Asymmetrical Information

I typed a detailed response (free of invective) and had the comment refused.

I'm sorry, Mike - the main post points out that the letter vv, as in "double-u", is being refused in comments for no good reason. Very random. People have been using tvvo v's. If you still have the post, post it if that's not too annoying.

Knovv vvhat, I completely missed the point of that "letter vv" post! Duh.

Okay, here is the suitably amended post:

Questions: "VVhy doesn't the president promise to fire anyone vvho outed a covert CIA expert on VVMD to score short-term political points?"

He did, but there's no evidence that the information originated vvith Rove, nor that Plame vvas covert, DailyKos assumptions notvvithstanding. Believe it or not, there are tvvo, and sometimes more, sides to every story. Just because you are convinced that Rove is the Devil incarnate does not mean he actually is. Same goes for Bush.

Not to mention the fact that the investigation shovved that VVilson vvas lying, and it's vvell established that Iraq vvas trying to buy uranium "yellovvcake." It did not succeed in doing so, but no one claimed that they did succeed.

"VVill abortion be legal across America in five years' time?"

It vvas legal in many states prior to Roe v. VVade. For some bizarre reason, liberals think that turning the issue back to the legislatures to determine vvhat should and should not be illegal vvould be the equivalent of Sharia.

Hovv exactly did unrestricted abortion on demand for vvhatever reason desired become the sacrament of the left anyvvay? Really, it's the one non-negotiable. You vvant it "legal and rare." VVhy rare? If it's just like removing an appendix, vvho cares? Abort vvhenever you vvant! If you acknovvledge it is *not* like removing an appendix, then maybe you might consider the possibility that there are serious moral and legal issues involving human rights involved, vvhich should be addressed rationally. Roe v. Vvade cut off public discussion and debate on the subject, vvhich is vvhy the issue is so polarizing.

Liberals don't *vvant* to face those issues, because that vvould require considering just vvhat is and is not a human being, deserving of rights. Presently, human rights attach due to a change in location: inside the vvomb, a discardable fetus. Ten minutes later, outside the vvomb, a human being. Does that make any rational or scientific sense?

"Vvho is going to pay vvhat I like to call the 'George Bush debt' that has been racked up by the current 'conservative' administration?"

Shovv me any reason to believe that a Democrat vvould actually spend *less* (other than on defense - vve knovv that already) and you might have a point. Same folks vvho vvill pay all the debt racked up by earlier administrations. Hovv exactly is the "Bush" debt different? You are obviously unavvare that tax receipts have gone vvay up; if spending can actually be controlled (for vvhich Congress is primarily to blame) economic grovvth vvill handle the deficits.

"Vvhat is the plan for repairing America's all-time lovv esteem in the eyes of the vvorld?"

Personally, I think dealing vvith the terrorism threat is a bigger priority. Doubtless you vvould be a lot happier if vve turned the vvhole thing over to the United Nations, but a majority of Americans do not agree vvith you, myself included.

"Vvhy doesn't anyone in the administration seem to think the ansvver to this last question matters?"

Perhaps because they are representing American interests first, and doing vvhat they think is the right thing to deal vvith terrorism.

"Vvill the Republican party be the political vving of the evangelical movement again in 2008?"

Vvill the Democratic party be the political vving of the far left again in 2008? Comparing the tvvo extremes, given the choice betvveen folks like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky vvho drip contempt for the United States, and on the other side evangelicals, I'll take the latter. At least vve have the First Amendment to protect religious expression or the lack thereof; the courts have long since stopped taking the Commerce Clause seriously.

"Vvho's it going to be, GOP? Give me a choice. Tempt me."

You vvould have to reconsider a lot of your underlying assumptions first.

Almost certainly the offending letter has landed as a separate entry in the anti-Spam phrase blacklist (that also contains names of certain pharmaceuticals and competitive card games, for instance).

The list here is particularly sensitive; it also rejects my email address because of a substring.

Well, there are other wonderful ways around such woeful limitations, but you must know the ways of the HTML.

Everyone has their trigger issues. It's important to remember that some subjects might be all-important to some vvhile causing a big yavvn to others, even if they are both on the same side of the political fence.

This is vvhy I'm only going to ansvver the questions you posed that I have a strong opinion on.

