ISN'T THERE A MIRROR IN THE PRESS ROOM?

About this Valerie Plame case and the media's frantic turnaround. Let's start from the beginning.

In February 2002, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat for almost three decades, was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate European intelligence (mainly from British and Italian agencies) that Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake to use in his nuclear weapons programs. Wilson concluded that the documents were probably forged and since the mining of yellowcake was monitored by the UN, the claim was unlikely.

Britain issued a white paper, after the Wilson trip, about the yellowcake purchase attempt, which is intelligence that has been confirmed to outline a specific course of action. The British government later established an independent commission to investigate the claim and other intelligence claims about Iraq, and the report, the Butler Report, found it to be fact that Saddam sought to purchase the lethal material.

Then President Bush mentioned it in his 2003 State of the Union Address as one of many arguments that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat. He inserted the caveat that it was intelligence gleaned from the British government (though at that point the white paper and the Butler Report hadn't existed -- as far as I can tell). Five months later, Joe Wilson became a blind subject of a column alleging intelligence failures regarding the case against Iraq. Then Wilson went public in an op-ed in the NYT outlining his argument. Three days later two administration officials contacts five or six journalists and mentioned, among other things, that Wilson's wife is Valerie Plame at the CIA and that she suggested him for the Niger assignment and that the whole thing was politically motivated.

Robert Novak of our very own Chicago Sun-Times was the only reporter who took the bait. He printed a column in early July 2003 naming Plame as a CIA "operative." A scandal erupted.

Primarily the Democrats, though not exclusively, and the press began to cry foul because Plame was an undercover agent in the CIA and naming her violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a federal crime with severe punishments. They claimed, as did Wilson, that it was a deliberate attempt to endanger his wife's career and by implication her life in order to get back at Wilson for speaking out against the administration.

The liberal press went ballistic. In principle, partisanship aside, everyone should have gone ballistic, but absent of an investigation and armed only with hearsay, it was the liberals who were shouting the loudest. Democrats and the liberal media (like the NYT editorial board) were rabidly demanding an independent prosecutor to investigate the charge and to hold the leakers responsible. It was understood among these people and organizations that a crime had been committed and justice must prevail.

Finally Bush acquiesced and ordered Ashcroft to investigate. Ashcroft removed himself from the investigation to eliminate conflict of interest charges, and his deputy appointed Chicago's own U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate. Those calling for the investigation were overjoyed because Fitzgerald was generally seen as a phenomenal U.S. attorney above party politics.

As the investigation went on and stalled at every turn in uncovering the administration officials who leaked Plame's name, Fitzgerald turned to the reporters. It seems logical that Novak was subpeanoed, but he cannot discuss the matter since it is before a grand jury. Instead two other reporters, Matt Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the NYT, were called in and refused to reveal their sources. Cooper wrote a follow-up to Novak's piece and Miller did a little investigating but ultimately did not write one word about this issue. They were threatened with jail unless they complied by naming their sources.

It was at this point that the press that so demanded the investigation began complaining about it. They now say that no crime was committed in the first place and the government is threatening the livelihoods of all journalists everywhere. They are demonizing Fitzgerald, whom they roundly supported at first. How odd. The underlying principle here is that reporters have 1st amendment rights but that those rights do not exist when they are directly related to a crime. Essentially, reporters cannot keep secret the names of those who commit crimes. They cannot, if you will, obstruct justice. Just like the rest of us.

So the media is saying now that no crime was committed and so therefore the reporters don't have to name names because the sources aren't criminals. See how that works? There is nothing out there today that is more hypocritical.

Now, I have no idea why Novak seems to escape any kind of scrutiny here. It seems to me that if any reporters are leaned on, he should be at the top of the list. It seems, however, that according to his few public statements, he must have struck some kind of deal or agreement with the investigation. He won't discuss it until this is "over," whenever that is.

So Time, Inc. yesterday agreed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling that the reporters must name names. The New York Times refused, which some say is easy since the NYT is not being charged a fine of $1,000 a day until they comply like Time, Inc. is. Still, though, despite the sources being exposed soon, it seems that Miller might still go to jail. This is something I do not understand. If the investigation is over, why must she be punished? Her refusal now becomes moot, doesn't it?

Thankfully, it now seems that this case is coming to a close and it can finally be decided if A) a crime was committed and B) if it was those responsible will be brought to justice. The sources apparently had to have security clearance to obtain her identity so rumors point to Karl Rove as one of the leakers. I hope we'll soon find out the whole twisted truth.

In the meantime, I hope the media has learned another valuable lesson in its Decade of Lessons is in the middle of, which is that the media is not above the law and they should be more deliberative when putting forth demands. It is an awful day for the NYT when it has to double back on itself and change its opinion altogether.