I was going to write about William Safire this morning, but I never got his column. Instead, the internet burped up a William Safire column from an alternative universe--one in which George W. Bush is a Democrat. So I can't write about William Safire:
Posted by DeLong at October 6, 2003 08:00 AM | TrackBackWho's Shallow Throat?: NYTimes.com > Opinion | By WILLIAM SATIRE Published: October 6, 2003
WASHINGTON — To dig into the whodunit roiling the capital, we need a glossary:
- leak, plain and simple, is the unauthorized passage of information from a source, an official in the know, to a media plantee. It can be deliberate or inadvertent.
- leaker who is admired for putting his notion of the public interest ahead of his official obligation or oath is called a whistle-blower; the same individual, viewed from inside, is called a fink, and is pursued vainly by plumbers.
- authorized leak is information passed on to a selected outlet with high-level approval by a designated persuader called a spinmeister.
- counterleak (now we're getting sophisticated) is an anonymous source's passing of a charge of someone else's leaking to a reporter, who sees a conspiracy in the exposure of the original, possibly authorized, leak.
Now to the spookspeak, or intelligence-agency jargon: A noc, pronounced "knock," is a C.I.A. acronym for "non-official cover" — that is, an informant or agent operating without the diplomatic protection, or cover, of employment by the U.S. government.
Ready? In July of this year, Robert Novak, an over-the-hill columnist who has a partisan heart in the right place asked somebody why in the world the White House was upset that the CIA had dispatched an investigator to Africa to check out allegations about Iraqi uranium negotiation who had been highly praised and respected by presidents of both parties.
The columnist reported he was told by "two senior administration officials" that the investigator, Joseph Wilson IV -- who had just surfaced as an on-the-record whistle-blower, blasting the administrations lies in The New York Times and on NBC's "Meet the Press" -- had been recommended by his wife, who works for the CIA. Robert Novak -- who is not as fast a thinker as he once was -- somehow did not understand why or did not remember that his sources at the CIA pleaded with him not to use the story, and let the two White House aides use him to expose the cover of a covert CIA network engaged in hunting for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Nobody warned Novak that Wilson's wife was or had been a "noc." The two White House aides did not. They are now claiming two different things through different sets of leaks. First, they are claiming that they did not know she had been a "noc" either--a statement which does not diminish their moral responsibility while magnifying the evidence of their incompetence. Second, they are claiming that they didn't want Novak to use the story, just to remember that Wilson's assignment had a nepotistic origin.
The CIA referred the leak to the Justice Department, because officials are prohibited from intentionally identifying a "noc." This is the first time in history that such a noc-leak investigation has been aimed at the White House staff.
An FBI inquiry proceeded quietly for two months, during which the entire senior White House staff knew that they had in their midst people who had blown the cover of a confidential CIA network--and did nothing. To them, and to the president, committing felonies and harming the CIA's ability to conduct its operations is no big deal.
Then, after the honorable intelligence professionals had had it up to here, a counterleaker struck. The story had a sensational angle: "A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." The incendiary charge by an unnamed official was that two administration spinmeisters had launched a campaign to intimidate a critic by endangering his wife and destroying the usefulness of the overseas intelligence networks she had been a part of.
Enter "Shallow Throat," a high administration mole, probably in the CIA. But the White House staff is laughing at us. The fix is presumably in at the Justice Department: the Attorney General is, after all, a long-time client of the chief suspect. Leak hunts in official Washington rarely go anywhere. This, too, will probably stall out.
That is why it is important to hold tight to what this tells us about the immorality that is at the core of the White House: neither the White House staff, nor the president, cares about protecting the identity, preserving the usefulness, and ensuring the safety of those who fight for us in the looking-glass war.
It goes without saying that a president and a White House staff who thought like patriotic Americans would think very differently. It goes without saying that things would be very different if we had a Republican in the White House.
Not to blow Brad's cover, but before you post you should be sure to read the original, William Safire column.
I like this line: "As it does when something like this happens every week or so, the C.I.A. referred the leak to the Justice Department, because officials are prohibited from intentionally identifying a noc."
Happens all the time! Like when that guy Hansen leaked all that CIA stuff to the Soviets. No biggie. Everybody knew the names of the agents serving in Moscow. Or when Wen Ho Lee gave Red China all those sec- well, maybe not, but at the time nobody blinked at the allegations even, barely a peep in the press. ("Wen Ho Lee Defenders" just kept popping up everywhere!)
Posted by: Saam Barrager on October 6, 2003 09:49 AMNot to blow Brad's cover, but before you post you should be sure to read the original, William Safire column.
I like this line: "As it does when something like this happens every week or so, the C.I.A. referred the leak to the Justice Department, because officials are prohibited from intentionally identifying a noc."
Happens all the time! Like when that guy Hansen leaked all that CIA stuff to the Soviets. No biggie. Everybody knew the names of the agents serving in Moscow. Or when Wen Ho Lee gave Red China all those sec- well, maybe not, but at the time nobody blinked at the allegations even, barely a peep in the press. ("Wen Ho Lee Defenders" just kept popping up everywhere!)