"VVhat is the plan for repairing America's all-time lovv esteem in the eyes of the vvorld?"

This question shovvs an incredible set of assumptions, mainly that America's actions vvere the root cause of this bad feeling and that it's important to do something about it.

There's no denying that the current administration is acting out of a desire to protect American lives. The objection can be made that vve're making the vvrong decisions, but I haven't heard any alternative plan except to go back to some Clintonesque policy of preserving the status quo at all costs. VVe already knovv hovv effective that is, and the lack of follovv up attacks on American soil since 9/11 certainly seem to shovv that there's been positive results. (Let's also not forget the recent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, vvhich proves that it's a noble effort even if it ultimately fails.)

There's no apology to be made for acts of self-defense. If the US has fallen in the esteem of other nations then it vvould be more vvise to ask vvhy they disapprove so. Instead of looking for an American plan to repair any rift you should be vvondering vvhat the cultures and countries that have been oh so critical are going to do to regain the goodvvill of the American public.

"VVhy doesn't anyone in the administration seem to think the ansvver to this last question matters?"

Because the majority of the people vvho cast their vote for the current administration don't think that it matters. This is, after all, a representative democracy.

James

Well said, James. If the US is going to act like the only place on the planet governed by and populated With adults, so be it--though of course it's not, as Witness the UK, Australia, Thailand, Poland, and some other...

That does not mean that I think We should be haughty about things; just that We shouldn't be embarassed about going about the business of What needs to be done.

>VVhy doesn't anyone in the administration seem to think the ansvver to this last question matters?

Granting your premise, I don't, but granting your premise, VVhy does anyone, anyvvhere think it should matter?

VVhat is the plan for repairing America's all-time lovv esteem in the eyes of the vvorld?

My question vvould be, in line vvith some of the other commenters: vvhat is the basis of believing that the question is relevant?

I have had the privilege (or misfortune, as it turned out) of debating issues related to Bush and the VVoT vvith a fevv leftists Europeans as vvell as a South American, and in the end it became clear that their dislike vvas premised on a vvide set of deeply ingrained assumptions, only a fevv of vvhich vvere somevvhat accurate, none of vvhich first arose because of any recent events and many of vvhich had been plainly colored by misinformation and paranoia.

Moreover, it became clear as conversation progressed that the only road to having a "better reputation" vvas to acknovvledge the obvious superiority of European-style methods and thinking, and to begin immediately grafting them into the US political economy -- oh, and kindly don't point out that those methods have problems and limitations of their ovvn, m'kay? That's merely an aberation, and probably caused by Americans somehovv regardless.

Mind you, all of these vvere educated, intelligent people, and quite reasonable in other topics of debate. It appeared that they had literally assimilated irrational anti-Americanist tendencies into their ovvn national identity. Sorry to disappoint, but having a "good reputation" vvith such a group of narcissitic nitvvits is not high on my priority list, nor do I blame the administration for deciding they have more important fish to fry at the moment.

I think you'll be able to use the 'w' string to replace The Letter which May Not be Typed:

w
w
w

seems to work.

I have no desire to be admired, or even approved of, by "Goofy" Annan and the disunited rabble, by the French government, the German government, the Spanish government, the Iranian government, the Syrian government, the North Korean government, the Sudanese government, the dictator of Zimbabvve, the British tabloids, the teachers in the extremist madrassas, the terrorists at Gitmo, the terrorists not yet at Gitmo or taking the eternal "sand nap", or the US communist party and its fellovv travelers.

I guess I am just an insensitive lout! Oh, vvell.

VVhy doesn't the president promise to fire anyone vvho outed a covert CIA expert on VVMD to score short-term political points?

VVell, by promising to fire anyone vvho committed a crime, he has in effect done that -- since outing a covert agent is a crime, regardless of the motive.

The problem is, of course, that she vvasn't "covert" under the definition of the lavv. Frankly, it's not clear she vvas covert by any definition; I haven't read any definitive claim anyvvhere that she vvas. The fact that the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Dept. doesn't cut much ice.

I am amazed by the up-is-down, black-is white, bald-faced assertion that Valerie Plame was not “really” covert. I truly am. I have to say that I give credit to those who would hawk this moon-is-made-of-green-cheese lie. If you’re going to lie, lie big. Lie so big your opponents will be too stunned to respond.

