ABC's Tapper again misstates Bush pledge to fire Plame leaker; again lashes out at those who correct his mistakes
SUMMARY: In a weblog post, ABC News' Jake Tapper again misstated pledges by President Bush and his aides to fire anyone who disclosed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. Tapper's post included a thinly veiled -- and false -- attack on Media Matters for America.
In a June 13 weblog post, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper again misstated pledges by President Bush and his aides that anyone who disclosed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity would be fired. Perhaps because we have previously corrected Tapper on this very matter, Tapper's post also included a thinly veiled -- and false -- attack on Media Matters for America.
After the disclosure that White House senior adviser Karl Rove will apparently not be indicted in the CIA leak investigation, Tapper wrote on his blog:
Of course, absence of law-breaking is not evidence of ethical behavior, and there are arguments to be held about Mr. Rove's behavior, how forthcoming he was with Mr. Fitzgerald, and whether Mr. Rove's involvement in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity violated the President's pledge to fire anyone found to have broken the law.
Tapper is wrong -- again. Last July, Tapper made a similar claim, reporting twice in three days that Bush had pledged to fire aides only if they broke the law. As Tapper (falsely) explained in one of his reports, "the president never said he would fire 'anybody involved in the leak.' For him, it has been all about the law."
A day after Tapper's first false report, Media Matters corrected it, noting that, in fact, then-Bush spokesman Scott McClellan had made clear that Bush would fire anyone found to have been involved in outing a CIA agent. The next day, Tapper did it again. So, the day after that, we corrected him again.
But Tapper continues to misreport Bush's pledge. He explained in his June 13 blog post:
The latter gets a bit hinkey, because the President's pledges on the matter were repeatedly quite specific to a legal finding that a law had been broken -- "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of ... If somebody did leak classified information," he said in September 2003; "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," he said in July 2005 -- with the exception of one time when a reporter interrupted him to ask him about a pledge the president had not made.
This is the exchange, from JUNE 10 2004
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
It is on that hook that partisans say the President pledged to fire anyone "who leaked the agent's name." Given the president's specificity in the past, and his addition above that it's "up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts," I do not think he has pledged to fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.
But Tapper is ignoring McClellan's September 29, 2003, statement that "If anyone in this administration was involved in" the leak, he or she would be fired. McClellan's statement was in no way contingent on whether a law was broken. Tapper is further ignoring the fact that Bush echoed McClellan's statement the very next day, when he declared, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Media Matters has previously pointed out both of those quotes in response to Tapper's misstatements about the pledge. Yet Tapper falsely claims that "partisans" rely on the June 10, 2004, statement to argue that Bush promised to fire anyone who leaked Plame's identity.
Tapper then seemed to anticipate criticism of his flawed claim, writing:
Despite the snipes of organizations who try to raise money by hiring partisan hacks to find conservative media bias in every reporter's ampersand, this is not an attempt by a reporter to protect crimes, this is an attempt to be fair and ethical and to discern the truth.
We can only assume Tapper is referring to Media Matters. Tapper has previously accused us of "dishonesty" and "partisan martyrdom," which he says is an effort to fill our "professional coffers." He has said we are "clearly all-too-eager to engage in standards more fit to last-minute political attack ads than to fair and objective journalism." We addressed Tapper's previous insults here.
As for his latest: Media Matters has not accused Tapper of "conservative media bias" or of attempting to "protect crimes." We have pointed out his factual errors. We have not speculated about his motivation; we've merely shown that he is wrong.
We leave it to the reader to decide whether factual refutations of errors in journalism are properly described as "snipes" -- and to decide whether it is Media Matters or Tapper himself who should be described as a "hack" in pursuit of "martyrdom."
Aren't they? You can smell the fear. They *really* don't like being told that they're wrong. Keep up the good work, everyone at MMFA.
I'm surprised he didn't use the term "left wing smear merchants."
With the honesty & sense of ethics that Tapper has thus far shown on this subject, he should have a big future at Faux News, the freakin' wingnut.
Keep up the pressure. Make them tell it straight or squirm with their half-truths. Your coverage has been very fair and honest in pointing out his bias -not yours. Good work.
Steve R
until it goes to court and her status as being covert is determined by a court, you just can't running around saying Rove "outed" a CIA agent.
Well, you can, but you would be wrong.
I'm sure Scooter's lawyer will have plenty to say about her covert status. Now that Rove has been cleared -- as I predicted -- let's speed Scooter's trial date up so the fireworks can begin.
You wing nut, the CIA does that. The court can say it was official declassified by the executive at that point or that Scooter did not know she was a covert operative. But they don't get to decide her status. Scooter's defense will argue Bush/Cheney declassified her and they will lose. The administration's hands are already too close to that cookie jar, so they will not turn over anything to help him.
However, none of this matters as Scooter is charged with lying to the FBI. He's toast. I have no idea how Rove dodged this bullet.
Whereever you see CIA in regards to declassifying, please include the executive. I did not phrase that information well, as so man people in the Bush White House it seems can declassify things on a whim that I have lost count of who has the legal right to do so.
She's a graduate of the Farm.
Her classification was such that if she was caught, she had no diplomatic immunity.
