It's on. A federal grand jury has begun hearings in the investigation of the CIA leak of the name "Valerie Plame," an intelligence employee whose name and position was considered classified. This is now the American tax dollar at work, keeping America safe.
If anything it should become an investigation of the news profession. The disgraceful, unprofessional part Robert Novak had in the "leak" has already been noted.
It all seems moot now. Everyone knows what happened. That isn't questioned. The only point of interest is culpability. Who is going to be blamed for it? Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie, says the White House leaked. Novak says he got the info from two top administration officials. The Chicago Sun published Novaks "leak." Wilson says it was all to smear him, because he criticized the President's handling of pre-war Iraqi intelligence information.
Never mind the motives, the exchanges, the payoffs. One man made it public: Robert Novak. How exactly the information got to him, the nature of the conversation, the context, etc., is all irrelevant, really. One paper published it: The Chicago Sun.
Not all that can be known in the world is supposed to be known by everyone. This is a lesson everyone should have learned in his own family life. Every parent knows the child cannot comprehend everything in the bigger picture, so the parent often ends up telling the child only bits and pieces. And the child also learns that there are "family secrets" that are not to be shared with anyone or everyone. This isn't lying, deceiving, or dishonest. This is discretion. This is protection.
Novak failed in all of these. Novak was grossly immature about this. His "leak" was not necessary, and his only justification is going to be, "the administration gave me the information, knowing I would publish it, and therefore wanted it published." Poor mechanical operative, Mr. Novak. Poor, amoral stooge. No responsibility, no objectivity, just the simple process of the news profession. Novak was just a victim of his profession. He's trying desperately to weasel out of responsibility.
Robert Novak, 'on trial'
Freedom of speech? Will that come up in the defense? The right of the people to know the truth? Some such noble sentiment will be invoked, certainly. But no one must know about "palm greasing" that goes on in such "insider" news deals. That's one truth we don't deserve to know. The public indeed must not know everything.
It is difficult to grasp a healthy concept of the news profession altogether. The free enterprise aspect, competition for the best story, the most marketable story, the highest seller, is one of the most fundamentally distorting elements in the business. Not only does money affect the story itself, but also whether it's even going to be a story. In a very real way, money decides what the news is.
This is a very different reality than that which was established in the family. The values out in the real world tend to run against some of the most basic family values. In our family life, we learn to protect the ones we love. But outside, in the world, money doesn't love anyone. Anyone who's highest goal is money doesn't love anyone either. Such "professionals" will never make good patriots. They don't love the country. They can't.
Does make you wonder what's important and what itsn't. If they're going to resort to the theoretical, and make that the center of the universe, that everything about the incident has to count. If it isn't important, then it should never make the news.
This is some crazy combo of politics and news, both professions involving the same "flexibility" of perspectives.
You're quite right. The truth could be known in half an hour. Why the dramatization? Our society seems to revel in it. Well, it's non-violent entertainment, and it has the appearance of righteousness. Maybe it's the best we can do.
And welcome to BadEagle, Thrasymichus!
Posted by: David Yeagley on January 26, 2004 10:31 AMNovak thought she was an analyst, I believe. That's how the article seemed to put it. It came out later that she was working as something a bit more secret and that he had blown her cover.
I do think that Bush dropped the ball on when he promised to get to the bottom of this, said it really mattered to him, and then did not proceed to follow through by actually asking his staff which one of them did it.
There is a strong case to be made that this is not a big deal. But I do not like the idea of Bush publicly supporting an investigation when he could probably have the truth inside a half hour.
It is all politics, I suppose. I can understand the motivations. Still, it doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Posted by: Thrasymachus on January 25, 2004 10:50 PM