I am cynical enough to no believe that Crewdson worked this out by himself.

This smacks of a leak by someone in the Whitehouse.  I wonder if he was paid for doing administration PR work. 

By John Crewdson
Tribune senior correspondent
Published March 12, 2006

That's a cut & paste from the actual article.

What struck me some time ago was that both Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame had jobs that involved risking their lives to protect the United States.  Both have done so.

That is certainly more than you can say for, George, Dick, or Karl.  I don't know about Scooter. 

I often wondered if some of the more conservative journalists are being paid by the Whitehouse to spread this kind of damage control for Bush and his administration. And when I read stuff like the article you linked to I am almost convinced that these people are being paid by the Whitehouse. Great post Larry.

While "not disclosing the .  .  .  searching techniques used," the Chicago Trib has done a service in questioning whether "the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny."

Just as PortsGate is as much about Bush Administration hypocrisy as it is about port security, so PlameGate is about hypocrisy.  This article puts one more nail in the Defend the Nation at Any Cost Bush spin.

The Trib should be praised for its efforts, not denigrated. 

Y'all should be little more careful when you go accusing someone of being a partisan hack.  John Crewdson is a major reporter who has written big stories for the Trib (including one on fraud in the AIDS research community that brought down Robert Gallo), and won a Pulitzer while that the NYT for reporting on immigration.

Based on his reputation, I'd say that this story deserves a pretty close reading before making the kinds of accusations I've seen here. 

SeeDee,

 Did you actually read the article?  I quote:

At a minimum, the CIA's seeming inability to keep its own secrets invites questions about whether the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny, even as the Justice Department focuses resources on a two-year investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by disclosing to reporters the identity of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame.

I don't see much bias there, and no one can reasonably accuse me of support of or sympathy for the administration or anything its done in the last five years.

Having said that, it doesn't do any good to slag the guy because he brings these facts to light.  I don't think anything in that article undercuts any of the charges made against the administration in the Plame case other than to point out, as that quote does, that they don't seem to be completely serious about the seucrity of their intellegence operatives. 

On Saturday, the Tribune ran this story by Mr. Crewdson with this headline: Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled | March 11, 2006 (reg. req'red). What's what with this?

WASHINGTON -- The question of whether Valerie Plame's employment by the Central Intelligence Agency was a secret is the key issue in the two-year investigation to determine if someone broke the law by leaking her CIA affiliation to the news media. {{mirror site here | Contra Costa Times}}

Much as I hate to, I would have to agree.

Investigative reporting has been an institution in all sucessful civilizations since prehistoric times (Aesop, the first known investigative reporter, was thrown off a cliff when he exposed a scam by some villagers. Yep, same Aesop who did the fables)

Since the successes of Watergate, investigative reporters have been, well, castrated is the only accurate verb I can think of. Our country is worse for it.

We need them back, badly. Even if we don't agree with them. Especially if we don't agree with them. Even if they don't get it right.

Actually, they usually don't get it right. It doesn't matter. That isn't their job. 

Their job is to make us look at things; things we don't want to see. That's important, because things that lie festering in the dark only become worse. 

If you disagree with what a reporter says, by all means, write to him, explain why it is wrong. But don't discourage investigative reporting, more than almost any other institution in America, it is the bukwark, the arch that supports our way of life. 

When I read all these posts, I am reminded of some advice I was told when I was young.

"If you see an animal in the woods, and you don't know exactly what it is, do not pick it up and examine it closely.

If you look too closely at one end, it's likely to bite your nose off.

And if you look too closely at the other end first, you will wish it had bitten your nose off."

The idea being, sometimes a different approach is warranted.

Reread the above posts, this time listening to the underlying contexts. The animals you have found here are a new species of spiders, master spinners that envelope arguments in a web, smothering and poisoning all that lies trapped within.

Only the foolish try to swat spiders with their hands, if they are poisonous, you could get gravely ill at best. But they don't let them alone either, they are a  danger; someone may be hurt. badly, in the future.

Don't argue about mistakes, everyone makes mistakes, and, sadly, deflect the blame when it happens. It is a sin, an evil inclination, that even the best, the most noble of us must guard against. 

And it isn't important enough to interest people after it happens; you can't turn back time. This ability to forgive sins is called grace in some faiths, and it is a good thing, and it is something we should encourage.

But what makes us human, makes us better, is our ability to look forward into the future and prevent a mistake from happening again.  Grace is forgiveness for past sins, not license to commit more even worse ones in the future.

Yes, the Bush administration was arrogant. Call them on that. Lecture them on the sin of arrogance, and call on all others to do so as well. Everyone will support you, almost all religions (even agnostics and atheists) believe arrogance is a sin.

Or don't. You do not need to bother; sins are their own punishment.   It is said that pride goes before a fall; and, well, there is only a few better examples of that than the results of the Dubai Ports World scandal.

So don't scold the Bush administration for making mistakes; forgive them, give them grace; not because they deserve it, but because they need it. They have hurt so many innocents with ther actions, even if their pride cannot admit it, they must feel horrible about it.

But don't forget to remind them also of what happened when they defied the teachings that guide us all. Suggest that perhaps it would be best if they left such decisions to those of us that have already learned such lessons well.

Because too many good people have suffered through no fault of their own,  and it would be another sin of arrogance to allow it to happen again.