Her cover was as an "energy consultant" which regularly took her overseas.
When outed, she was involved in a covert operation to ship junk nuclear technology to disrupt Iran's activities.
Her career history at the CIA is still classified.
She has been gagged by the CIA, preventing her from granting interviews.
Karl Rove got off with the "I didn't recall" defense, along with the fact that Fitzgerald couldn't prove Rove "knew" she was a covert agent. Not only should Rove lose his security clearance, he should be serving a 10 year sentence in prison.
There has been a media frenzy on this, but I think to be fair one has to conclude that the pledge made by Bush (and seconded by McClellan) has all along had to do with someone"knowingly" outing a CIA officer, something which in fact has not been yet been proven with regard to Karl Rove.
Do you apply the same standards to both sides? Have you paid attention to, say, O'Reilly and/or Coulter? They regularly and openly smear anyone who disagrees with them, calling them treasonous, liars, and worse.
"If anyone in this administration was involved in" the leak, he or she would be fired. McClellan's statement was in no way contingent on whether a law was broken. Tapper is further ignoring the fact that Bush echoed McClellan's statement the very next day, when he declared, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
This is baloney. Not only do you ignore Bush's qualifier, but you are putting words in McClellan's mouth. He doesn't specify whether a law would be broken and you are purposely construing involved to mean anyone who talked about Plame. Plus, Bush just says appropriate action which suggests what he feels is appropriate.
Also, by the way, you have to knowingly out a covert agent to lose your security clearance. How many canards are you going to pile up today?
Fitzgerald spent millions of dollars and interviewed dozens of witnesses under oath and couldn't charge Rove and now you are desperately fishing for anything to get rid of the man who had just kicked progressive butt for 6 years.
At any cost. Don't get in his way as he sells the Repub and country's soul to be.....wait for it....a "winner."
I remember the front page of Newsday shortly after it was revealed that Rove was probably the source of the leak: Bush had reversed direction and changed his criteria for firing someone involved in the leak.
Everyone else seems to realize this. Ask yourself, why don't you?
[link to www.sfgate.com] here
I guess it's that pesky liberal media again, always noting inconvenient facts.
[link to www.sfgate.com]
You can't possibly be that illiterate, can you? Oh, I guess that home schooling does have its failures. It's pretty difficult to tell where your gears are engaging. In fact, I don't think they are, big fella.
it's the literate Righties that CONTROL the idiot righties. As another poster once put it, they're still getting used to their opposable thumbs. These people are masters of propaganda, and they appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'll tell you what - in November, I will hold my nose, and vote straight Democratic ticket, all the way down. I've never done that before, as I've always looked at candidates individually and not by party. Not anymore - ANYTHING to get these evil, evil people out of office. I personally feel that all of the ills of our government come from the party system. political parties, in my opinion, are bad for the country, bad for government, and bad for all of us. And ANY time one side has total control, it's bad for us - we, the people, are the losers.
Maybe by "take the appropriate action", Bush meant "give him the Medal of Freedom".
Tapper's flawed reports are not his biggest problems. Network correspondents can get away with anything if their ostensible goal is 'fairness,' or 'if they're really trying hard to respect both sides.' And all the complaints in the world won't change it.
What will do Tapper in, though, is his delivery. He can't talk without twisting his mouth out of shape. It's a distraction, along with his general appearance, that will keep him off a bigger stage---and what is it with ABC? Is everybody blind over there? Can't New York see how awful most of their reporters are?
Claire Shipman's another one with no mouth control and a twitch besides that make her practically impossible to watch.
Gibson surely must be saying to anybody who'll listen at ABC, 'You expect me to win with this kind of support?'
But who would say that his two competitors are any better? Williams is going downhill with his presumption of a Russert-like omniscience, and honestly thinks that that the feared Couric will make any difference, her 17 million dollar reader's fee and cookbook demeanor notwithstand?
Interesting he should make this bogus charge, when that is EXACTLY how they fabricated the myth of the "LIberal Media".
Tapper's reaction to criticism is all too typical of much of the media. Dismissal of the critique and denial that any change or correction is required appear to be the standard among newspaper, tv and radio figures.
I don't think that Tapper's reaction is limited to the media. I think it's typical of many in politics -- on both sides -- and is a defining characteristic of W's administration.
This entire debate is pointless. No sane person would care whether Bush's words, parsed to their most narrow meaning, referenced a violation of law.
A sane person would be concerned with whether Bush lied about taking the Plame matter seriously, or whether he knows what his aides are doing, or whether he is their puppet.
Bush's words were to the effect that he took the Plame matter seriously, wanted to get to the bottom of it, and that he would take appropriate action against those who leaked her name.
The facts were that Rove was his closest advisor, so either Rove lied to Bush and Bush did nothing, or Bush was conveying a false impression of caring about the Plame matter.
This is an example of bad framing. Media Matters can't win this debate with Jake, because it becomes a sterile exercise in legalistically examining Bush's words, which can end up making Bush look honest, when plainly he has not been.. It can make the obvious point that Bush is a liar or incompetent.