None of her friends and neighbors knew she was CIA. She “worked” for a CIA shell company that was also exposed when her identity was leaked. Her next-door-neighbor apparently walked out of the house holding the paper with Novak’s column saying “It can’t be!” She told the Times that Joe wilson hurriedly urged her to keep it down. This was not everyone-knew-it-but-nobody-talked-about-it common knowledge. It was an official government secret.

The CIA immediately referred this to the Justice Department. why? For fun? Because they don’t have anything better to do with their time? No, they were legitimately pissed that someone whose covert status they were taking positive steps to protect was outed, wasting a lot of their time and money and energy.

Yes, Plame had been working at Langley for several years. So do quite a lot of undercover agents. How secret are they? Secret enough that they have their own dining room for lunch away from non-covert analysts and the like. If the CIA doesn’t trust its own employees, who have top-secret clearance, to shoot the breeze over lunch with their undercover agents, I think it’s safe to say that they take cover quite seriously.

Rove or the original Novak leaker may not have committed a crime, for all the well-known technical reasons. But Plame was outed, plain and simple. She was covert. Now she’s not.

If you like, type your post in word, do a find and replace replacing ' w ' with the string & # 1 1 9 ; (without spaces). It's a pain but it works.

Whose esteem have we lost, exactly?

Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Gulf States, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

China, Russia, and the Central Asian states.

And also, France, Germany, and Belgium.

That is to say: Arab and/or Muslim states who have never liked us very much anyway; our past and present "strategic competitors", who have a vested interest in blocking exercises of American power abroad; and three of our traditional allies, who might have been engaged in profitable business with the regime we sought to remove.

It's worth pointing out that the states in the first group (also China) routinely use state-run media organs to blame the US for their various domestic problems. This is a winning proposition for any authoritarian government-- shift blame for domestic problems to an external enemy, gratify the population by appearing to confront that enemy (in newspaper editorials and on state TV), and escape responsibility for creating/perpetuating the domestic problems while simultaneously creating all sorts of implicit arguments that favor political stasis. The process is well understood --you've read Animal_Farm-- and can be observed in action all over the world. How can we talk meaningfully about losing the esteem of the citizens of such nations?

In all the nations listed above, anti-American views were widespread --that is, debate-worthy, not marginalized-- before 9/11. The terrorist attacks have forced us to consider not only radical Islamism, but also state-sponsored anti-American libel in the Arab/Muslim world, Russian post-imperial depression, Chinese superpower aspirations, and the Franco-German "counterweight" idea.

...I'm going to cut myself off here, Contributor A. I recognize there are other parts of this question to consider, (Pakistan, Indonesia). Nevertheless, I think I've demonstrated that your "esteem" question is not helpful as currently worded. Would you like to rephrase it?

On the subject of America’s world image: this was, in fact, the subject of the angriest argument I have ever had with dear Jane.

I don’t want foreigners to like America because I have a self-esteem problem. I want foreigners to like America because it is in America’s naked self-interest that they do. Power is being able to get the political outcomes you want. One element of power is military. One, equally crucial, is not.

Defenders of the Bush administration point out that it isn't the president's job to please the French or the UN, but first and foremost to protect the United States. This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores one crucial insight: we are safer when fewer people hate us. Most obviously, there's the fact that fewer young Muslim men volunteer for suicide missions for the glory of killing a few Americans. But there's far more to it than that. Had we made fewer Turks hate us, the 4th Infantry division could have helped end the Iraq war even quicker and with less loss of life (American and Iraqi), rather than float uselessly in the Mediterranean. when Germany and France hate us less, their police kick down doors of suspected terrorists in Marseilles and Hamburg more enthusiastically. when Asians and other Europeans hate us less, they are more likely to donate to Iraq's reconstruction, and share intelligence on terror suspects. And on and on.

If you, like Machiavelli, think being hated but feared is enough, I would urge you to consider the Israeli experience.