            Did you ever know that you're my hero,
               and everything I would like to be?
                 I can fly higher than an eagle,
            for you are the wind beneath my wings.

Bob Woodward used to be a great reporter too.  Now he's just a political hack.

Jan Knaus

So, Randy....basically, what you are saying is: 

Please forgive them [Bush, et al], they know not what they do? 

Well, that's right - they don't know what they are doing.

I don't intend to forgive them for their power mongering, war, unbridled arrogance and nihilism, nor for their apparent acquired adult onset narcissism.  It's much too late for that. The only reminders these people need is how to find the door....hopefully, into a maximum security prison at Abu Ghraib or better yet, under the new Iraqi security forces.  [I suspect they might figure out why torture isn't such a wonderful thing.]  Apparently, I am all out of grace.

As for this article.  When one positions the two articles by the same author side by side, it takes very little effort to find that the intent was to make the Plame outing appear to be one where anybody could have figured out who she was and ratted on her........ apparently through the "internet."  Sheesh.  Larry Johnson is right.  This is complete hyperbole and as such, is utter garbage and completely unreliable information relative to Plame.  Unless someone is an amazing hacker or actually knows a real name.

Sinequanon's Journal

Another hero-worshipping sycophant heard from.  It's time for the left to stop pandering and grow up.

 What a strange comment!  You are equating voting against someone due to their incompetence as "hatred" for them.  You seem to think we have a better chance of winning if we ignore or even praise the errors made by the incumbents, while at the same time offering an unspecified better future.  I suppose you also believe that to be how the Republicans win elections?  And, therefore their demonizing whole segments of the population is a sign not of hatred, but of love?

Hoppy in Sacramento

As I said in my original post, if you see something strange, step back and take a look at it from a different angle, you might see something you missed.

In this case, you will notice that I never said that voting against someone is wrong; that is a something that occured only in your vision. Of course, you should vote for those things you believe.

And I never said that we should ignore or praise errors; errors, by definition, are things that need to be corrected. 

And, I must admit, I cannot even understand how you could possibly see  my admonitions against sin as somehow in favor of demonizing anything; the two points are pretty much diametrical opposites.

And no, I don't believe thats how Republicans win elections, thats the whole point. If progressive follow their path, then why bother opposing them? The end results will be much the same whoever wins, except for a few minor details.   

What I am proposing is how Progressives win elections. How they have always won elections. By seizing and occupying the moral high ground; and fighting to stay there.

There are advantages to being on the high ground; your voices reach farther, you have a better view, and more people want to visit you than the pits where the Republicans live.

Look at the polls, Americans are tired; they want something better than what they have now, even if they cannot voice it properly; and they aren't getting it from Republicans.

To win the election, Progressives must offer America a different vision than the Republicans; and I think that vision should not involve demonizing anyone, even those we disagree with, if for no other reason than consorting with demons is not something progressives do.

But I cannot give you details about what the better future should be; thats a desion to be agreed to by all progressives, as it involves all our futures.

But I can tell you with 100% certainty, if all we offer is hatred of the present administration, we will not sway many people to our side. Hatred is hard work for most of us; what we all really want is the easy stuff, like happiness, and peace.

ONWARD AND UPWARD! 

randyjg2:  I concur with hoppycalif2's puzzlement...Having struggled through many of your lengthy self-portraits (as you paint them on this site) one thing, at least, is clear....

Your primary purpose in joining in here has been to foist your faux idealism onto whomever may fall for shallow intelligence when it is concealed in endless 'gobbledy-gook', (a good FDR word).

I cannot discern your location, either physically or philosophically, but, from reading your condescending clap-trap inferring others 'moral short-comings' your posts must surely emanate from a keyboard way up there on a cloud just a stone's throw from St. Peter's gate.

Virtually all of your offerings, however, instead of exuding the wisdom you apparently intend, more nearly qualify as fitting the oft-cited maxim, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with b.s.".

Maybe you are practicing for a term paper or a thesis of some sort and you are experimenting with different phrases and argumentation tactics to see how they work...I hate to mention it but you'll notice most of your stuff does not rate very high.  That may give you a clue.

Anyhow, you've never really given us your opinion on the topical issue which is:  The "Trib's" piece suggesting that the CIA was responsible for Valerie Plame's outing, not the crooks in the White House.

seedee

Valid points, but I would urge a better definition of "officer" and the tools and experience available to skilled researchers, paid or not.

This discussion has 2 separate issues intertwined.  The separate issues are:  government active leaking and non-governmental investigation.  Larry starts where his heart is and says that the reporter can't do what he says, identify the undercover. That is separate from where Larry ends which is that government officials are obligated to protect government secrets. 

There is still no defense for or excuse for those in the know who purposefully divulged a government secret.  Relative to the Plame Wilson case I don't care what reporters, PIs or psychics, for that matter, say they can discover. It still goes back to the government obligation to protect a secret.

As a separate issue, the Chicago article is of vital interest to the public and the prosecutor if in fact the reporter was fed the information to help the Administration help the defense of the indicted Libby.  The Chicago article is also of vital interest to the CIA and other intelligence agencies if it is true.  They had best be sure that it is false or if true they fix what is broken.

For purposes of public discussion, add the second issue of how well intelligence personnel are kept secret, but don't allow anyone to divert attention from the purposeful action by government officials to leak a secret.