The importance of what MMFA is doing cannot be overstated. The failure of the media to help preserve our democratic system is much worse than anything being done by the politicans. Presidents and members of Congress will come and go, but our institutiions of democracy and the ability of our citizens to make informed decisions must be preserved.
I have great faith in the good judgement of most people, as long as we can get reliable information from the press. Folks like Bill O'Reilly and Rush, and the other extreme "professional wrestling journalists" are not important because the people that listen and believe what they say are not (I hope) in the majority. But when our regular media ignores and distorts important news for their own ego and financial gain then our society is fundamentally harmed.
Glossing over the dishonesty of our leaders in Washington, when your job is to be the voice of the American people, should be pointed out as clearly as possible.
MMFA should hold people like Tapper to a much higher standard than people like Rush. Tapper has an important job to do and his failures and lack of honesty concern me more than the antics of Rush and Bill.
I fancy myself a chatroom savior for those who accept spin and illogical statements from any quarter. Your response to a response to a response to Tapper on the WH leaks pledge is a perfect example. My concern is that too few reporters or commentators have the sense of logic required to even understand what you are talking about. Keep trying.
This whole Plame kerfuffle is littl more than a political witch hunt.
Plame and her silly husband should have known an op-ed in the NYT attacking the President with misleading information. So should have Plame's bosses at the CIA. If they were worried about her 'cover' they never would have sanctioned Wilson's article. It is evident to me that some people in the intelligence community were trying to deflect some of the blame for their faulty intelligence and they used Wilson and Plame for their purposes.
The press and the Dems and many here thought this was their magic ticket ride to hurt or rid themselves of Bush.
There is just one problem, the facts did not support your conspiracy theory. Don't you get it? You guys are again barking up the wrong tree. There is not even enough evidence after three years and 5 appearances by Rove to get a simple indictment.
I hate to break it to you, but I think Libby will also be exhonerated.
Oh well.. better luck next time.
Told the TRUTH, NOT MISLEADING, the TRUTH about this administration would end up in his wifes CIA status being exposed? It HIS fault that Rove and Libby would sacrifice national security in a fit of political pique. Thats ludicrous. Wilson should have kept his mouth shut about Bush giving misleading information about the Niger uranium connection even when he KNEW the truth and TOLD the truth because he should have KNOW a couple of administration officials would break the law and compromise National Security to get him back. My mind is reeling at the absolute stupidity of THAT argument.
As far as whether or not they get away with it I do admit that baldface LYING is a standard GOP talent. They MIGHT skate.
Wow. I hope you don't vote. More to the point, I hope you don't breed.
That has to be the most rediculous assertion I've read yet. Did you think that one up all by yourself? Please elaborate on the scenario you imagine and the supporting facts.
At the time Bush backtracked from his previous pledge to deal apprpropritely with anybody involved with the Plame leaking it was much noted in the media ,
Specifically right after Bush changed his promise ( a calculated step, no doubt) the cahnge in wording provoked a lot of reaction in the media. Specifically Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews ( before he drank the KoolAid) made repeated mentions to the fact. They often, for a couple of weeks after Bush's correction in tack, brought it up with many of their guests and showed clips contrasting both statements. This was also shown on CNN.
If you dig these up you will make the job easier and considerably increase the target for Tapper vitriol. Since it is on tape there is also no two ways about it.
Tapper reveals himself not only to be a silly dissembler, but lazy, vacuous and/or at the very least -- obtuse.
Otherwise, if Tapper's mendacity were truly an "attempt to be fair and ethical and to discern the truth," he would start with the "partisan hacks" at ABCNews who "repeatedly" carried news reports recalling "the President's [changing] pledge on the matter" of firing leakers; pledges that were not initially based on "a legal finding that a law had been broken" but repeatedly and generally applicable to any staff member who was "involved," "culpable" found or admitted to leaking Plame's name.
ABCNews.com | Associated Press | 9/30/2005:
ABCNews.com | The Note | July 15, 2005:
ABCNews.com | The Note | October 4, 2005:
ABCNews.com | Associated Press | October 14, 2005:
ABCNews.com | ABC 7 | November 4, 2005:
Which brings us back to this -- ABCNews.com | Tapper interview with Wilson | July 7, 2005
And this -- ABCNews.com | Tapper on Agee | October 1, 2003:
Ergo --
The president, according to Tapper: "If anybody was found to have broken the law, they would be fired."
Tapper, according to Tapper: "Whatever the motivation, simply revealing the identity of intelligence agents is a crime."
Thanks for playing Jake.
Its important to keepup the pressure on the mainstream and hold them accounable for their mistakes. Media Matters is excellent. The Plame case is really just a mouse turd tripping alot of good folks and the alligator, Brewter Jennings & Assoc, is the alligator. When Fitzgerald requested a copy of the "CIA leak damage assessment" he was denied on security grounds. The damage to Brewster Jennings is probably enormous and may have cause physical arm to numerous individuals. If the CIA releases their report its impact should result atleast in the removal of security clearances if not public outcry for heads to roll. I am not calling Valerie Plame a mouse turd, I beleive the White House is using it as a diversion. I would like to know how Mr. Tapper feels about this subject and if he would look into it and report on his findings?