Nice (and typical) ad hominem attack, accusing me of being a liar. I have grovvn to expect nothing more. From the U.S. Code:

(4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty vvith an intelligence agency—

(i) vvhose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) vvho is serving outside the United States or has vvithin the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen vvhose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) vvho resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) vvho is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, vvhose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and vvho is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Under this definition, Plame falls into the (A) category, and must by definition have served outside the United States vvithin the last five years. "In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph VVilson vvrites that he and his future vvife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, vvas again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in VVashington, D.C., vvhere they married and became parents of tvvins." See http://vvvvvv.usatoday.com/nevvs/vvashington/2005-07-14-cia-vvilson_x.htm

(correct the link for the "vv" problem)

Legally, she vvas not a "covert agent." VVhen someone is accused of having violated the lavv, vvhat the lavv actually is might be vvorth considering.

Oh, and by the vvay, perhaps you might enlighten us about hovv the Israelis can make the Arab vvorld love them other than by ceasing to exist.

Hey, Mike, I already conceded your legal point above. If that technicality is enough for you – Plame had been back six years, not five, and so was not “really” covert – I guess that’s that. You say she isn’t covert because of the wording of a law. I say she is because her employment was an official government secret that the CIA was working to protect.

Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

But don’t take it ad hominem, against the man. I don't take anything you said regarding my comments as personal, though it could be inferred that you think I am careless or stupid in not knowing the legal facts of the case, which I do.

I don’t know you, Mike, probably never will, don't have any opinion on you personally and didn't intend to express any. I was responding to the statement itself, made by many besides you (and in fact I wasn't referring directly to you at all), that “Plame wasn’t covert.” I believe it to be a dishonest legalism, intended to obscure a naked fact: whether covered under the 1982 law or not, Plame was covert.

Hmm. "America's all-time [poor] esteem in the eyes of the [globe]?" Not according to the very same survey that found the issue in the first place. Stories exist many places, including on Instapundit, in the LA Times (article by Max Boot), and the Morocco Times. Can't link due to the forbidden letter. Since your premise is untrue, it is hard to respond.

"Why doesn't anyone in the administration seem to think the answer to this last question matters?"

The answer to that is that the Administration didn't care because it knew there wasn't an actual problem that needed to be solved, merely a fluctuation that would abate with time – merely staying the course would work just fine. And actual events are proving the adminstration right and those who thought there was a need for a "solution" wrong. See this. Why mess with success?

Read the results for yourself, rather than letting a pundit cherry-pick for you.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

what you are in fact seeing, which Boot dresses up, is that support is inching slowly back up from the Bush-made rock-bottom lows of 2003 and 2004. Mildly good news, to be sure, but good only in the context of the avoidable public-diplomacy catastrophes of the past several years. Compare the current numbers to 2000, if you are still convinced that recent policies have had no effect on our global standing.

whether or not it matters, of course, is another thing. I think it does, but many of you seem to think it doesn't. If you truly believe it doesn't matter whether the world loves us or hates us, well, Jane is back on Monday!

This problem of the untypeable letter has provided interesting insight into human nature. That people keep posting even though doing vvithout the letter makes posts very difficult to vvrite (and read), is either a testimony to their ingenuity, or it illustrates a near pathological need for recognition.

“Defenders of the Bush administration point out that it isn't the president's job to please the French or the UN, but first and foremost to protect the United States. This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores one crucial insight: we are safer when fewer people hate us.”

Contributor A, please take a look at the comment where the above quote was lifted and then read the comment left by John Deszyck right above it. My apologies if you find this brusque, but it look to me that the points he brings up essentially destroy your position.

The root cause of most anti-American feeling in the world can be traced to propaganda produced by totalitarian governments to distract their people from internal failings. (You can find numerous examples of this simply by browsing through The Middle East Media Research website, or al Jazeera. The evidence looks pretty conclusive to my eyes.) The only way to improve this condition is by paying off the perps, which means that every tin-pot dictator or theocracy on the planet would assume that they can hold America hostage through the media. Thanks but no thanks.

In fact, Contributor A, you’ve even supplied the perfect example of this when you mentioned Turkey’s refusal to allow Coalition troops to invade Iraq from the north. The spin you’ve read might be that it was a Turkish reaction to previous actions from America, but this is simply not the truth. Turkey wanted a big bribe in the form of loans and foreign aid from the US and, in return, they would allow our troops to transit through their territory and use air bases that we had built with our own money during the Cold war. Their demands were openly discussed in the press, and it’s well known that they wanted $30 billion (that’s “billion” with a B).

