When presidential aide Karl Rove’s resignation was announced, AP political reporter Ron Fournier wrote an “analysis” of Rove’s character and his work for President Bush.
Among other things Fournier, who’s Democratic partisanship and Bush-bashing help undermine the AP’s claim to political objectivity, had this to say about what he termed Rove’s “involve[ment]” in the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Bob Novak [on pg. 3 of the "analysis" ]:
Rove's own word came into doubt when a White House spokesman, after checking with him, denied that the strategist was involved in the leak of a CIA agent's identity. Turned out, Rove was one of the leakers.Not so fast, “analyst” and Democrat Ron Fournier.
Bob Novak, writing the same time as Fournier, repeated some things he’s said often and Fournier no doubt knew:
Although [Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald knew from the start that not Rove but the politically nondescript Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was my primary source in identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, the prosecutor came close to indicting Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice. Rove rivaled Bush as a hate figure for left-wing politics.Fournier never told readers Armitage was the source of the Plame leak or that Fitzgerald knew that in the very first days of his “investigation.”
Nor did Fournier acknowledge that what Rove did was to simply confirm to TIME reporter Matt Cooper, husband of Democratic Party activist Mandy Grunwald, that he’d heard Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and had a role in the agency’s decision to send her husband Joe Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.
Rove wasn’t leaking; he was confirming. That happens in Washington hundreds of times each day. Reporters use confirmations to get their stories "right." A good reporter is careful to let readers know when he/she is using a "leaker" and when the story "has been confirmed."
Fournier knows Rove was confirming, but he wouldn't pass on a chance to slime Rove even if it meant misleading his readers.
Closing thoughts - - -
Most of MSM, including the AP, keep telling us Plame was a “covert” CIA agent. But for more than five years before Novak disclosed her CIA employment, Plame drove to work from her Washington home to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
Request to the Democratic dominated MSM: Will you please investigate and report whether the CIA really lets its covert operatives commute to headquarters?
Wouldn’t that be strange and newsworthy even for an agency that bungles as much as the CIA?
Fournier's piece is here; Novak's is here.
1 comments:
Plame was empoyed as an analyst by the CIA. She had previously worked in shallow cover in the nuclear proliferation area, but was not, in any way, covered by the laws that Fitzgerald used in his witch hunt. I worked with Naval Intelligence at the time that Plame was allegedly "under cover," and I frequently went to CIA to confer with my counterparts. I know for a fact she drove her car--complete with CIA parking decals--to and from Langley on a daily basis. The interesting fact of this whole case is that the CIA allowed the allegations of undercover status to continue despite knowing Plame was not what she claimed. The reason? George W. Bush is thoroughly despised by the Ivy League wannabe spies at the CIA and they relished seeing his administration eviscerated by a Republican Special Prosecutor. Between the CIA, Richard Armitage of the State Department, and MSM, Dubya didn't stand a chance, but you'll never read that anywhere. Final question: was justice served? The persecution of "Scooter" Libby ranks up there with Nifong's malicious prosecution of the Duke Three. Too bad nobody stuck up for "Scooter."
Post a Comment