It's so hard to give (J. Stanley)

I've just been watching Meet the Press, where Robert Novak is being grilled on semantics. The issue is whether Novak's sources used the name "Valerie Plame", or whether his sources simply described Plame using the description "Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife". The powers-that-be have apparently decided that if Novak's sources merely uttered "Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative", they did not thereby "give Novak the name of a CIA operative". Novak is being criticized for having said, on two occasions when he was asked about the matter in 2003, that he was given her name by his sources. Now that Novak has been appraised of the Fitzgerald semantics for "give", he claims his previous statements were misstatements.

But Novak's original statements were correct. According (apparently) to Fitzgerald, where y is some bit of information, x does not give y to z if x only intentionally gives a non-trivial uniquely identifying description that allows z to easily obtain y. So suppose I approach a hotel concierge for information about a good place for seafood. She hands me a guide, and tells me to go the place listed on the top left-hand corner of the guide. According to Fitzgerald, I can legitimately complain to the hotel manager that she neglected to give me a name of a good place for seafood. And surely the hotel manager can then reprimand the concierge. But that's crazy; she clearly did give me the name of the restaurant, and it's not in order to reprimand her.

Just as it's not in order to reprimand the hotel concierge for failing to give me the name of the restaurant, so it is in order to reprimand Novak's sources for giving him the name of a CIA operative.

Comments

[opacity]

but it does depend a bit on whether the agent worked undercover, and to what extent, right?

If the cover were good enough, you'd have a Clark Kent/Superman case.

And I take it that the extent to which "Valerie Plame" & "Valerie Wilson" were known to be interchangeable is among the issues debated.

[excuses]

Even if the equivalence is actually within reach (of the person to whom the name was given), the propriety of holding the giver responsible depends on whether the giver was aware, or should have been aware, that the "givee" could connect the dots....not that this is a viable excuse in this case...

[Karen Margrethe]

The problem with Lois Lane is that she is incredibly stupid, being deceived by those plastic specs. No one watching the movie would make her mistake, and that's why the Lois-Lane defense simply won't fly. Invoking Superman/ Clark Kent in the Plame/ Wilson's wife case is like asking someone to believe that you're an idiot, when it's obvious from your sophistical wrangling that you think you're too clever by half.

[lee nason]

The statute of limitations had run out on Valerie Plame's undercover status (since the secret agent identity protection act only mandated anonymity for five years after the last assignment overseas and Plame had been living in the US for more than five years). Wilson and Plame surely knew this and thus have made a fraudulent charge "stick" and made a bundle of money off of the whole affair to boot.

Wilson's allegations have largely been lies.

First claiming that no credible evidence existed that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake: the British have documented the attempt and still stand by it today.

Second claiming that the Vice President's Office had sent him on the assignment: the Vice President didn't even know who he was and certainly never sent him on the assignment.

Third claiming that his wife had nothing to do with the assignment: his wife's letter recommending him for the assignment was uncovered by the Bilateral Commission and has now been published; the letter was received at CIA the day before the CIA asked Wilson to go on the mission.

Fourth claiming that revealing his wife's name was illegal: it wasn't. Just read the statute.

Fifth claiming that all of this mess was designed to destroy him and his wife: while partially true, the point the administration was trying to make was that Wilson was wrong in his report about yellowcake and that his assignment was nepotism rather than a Vice Presidential mandate.

And there were other lies too including at least one egregious one in his original report (also discovered by the Bilateral Commission.

I was and remain against the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But I am embarrassed by the mud-slinging and lies perpetrated by Joe Wilson in support of my position. It is time for all of us to stop endorsing or trying to justify this man's actions. He was self-serving and duplicitous from the beginning and we need to stop rewarding such unethical behavior.

Lee Nason

[Jason Stanley]

Lee,

I care more about the bad semantics than the politics. But if what you say were true, why would there be so much attention paid to the distinction between *naming* Valarie Plame and merely *describing* her? Much of the interview was taken up by Russert trying to get Novak to confess that in fact his sources did *name* her, and Novak was adament that they only *described* her, and did not "give him her name". He repeatedly insisted he got her name from Who's who in America. That doesn't make sense, if what you're saying is true.

[Karen Margrethe]

Only a generation ago it was perfectly customary to introduce a man's wife by his first and last name. That is, with Valerie Wilson standing next to you, you could introduce her as "Mrs Joseph Wilson". Unless this practice is entirely obsolete (and it isn't, at least not in older, upper-class generations), it does not matter whether Novak's sources said "Valerie Plame" or "Wilson's wife".

[Martin Lin]

Karen,

I don't think the plausibility of the Superman stories per se is all that relevant to Opacity's point. All you need is a case where the hearer doesn't associate the information contained in the description with individual being described. Even if it were costumary to introduce a man's wife by his first and last name, it would still be possible to have case where someone so introduced to Mrs. Joe Wilson did not associate the decscription 'Mrs. Joe Wilson's wife' with the barer of evey name that names her (e.g. Valarie Plame). Indeed, that is the point of aliases. You can easily imagine that Mrs. Joe Wilson's wife is so deep undercover that it would be very difficult if not impossible to discover that the wife of Joe Wilson was Valerie Plame. *This is not a political post!*

[Dan K]

I have always heard, but never checked if it was anything more than legend, that it is a felony merely to state something threatening about the president's life. In any case, suppose that is true. In that case, surely EVERYONE would find it acceptable if Joe were charged with violating this law if he were to say any of the following (also, just in case the NSA is monitoring this blog, please know that i am not aware of anyone named Joe who made such remarks. Also note that the quotation marks indicate that *I* am merely *mentioning* these sentences. thanks!):

(1) "I intend to strangle George W. Bush"
(2) "I intend to strangle the current President"
(3) "I intend to strangle the son of George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush, the one who used to be Governor of Texas."

I would love to see Fitzgerald, Rove, etc. tell us that Joe is not violating the law when he says (2) because 'the current president' is an indexical, nor is he violating the law in (3) because of the definite description, whereas the first violates the law because of the proper name 'George W. Bush'. Hee hee hee.

I'm sick to my stomach.