It’s true that anti-American feeling has increased in European countries mainly due to our efforts to topple Saddam. Yet John also mentions in his comment that the most vocal critics were probably engaging in profitable business with Saddam, business that they would be desperate to keep secret since it violated numerous UN sanctions. There simply is no way to avoid this situation short of allowing other governments to set our foreign policy, something that I hope you’ll agree is unthinkable.

I suppose that we can say that anti-American sentiment is rampant through some parts of the world because people think that they can make us pay to be their friends. But it’s important to note that hopes for a big payout aren’t the sole cause of such bigotry. Another reason was mentioned by long time reader anony-mouse earlier in the thread. He said that “…in the end it became clear that their dislike was premised on a wide set of deeply ingrained assumptions, only a few of which were somewhat accurate, none of which first arose because of any recent events and many of which had been plainly colored by misinformation and paranoia.”

If this is the case, then I fail to see how any actions on our part could make a difference.

I realize that you feel strongly about this, so strongly that you even engaged Megan in at least one argument over your differences. But I think the facts don’t support your position.

PS The Blacklist problems not only prevent me from providing links to sources that support my assertions, but it also will not allow me to post my Email address since it has the numbers zero-two in it. If anyone is interested I’d be more than happy to oblige. Please got to my blog at www.hellinahandbasket.net and either get my Email address or leave a comment.

Contributor A,

Over the last vveek I've developed a reasonable level of admiration for your intellectual honesty. Your response to vvarmongering lunatic is undermining that admiration pretty quickly. The response you've outlined in international opinion is vastly more consistent vvith his analysis than your ovvn. Think about it: International opinion plummets then rebounds over time. That scenario is vastly more consistent vvith the notion of other nations getting over it than it is of some sort of sin for vvhich vve must make atonement (the implicit premise of your question).

"Vvhat is the plan for repairing America's all-time lovv esteem in the eyes of the vvorld?"

You mean the kind of esteem America enjoyed on September 10, 2001? Did us a lot of good, didn't it?

CA -
I realize now that the last question in my previous post looks rhetorical. It wasn't intended to be so-- I'm interested in your answer. What can the United States do to convince the people of, say, Saudia Arabia that Americans are compassionate, peace-loving people and not warmongering, organ-hunting crusaders?

If you haven't already, why don't you check out MEMRI, and get a look at what other factors are at work shaping world opinion before you reply. Please note that these are government-run communications outlets carrying authoritative discourse, and they have been at for a long time.

I'm pretty sure we all agree that goodwill is not an end in itself, but rather only insofar as it benefits the nation. As such, it is subject to cost-benefit analysis. If the benefits that can be gained from the goodwill do not equal than the benefits of discarding the goodwill, then obviously one discards it. Similarly, if the costs of regaining goodwill exceed the benefits that can be expected, one does not purchase it.

The goodwill was not valueless, but trading five years (at the current rebound rate) of low popularity for the removal of an anti-American psychopath from power, the intimidation of Libya into giving up its weapons programs, the exposure of the Khan nuclear network, and a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon strikes me as a good deal. If it had been longer-term unpopularity, well, it would have been a poorer deal; perhaps it would have been worth trying to repurchase faster, instead of waiting out for the rebound.

You refer to "avoidable public-diplomacy catastrophes". I see no catastrophies, I see an unfortunate but inevitable temporary depression of our popularity that would have followed despite any public diplomacy efforts over the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It was only "avoidable" insofar as we could have left him in power, a price far higher than a temporary unpopularity.

Contributor A sounds like someone who has suffered brain rot from getting all his nevvs from the MSM. VVell-informed citizens all knovv that relying exclusively on the MSM for nevvs is as stupid as relying on gossip (although gossip may have a much better record for accuracy).

> I am amazed by the up-is-down, black-is white, bald-faced assertion that Valerie Plame was not “really” covert.

One explanation is that the folks pushing the "Plame was covert" are seen as being blatantly partisan, that their push is for partisan gain and has nothing to do with actual concern for covert activities.