Posted by: Saam Barrager on October 6, 2003 09:54 AM>The fix is presumably in at the Justice >Department: the Attorney General is, after all, >a long-time client of the chief suspect.
Holy Hell!
Safire is channelling Hunter S. Thompson.
This is scary. I'm going to go drink and swear.
Posted by: green apron monkey on October 6, 2003 09:54 AMI thought I had read that the CIA refers about 1 case per year of operatives being ratted out. Did I mishear? Does Novak have some datum I missed, or as Saam suggests, just a bad attitude? Every week or so would mean 26-52 rat-like acts per year. That would mean a ferocious level of turn-over in the field. At some point, hyperbole doesn't look so good for the hyperbolist.
Posted by: K Harris on October 6, 2003 09:56 AMRemember! This is a column by William Satire from a parallel universe!!
Posted by: Brad DeLong on October 6, 2003 09:57 AMSo what color is the sky in this alternative universe? Seriously, the *real* Safire piece is so completely horrible that it really should be folded over into some alternative reality and disappear from sight. I think the most incredible line is this one, which is an attempt to channel Novak:
> Why did the C.I.A. dispatch an investigator to Africa to
> check out allegations about Iraqi uranium negotiation
> who had been a member of the Clinton National Security
> Council staff and opposed regime change in Iraq?
The obvious answer is: "because that investigator was a long-term distinguished member of the U. S. Diplomatic Service who had extensive previous experience in the region, and who was trusted to be a fair and impartial public servant by 3 previous Republican (and 3 previous Democratic) administrations."
The fact that the obvious answers never seem to occur to anybody in or around Washington these days amazes me. The notion that patriotism might transcend parties really has to make a comeback before I expect to see any improvements in our current distressing political situation.
Posted by: Jonathan King on October 6, 2003 09:58 AMNifty. I wonder if I can get in touch with the alternate-me to find out how things are going under President George W. Bush the Democrat. Maybe find out what alternate Brad DeLong has to say lately on his right-wing weblog...
Posted by: Julian Elson on October 6, 2003 10:24 AM> The fact that the obvious answers never seem to
> occur to anybody in or around Washington these
> days amazes me. The notion that patriotism
> might transcend parties really has to make a
> comeback before I expect to see any
> improvements in our current distressing
> political situation.
The reason that the Republicans don't believe it is because they themselves never miss an opportunity to let politics transcent patriotism. Witness the Congressional Republican's response to Clinton's action in Kosovo to cite just one example.
Posted by: Kent Lind on October 6, 2003 10:28 AMWell, when one works for Nixon, one's ability to judge matters relating to the Excutive Branch and leaks is highly questionable. One would think such a man would not be given prime editorial real estate. But then again, he writes those really cute english columns!
Posted by: Rob on October 6, 2003 10:32 AMKent Lind writes:
> The reason that the Republicans don't believe it is
> because they themselves never miss an opportunity to let
> politics transcent patriotism. Witness the Congressional
> Republican's response to Clinton's action in Kosovo to
> cite just one example.
The Republic has a history that goes back significantly before 1994. (Feel free to pick any date you like in the last 20 years if 1994 doesn't sound right.) And I don't pretend that very harshly partisan words and actions haven't always occurred throughout that history, but what I don't really believe is that there was this much polarization and this much demonization at all levels of the political process. Or that politics always trumped policy. Even today, I suspect that there are many Republicans and Democrats who would like to find themselves again in the position of waging a real war of ideas rather than a fake war between good and evil. That said, I've always been something of an idealist...
Posted by: Jonathan King on October 6, 2003 10:41 AMGot up this morning. Surfed over to Safire's column entitled "Who's Shallow Throat", move over to John Podhoretz NY Post opinion piece with the title "Size Problem". Hey, did I open Microsoft Outlook by mistake? Problem with my email filter?
Knew it was going to be a bad day.
Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez on October 6, 2003 10:43 AM>>Nifty. I wonder if I can get in touch with the alternate-me to find out how things are going under President George W. Bush the Democrat. Maybe find out what alternate Brad DeLong has to say lately on his right-wing weblog...<<
Let your imagination run wild. I'd like to see it...
:-)
Posted by: Brad DeLong on October 6, 2003 10:46 AMOkay. I admit it. I'm guilty. I've been selling out my country by providing all those national security secrets to the ... Democrats!
Wen Ho Lee (c/o John Ashcroft, Guantanamo, Cuba)
Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez on October 6, 2003 10:53 AM(re: why was Wilson sent to Africa, with the answer being that he had experience in the area,
and a distinguished record under multiple administrations, under both parties):
"The fact that the obvious answers never seem to occur to anybody in or around Washington these days amazes me. The notion that patriotism might transcend parties really has to make a comeback before I expect to see any improvements in our current distressing political situation."
Posted by: Jonathan King on October 6, 2003 09:58 AM
Jonathan, I don't give them that much credit. They know the answer, most of them. The trolls on the internet might not, but the Safires and such certainly know. If not, they have flunkies to run searches on everything under the sun.
