprised. After all, conservative pundits in general, and those two in particular, have staked their reputations on setting up Bush and his administration as paragons of Christian morality, out to save America from the immoral and criminal liberals. I've finally discovered what the Conservative Christian Right is really all about. A crime is a crime only if a liberal commits it, and a commandment is a commandment only if a liberal breaks it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: ebdotkom
» RE: WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: Peacepole1@miraclestation2000.com
» RE: WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: cstriker
» RE: WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: cyclone
» RE: WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: ebdotkom
» RE: WHAT'S THE POINT? Posted by: cyclone
Blogs Of War
Posted by: cstriker on Oct 25, 2005 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone here seen Blogs of War? I have yet to look it over, but a friend of mine was telling me about it months ago. He indicated that since Plame was outed that the Israelis have been able to get their hands on loose nukes from Russia. He thinks that much of this ties back to WWII and the Jews saying they would never let anti-Semitics take them down again.

He is a serious conspiracy type person, but much of what he has said about the Plame deal has come out as truth. This really scares the doodie out of me. If any of his other theories about the rise of anti-Semitism and the Israelis getting their hands on nukes are true we are in serious trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blogs Of War Posted by: jwg
» RE: Blogs Of War Posted by: jlittle
» RE: Blogs Of War Posted by: cstriker
» RE: Blogs Of War Posted by: cstriker
» RE: Blogs Of War Posted by: bullybe
Thanks for the great summation of the falsehoods...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 25, 2005 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How bizarre have things gotten when the smear machine gears up to push back on the indictments that were necessitated by the smear machine's prior activities?

It a vindictive circle I tell you!

New on EWM: White House Sets Job Fair

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grace
Posted by: Gracie_fr on Oct 25, 2005 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers are good enough for reporting about one third of the facts most of the time. But then it is advisable to check on viable reporting done by well heeled vetrans...like Pilger or Robert Fisk when it come to facts on the ground in the Middle East. As for good American reporting, there is some. Most of the information that appears in the New York Review of Books is very good and informative..The New Yorker has been steadily excellent i.e.George Packer (The recent Assassins Gate) Jane Mayer, John Lee Anderson and of course Seymour Hersh. Harpers has been an outspoken part of the opposition since the 2000 election(slugginger editorials by Lewis Lapham)....and of course The Nation Magazine!!!.... All is NOT lost!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grace Posted by: Basenjis
mike
Posted by: lastmarx on Oct 25, 2005 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wilson on Cheney "sending" Wilson: Cheney ordered his staff to get info on the Niger story from the CIA-that's what inspired the CIA (not Cheney himself) to send him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SHOWS OUR SYSTEM WORKS? OR IS BROKEN?
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 25, 2005 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two years later means we've been stuck with BushII since then. He's done everything he can to drag the US deeper in the muck. It's like Chicago living with Capone murdering honest politicans until caught on an income tax rap.

Sorry. Something's broken. The issue is whether it can be fixed, and even impeachment of Bush would not fix it.

The US has sunk to its lowest depths since the chaos of the Civil War. It will take at least a couple of generations without wars and with politicans who take public service seriously and with citizens who realize that we are all in this together to get our hands clean again.

What a pity! What a shame! Democracy doesn't lie. The whole world can see our dirty laundry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

justthe facts
Posted by: justthefacts on Oct 30, 2005 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the continued inference that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or whoever was behind the disclosure of Valerie Plames's affiliation with the CIA, the hard fact is the after a two year investigation costing I'm sure several million dollars, a very highly respected prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald (great job in Chicago) has come up with nothing more than a charge against a staff member of inconsistencies in his testimony regarding conversations with reporters. There is no charge that Libby leaked the Plame data - no indictment - nothing.
There is no charge against anyone for leaking the Plame connection. Do I think the investigation was valid? Yes. But if this is the best that can be arrived at under a class prosecutor, my question, if any of you remember Clara Peller, is, "where's the beef"? Answer, there really isn't any.
But if Rove, Cheney, Bush, whoever was shown through this process to have been responsible, my response would be, let the chips fall where they may. That said, you have to ask yourself this. The Administration made it clear from day one that if asked, any member of the administration should provide testimony to the FBI. No foot dragging, no appeals to the Circuit Court. And if asked to testify before the grand jury, they should do so promptly - no legal challenges, etc. And as far as I know, Fitzgerald was given free access to any records he requested, EMails whatever, without ever issuing a subpeona. Of Course, no investigation involving the Clinton Administration as far as I know was without a flurry of subpeonas. The American way. No blanket indictment of the Clinton Administration.
But you have to ask yourself this. If Bush, Cheney and Rove were at the heart of this - they did it, guilty as hell - why would they give the prosecutor an open road and an open book to hang them? If guilty, why wouldn't they play the "deny, deny, deny" card, the "appeal, appeal, appeal" card. Got an answer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: justthe facts Posted by: Everbody
Amazed
Posted by: amazed on Oct 31, 2005 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How dare Robert Novack, Sean Hannnity, Rush Limbaugh and the like decide that outing a CIA agent is okay. It's a crime guys. The law doesn't specific only covert agents it simply identfies CIA agents. And who are these hacks to decide their outing didn't endanger her lives or the lives of others. All they do is collect their talking points each day from the White House. They have sold their souls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]