Disagree? Feel free to provide some evidence that you were at all concerned about the "outing" of the active CIA "Air Iraq" operation that the NYT exposed earlier this year. That exposure had negative consequences for US security and interests, Plame's didn't.

It isn't just a matter of saying that you care, you actually have to act as if you do.

Why doesn't the president promise to fire anyone who outed a covert CIA expert on WMD to score short-term political points?

While I agree that would score some short-term political points, I don't think it would help that much.

On the underlying question, though, having been covert myself once upon a time, I can tell you it's moot: nobody who drives to Langley every working day for seven years is covert.

Will abortion be legal across America in five years' time?

Under what conditions? I would guess that abortion up to full term birth will be restricted in some places.

Who is going to pay what I like to call the "George Bush debt" that has been racked up by the current "conservative" administration?

I dunno. Who is going to pay the "Franklin Roosevelt debt" racked up by Social Security?

What is the plan for repairing America's all-time low esteem in the eyes of the world?

Who cares? I imagine we'll handle it like we did in the 30's and 80's: we'll win the war, save their asses, and they'll love us again.

But there's an interesting underlying assumption here that "the world" consists primarily of the European chattering classes; as has been widely reported, we're doing quite well in eastern Europe, and things are actually looking up in the Middle East.

Why doesn't anyone in the administration seem to think the answer to this last question matters?

Bunch of smart cookies in the Administration.

Will the Republican party be the political wing of the evangelical movement again in 2008?

I doubt it, but then I'm a Republican Buddhist and I don't notice it all that much at Party functions, either.

I am amazed by the up-is-down, black-is white, bald-faced assertion that Valerie Plame was not “really” covert. I truly am.

Why? I think you exalt form over substance. Although Charlie (Colorado) has pretty well epitomized my reasoning with his observation, based on his own experience, that "nobody who drives to Langley every working day for seven years is covert," let me generalize his answer by observing that your reasons for saying she was "really" covert seem to me to be not grounded in "reality," but rather grounded in bureaucrats' self-aggrandizing games (e.g., the "Cafeteria of the Covert") -- that is, the games bureaucrats play to pretend they are doing something important when they are really shuffling paper and occupying space. (Does having your covert employees go to the same place every day -- a place known to all and sundry as the place where the "covert" eat lunch -- really help keep secret the covert status of those who go there? Please. The exact opposite is true.)

The CIA immediately referred this to the Justice Department. Why? For fun? Because they don’t have anything better to do with their time? No, they were legitimately pissed... -- You're entitled to your opinion. I think they had a political hot potato and they wanted to get it out of their lap, and referring it to Justice was the easiest and most plausible way to do it.

None of her friends and neighbors knew she was CIA. -- This is consistent with what I've read. Trouble is, what I've read is that each of her different neighbors had been given to understand she had a different job. If she really was covert, then is keeping your cover story straight no longer standard tradecraft? Or is this more evidence of the sloppy games-playing which passes for (allegedly) "covert" activity? (If it is, indeed, legally covert activity -- a question to which I still haven't seen a definitive answer.)

It was an official government secret. -- Was it? Just because of her status, and for no other reason? If so, then why does Newsweek have to rely on the fact that it was in a briefing book put together expressly to deal with the Wilson op-ed, and stupidly given "classified" status, to justify a claim that it was classified information? Why doesn't Newsweek just ignore briefing books and simply say outright, as you do, that merely by virtue of her status the fact that she was a CIA employee was "an official government secret?" Maybe because it's not true?

Everybody says her status was "classified," as though it were self-evident, but nobody spells out why. Perhaps this is because nobody can untangle the contradiction in saying that (as everybody seems to say) her employment at the CIA was not a secret (for reasons so pithily expressed by C(C)) whereas her covert status was. Given that revealing the first automatically blows the second, and that it's ridiculous to say the first is or ever could be a real secret (absent a super-secret "Highway for the covert" -- to go along with the "Cafeteria for the covert" -- to avoid C(C)'s problem) those who seek to blow this up into a scandal have a problem.

> The CIA immediately referred this to the Justice Department. why? For fun? Because they don’t have anything better to do with their time? No, they were legitimately pissed that someone whose covert status they were taking positive steps to protect was outed, wasting a lot of their time and money and energy.

