2/08/06: Air America: Al Franken: Franken interviews John Dickerson (excerpts)
Al Franken: John Dickerson is the senior political correspondent for Slate magazine, former White House correspondent for Time magazine. In the former role he’s gotten into a little controversy here and maybe trouble… He was the White House correspondent for Time magazine, very, very good White House correspondent, asked President Bush the embarrassing question: What’s the biggest mistake you’ve made since 9/11? It’s only really embarrassing in the sense that the President couldn’t answer it. Most people can pick a mistake that they’ve made and actually turn it into a positive… And the President, as you remember, paused at times where you could drive a truck through it or an entire convoy of trucks… So one of the most respected members of the White House press corps. Now he’s moved on to Slate...
John, we’ve been talking about the controversy you’ve been caught up this week — I don’t know how serious you consider it but some people do. You were, as White House correspondent for Time magazine privy to the fact that Matt Cooper had talked to Karl Rove and that Karl Rove had outed Valerie Plame — not by name but by identity — to Matt Cooper. Tell me if I got this wrong: That there were subsequent articles you contributed to in one way or another in Time magazine about the controversy of Plame gate. There were things like quoting Scott McClellan saying the White House had nothing to do with this… where you guys knew what he was saying wasn’t true. And that you allowed it to stand without saying, We know this not to be true. Which I understand why you would do that, but there are some people who are peeved about this.
John Dickerson: Yes, there are some people… I think that’s right. I think if you look at the articles… when they were written it was all very carefully written. And the reason you can’t just come out and say, They’re big liars!, They’re big liars!, is because you end up giving up a source. Now the people who hate Karl Rove and hate the President say, You’ve gotta give up your source.
Franken: Do you really give up the source, or do you just go, They’re big liars…., and not say who…
Dickerson: Well, you can’t do that for two reasons. One, you’ve got to show your proof. You can’t just they’re big liars and we know something you don’t but we’re not going to say anymore. And if you do say they’re liars, and you’re talking about whether you know Karl Rove was involved or not…
Franken: Wait a minute! Why can’t you say they’re big liars and not show the proof because you don’t show your proof all the time?
Dickerson: Well, but you can’t say, in that instance if you say we’re certain we know when you’re talking about Karl Rove.. if you know, you know it’s Karl!… There’s not a huge universe of people…
Franken: …There’s a huge universe of people in the White House! Not a huge universe but a universe…
Dickerson: When Scott McClellan was saying Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were not involved, you can’t say, We know they were but we’re not going to tell you how.”
Franken: Wasn’t he saying, there was no one in the White House involved. That’s what I thought was quoted.
Dickerson: Well, I’ll have to go back and look at the articles. In the clips of Time pieces various people have cited on the web, it’s been the Rove and Libby parts..
Franken: Oh…
Dickerson: I may be wrong, but…
Franken: You’re in an odd position…
Dickerson: But the point is this: you have a source and you make an agreement with that source not to blow their identity. You have to keep that agreement. And the reason you do that, even in a situation where all those people who hate Karl Rove and this White House and want them to be outed, you’ve got to remember that the same protections that protect the people who came forth about the NSA wiretaps — and people come forward about things all the time knowing their cover isn’t going to get blown. Sometimes it’s in an instance people would like because it uncovers an NSA wiretapping scheme they don’t think is appropriate, and sometimes it protects people they hate and would like to see run out on a rail. You can’t pick and choose.
Franken: Is there any distinction, however, between a whistleblower who is outing something that the government is doing which is possibly unconstitutional, and a whistleblower who’s outing a whistleblower.
Dickerson: Sure, there is. But the point is that when you make a promise to somebody, you make the promise. It stands. You don’t say, Well, I’ll keep this promise until I decide not to! Or until I decide I’m going to out you! It’s not the way you do it.
Franken: And Matt Cooper had made that promise, that it was off the record or something.
Dickerson: Yes. In my instance, these were not conversations that I had. So I’m certainly not going to play with the arrangement that other people make and sources they have…
[ ]
Franken: The president? Did he out Valerie Plame?
Dickerson: No, not to me.
Franken: Okay. Did anyone else in the White House do it?
Dickerson: Not to me. I never talked about…
Franken: ….Not to you!
Dickerson: … Wilson’s wife or Valerie Plame.
Franken: Anybody else in the White House talking to anybody else in the Time magazine press organization?
Dickerson: Well, as we know, they talked to… Libby and Rove talked to Matt Cooper.
Franken: Libby did too.
Dickerson: Right. This has all now been a part of the Grand Jury…
Franken: Okay. I thought Libby talked to other people as well.
Dickerson: But you asked about the Time organization and…
Franken: Okay, okay. All right, all right. You have to live with this!
Dickerson: [laughs]
Franken: But you’re going to get some tough questions on this show. You know that, don’t you.
Dickerson: Sure. But you can see how you can make a promise and then you decide to just break the promise. You can’t have a press that works, functions without an anonymous source. I mean maybe in a perfect world we’d like no anonymous sources ever. But if one person decides, well I’m going to break this because in this instance it’s compelled. Of course, if it’s a murder or some other situation, perhaps you have a situation where you’re saving lives by breaking a confidence, that’s another matter. But in order for the system to stay whole, you have to keep your promises.
Franken: I’m with you. But I am going to continue to ask you tough questions. How’s the book going?
Dickerson: [laughs]…It’s coming along. We’re getting there. If only news events wouldn’t keep interrupting so frequently. It’s coming along…
Franken: So what news events have kept you away from doing the book you owe your publisher.
Dickerson: Well, we had this — and it’s all still on track! don’t think it’s late or anything — we had this Plame business. The whole reason I wrote about this is that there were some documents that came out in the course of an exchange of documents between Libby and the court and Fitzgerald in which the conversations I had when I was in Africa were talked about in the court documents.
Franken: That was the Africa trip in which the secret document was floating around.
Dickerson: Right. Although nobody knew that at the time. But yes, that’s where Powell left with the document that had Plame’s identity in it.
Franken: And by the way, it’s been shown now that Plame was an undercover agent and all these rightwing people — you know, apologists for the White House — had been saying, Oh, she wasn’t under cover. But Fitzgerald discovered that she was undercover.
Dickerson: Right. That’s right. Although there’s still massive debate about it. And one of the things that Libby’s trying to do to knock the case down is challenge that notion.
Franken: But I thought he discovered that within the last five years she had been doing undercover work overseas and the CIA had been trying to hide her identity.
Dickerson: That’s right. And they’d been actively trying to hide her identity. Libby’s going to try and challenge that in court.
Franken: But that’s it. That’s the definition.
Dickerson: I know it’s the definition, but definitions have definitions that sometimes get unwound in court. In these most recent filings, January 31st, that looks like it’s one of the areas they’re pursuing.
Franken: Is he going to be convicted before he’s pardoned?
Dickerson: Well, let’s see. The trial begins in ’07. Oh, I’m sorry! I was taking you seriously…
Franken: No! I’m actually serious!
Dickerson: Well. the trial starts in January ’07, so I don’t know how long that trial takes but it’s going to take a while because…
Franken: So conceivably he could do a few months in prison.
Dickerson: I don’t know.
Franken: He could appeal and stuff like that, I suppose.
Dickerson: Right….
::Tullycast:: 