It's part of the 'slime and defend' tactic. It's not even knew to this administration. It was just announced that Condoleeza "I don't read my e-mail from the CIA about Saddam and nuclear weapons when we're going to war with him" Rice will be in charge of US efforts in Iraq.
They're really, really good at not knowing, when they need to be. Sort of like when a CEO disavows any and all knowledge of what was going on in his company, despite having enough knowledge to pry out tens of millions in compensation.
Then again, we were promised America's 'First CEO Administration', weren't we?
Posted by: Barry on October 6, 2003 11:17 AMThe extra 'k' in the previous post was provided free of charge, by the "Everbody needs more K's" Foundation. Please go to their website at www.morekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk's.org, and give generously.
Barry, that URL should actually be www.morekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkks.org. You left out a k.
Posted by: Steven desJardins on October 6, 2003 12:44 PMEasy to do :)
Posted by: Barry on October 6, 2003 01:00 PMSo, the latest line of defense seems to be, the leakers didn't "intend" to expose a NOC, henceforth, there is no story here, move on.... The question I have is, how can we know the intent unless the leakers tell us their intent?
Posted by: John McKinzey on October 6, 2003 01:42 PMDifferent topic but check out the parallel universe Bruce Bartlett spun today at NRO. He accused the Census Bureau of publishing misleading figures when they reported increasing poverty. I checked the Census Report which noted the same alternative measures Bartlett noted and the CHANGE in poverty was about the same in each - all up. Why do I get the feeling that the Bush cheerleaders will quote Bartlett to suggest poverty is not rising?
Posted by: Hal McClure on October 6, 2003 01:54 PMWm. Satire is also the same scribe who went to some lengths (based on his spook sources) to describe how Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents. Both Satire and Novak are mere shills for the Administration.
Posted by: Cal on October 6, 2003 02:20 PMBarry writes:
>
> Jonathan, I don't give them that much credit. They know
> the answer, most of them. The trolls on the internet might
> not, but the Safires and such certainly know. If not, they
> have flunkies to run searches on everything under the sun.
Well, I think that some of the idealogues in the administration are true believers. I think the best evidence for that is the fact that they have deliberately gotten themselves into a position like the current one, apparently not having a clue that they could work Bush's approval rating down below 50% with the election in 13 months. There are people in this administration who absolutely refuse to listen to expert advice on any subject, and who have not convinced me that they are aware of the correct questions let alone the right answers.
As far as Safire goes, I have different concerns. I'm not sure how to put this, but I think his writing has fallen apart over the last couple of years especially. Today's column really was surreal in a very bad way. I wish I could believe he was just being sly here, but the thing is just not very well put together.
Posted by: Jonathan King on October 6, 2003 02:54 PMJonathan, I think that we'll see a lot of that on this matter. That's because confusion benefits the administration's supporters on this matter.
Posted by: Barry on October 6, 2003 03:02 PMJonathan:
"Well, I think that some of the idealogues in the administration are true believers. I think the best evidence for that is the fact that they have deliberately gotten themselves into a position like the current one, apparently not having a clue that they could work Bush's approval rating down below 50% with the election in 13 months. There are people in this administration who absolutely refuse to listen to expert advice on any subject, and who have not convinced me that they are aware of the correct questions let alone the right answers."
It is amazing, isn't it? The most frightening thing is that Bush still might get re-elected next year. At that point, the Republican half of the American people will deserve *whatever* Bush does to them.
"...At that point, the Republican half of the American people will deserve *whatever* Bush does to them...."
Oh yes, Barry, and what will the rest of us deserve?
Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on October 6, 2003 06:55 PMOK, so I'm doing my job this morning - working from home as a professional oil speculator - and I need a target for once I cash out of STU and COE (mmm Worrior is my friend), and I'm deep into research mode with Pancontinental Oil (PCL on the ASX). They are a small, $9m oil company that has somehow scored themselves some major lease territory, including offshore Kenya (if it's shallow and Kenyan, it's theirs) and a chunk of the Meditteranean halfway between Malta and Tunisia.
There is some wierd partnering shit going on between them and a private London company linked to their CEO, but as long as they dont go buying and selling stuff off each other, I'm not too worried.
Hmm, they appear to be signing more leasage up, this time with Eritrea, and possibly Morocco. And Woodside (a billion-dollar Oz oiler) just bought into their Kenya leases.
OK, so we need an independant energy analyst, with links to Africa, who is honest, reliable and looking for a job. Diplomatic contacts could be useful as well, especially if we can link in to the London/Washington circuit (bankers and so on).
Hey, isnt Ms Plame looking for work ? Sounds like she'd be perfect. If we cant get her, then we might just sign up her hubby ...
Posted by: Ian Whitchurch on October 6, 2003 07:29 PMMe:
"...At that point, the Republican half of the American people will deserve *whatever* Bush does to them...."
Frank:
"Oh yes, Barry, and what will the rest of us deserve?"
I'm split - either better than we will get, or just what we deserve, for tolerating a decade of liars.