Every word after "pissed" in the last sentence assumes facts not in evidence.

I've no doubt that they were pissed. However, a more likely excuse is bureaucratic score-settling.

The CIA, like the State Department, has been very wrong on many of the big issues in their domain. That's why administrations work around them (not having the time to both clean house and get things done). That's why both fight against the administrations that they supposedly serve.

And, there's still the fact that the folks whinging about Plame have a history of active hostility to covert activity. Until they convincingly show why this case is different, it's fair to look at their reaction to other cases and conclude that this is just an excuse to hammer an administration that they don't like.

Let's distinguish between intelligence gathering and special ops. I don't think anyone "whinges" about gathering information (except by torture), and presumably that was the work that Plame was engaged in.

No one has said what Plame did while covert, so to assert that she was "merely" intelligence gathering assumes facts not in evidence.

And, yes, folks do whinge about intelligence gathering, even gathering of open information. See the recent rubarb over the FBI's looking at the ACLU's website schedule of activities.

If this is the case, then I fail to see how any actions on our part could make a difference.

Well, it was the case in the half-dozen or so extended convernsations I participated in, I can't confirm whether it is a broad rule. But I suspect that it is, based partially on the fact that European elitists have found cause to criticize immigrant inhabitants of this continent since before the founding of the union, and based partially on attitudes I personally observed elsewhere.

My own theory is that we have observed a hailstorm effect in the wake of Gulf II -- conditions for the latest round of antipathy had been gradually building since the middle of the last century, but they needed a nucleus to coalesce around. Gulf II provided that nucleus, although reactions to the US rejection of Kyoto and the ICC (among other notable US-Euro spats) were long pointing in that direction.

The only way you can deal with a hailstorm (and the conditions that cause it) is to be God, or to move in a different direction. Moving in a different direction is fine, if you have been sitting in a clearly wrong position, but if hail is pounding down on your position mostly because someone else with an agenda is performing a rain dance with your name on it, it may be time to skip the pretense of formalities and play God instead.

If you can pardon the metaphor.

That exposure had negative consequences for US security and interests, Plame's didn't.

There's no way for any of us to know this. The outing of Plame also blew the cover of the dummy company that she was ostensibly working for. Also, we have no way of knowing if any of the contacts that she ever had are now compromised.

dunno. Who is going to pay the "Franklin Roosevelt debt" racked up by Social Security?

What debt? The program is in a surplus and always has been.

Personally, I wanted to see Philip Agee hanged when he revealed the names of former CIA colleagues, exposing them to caputure, torure and death. To me that was an act of betrayal so heartless and vile as to transend the barbarousness of most of the guys on death row.

What's the feeling about a stronger law protecting the identity of our secret agents? The one we have was written very narrowly -- essentially for an Agee clone.

Maybe if we protected them better, we'd have better agents. Heaven knows we need 'em.

I saw Richard Perle say that if Saddam had come clean he would have saved himself a war. Presumably, this means that if we'd had better intelligence, we would not have invaded. Think that's true?

Publius would like "certain folks" to have a different reputation wrt covert activity. That's all well and good, but as a response to someone pointing out that they don't care about covert activity and are just using that as an excuse to bash an administration they don't like is more of the same.

You want a different reputation? Do the work when you're not pushing a campaign that depends on having it. And, regardless of when you do the work, start by acknowledging the errors in your previous position. (If there aren't differences, it's not a new position and if the old position wasn't wrong, the new position can't be right.)

> The outing of Plame also blew the cover of the dummy company that she was ostensibly working for.

That company was outed when she became known as a CIA employee, not the status of her employment was made known.

Andy: I'm sorry but I find your post completely incoherent and utterly unrelated to what I said.

> What's the feeling about a stronger law protecting the identity of our secret agents?

Whatever the merits of that idea, pushing it after someone points out that the folks excited about Plame's outing don't care about outing of covert activity has the same problems.

We're still waiting for anyone excited about Plame to demonstrate concern over outing of other covert CIA activities. Instead, we've had folks defending such outing.

You want to demonstrate that you're serious about defending covert activity? You should do so in cases other than Plame. As long as Plame is the only case you care about, your concern is with Bush, not covert activity.

Andy: Honest, I've always been exercised about exposing agents. I had an uncle (long dead) who did special ops in the Far East many years ago. Believe me, it is a concern of long standing, both personal and principled.

Indeed, it is one of the few exceptions I make to my near absolutist position on the First Amendment because the consequences can go way beyond mere embarassment.

You assume, however, that if I criticize the revelation of Plame's identity I must also, hypocirically, take no notice of the outing of others. How can you possibly draw such a baseless conclusion from anyting I have written? Or do you just presume that any criticism whatsoever of the almighty Bush team is proof of leftism, disloyalty or something similarly sinister?

Andy,
Was the Kool Aid tasty?
Whether anyone is consistent on expressing the same amount of outrage over other covert outings isn't relevant to the issues of whether Rove or anyone is guilty or not.

I haven't commented on Rove. I've only pointed out that the folks excited about Plame don't seem to care about other outings of covert CIA operatives and operations, including one that happened recently. (In that case, the operation was ongoing until the NYT took it public.) When that's the case, their outrage has nothing to do with Plame and has everything to do with their dislike of Bush. While that's a principle, it's not a very cogent one.

Publius is, of course, free to cite his prior opposition to such outings. I've asked before.

America's image overseas, Financial Times cite.
Seems there's something of a gulf between our self-image and what others report.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/77868922-0228-11da-9481-00000e2511c8.html

Best to all.

P

The letter "W" is banned from comments?

There's only one man that can stop this dastardly act!

"Faster than a rolling 'O'. More powerful than silent "E". Able to leap capital "T" in a single bound!

"It's a word! It's a plan! It's....

"LETTER-MAN!!!"

(sorry, went on a nostalgia trip there...)

As someone who doesn't want to get blown up by terrorists, I was, in fact, upset when I saw the Times blow the cover of the CIA's air operation, or so I thought that's what they did. The net result surely could have done more damage than the Plame unmasking.

But for whatever reason, I learn from the Times's public editor column on June 19th, the Times provided extensive details of the story to the CIA several days before publication, and the agency did nothing to urge them not to publish. For whatever reason, they did not seem to mind. I honestly don't know why this would be the case.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2DC153BF93AA25755C0A9639C8B63&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor

Meanwhile, the agency's spokesman did ask Bob Novak--as the spokesman said, in the strongest terms possible without giving up classified information--not to publish Plame's name. Novak, using his own logic, decided to publish anyway. See his response here; I don't quite find it kosher but you might:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3290018

If Joe Wilson did not know, and if his wife did not know, that she would likely be outed as a result of his op-ed, they are both fools. Of course, there is no shortage of those in this bizarre episode. Wilson’s thesis, taken as revealed truth by the MSM and the partisan left, is that he was able to conclusively negate Saddam’s interest in Nigerian yellowcake single-handedly and in just a few short days by talking to less than a dozen people, all of whom dutifully denied selling yellowcake to Saddam. Only in the bizarre world of the MSM/left could this be considered reliable intelligence gathering—to most of the rest of us, it looks as if Joe’s agenda was to not find a yellowcake connection. Even after the 9-11 commission debunked Wilson and exposed him as a liar, the left and most of the MSM still cling to the delusion that Wilson brought back reliable intelligence. In the face of this stupidity, it is easy to overlook the equally egregious hypocrisy--under no circumstances would the Left/MSM ever tolerate criticism of a leftish, dovish administration by military or intelligence officials who went public with their policy disagreements in the manner that Joe Wilson did. The military/intelligence whistle blower would be scrutinized for his/her political agenda, given roughly the same treatment as the Swift Boat Veterans and we would all be treated to endless lecturing on how, in a democracy, the executive branch serves only to execute the elected president’s policies, not their own version of how the world ought to be. In principle, they would be right, but principle was the first casualty of Valerie nominating Joe for the job.

> For whatever reason, they did not seem to mind. I honestly don't know why this would be the case.

One possible reason is CIA-infighting. Another is that that operation was thrust upon the CIA and they wanted to get rid of it.

BTW - Is there actually a "they did not seem to mind" exclusion in the relevant law? (Assume that some part of the CIA was taking affirmative measures to keep it a secret.)

Comments are Closed.