Although you’d never know it from the torrent of words spoken and written thus far, no one but Patrick Fitzgerald and his extraordinarily close-mouthed team of prosecutors really knows much yet about what turn the celebrated Plame case will take this week. Two things are clear, however: first, that the leaks Fitzgerald is investigating can best be understood as part of an ongoing, wide-ranging pattern of “information warfare” practiced by the Bush-Cheney Administration; and second, that investigation itself, having begun as a narrow look at a specific leak, can now best be understood as part of a broad attack on the public’s right to know.

The matter of the Bush-Cheney info-war — as particularly exemplified by the manipulation and deceit aimed at selling the war with Iraq to the American public — is of course despicably undemocratic. Analyst Larry Johnson has correctly termed it “a classic ‘covert action’ program against the citizens of the United States. ” As Johnson details, much of that program, including the events leading to the Plame case, involves “behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to plant stories, manipulate information and shape public opinion. In other words, you write stories that reporters will publish as their own, you create media events that tout a particular theme, and you demonize your opponent.”

If that sounds familiar, it’s because such “disinformation” efforts are of course nothing new. As Johnson points out, however, “Traditionally, this activity was directed against foreign governments.” What is new is the extent to which such activities — “fixing the facts” around WMD intelligence to manufacture a case that Iraq was building nuclear capability, for example — are now being directed at the American people.

The Plame case is but a small piece of the puzzle. Overwhelming evidence of the dishonest White House effort to shape U.S. public opinion is now everywhere before us: From pre-scripted “dialogues” with U.S. troops in Iraq to government-subsidized journalistic commentary to “fake news” propaganda production to continuing deceit relating to the events leading to 9/11… The list is long and the conclusion clear: The tightly controlled creation and dissemination — and sometimes destruction — of information is integral to selling nearly every aspect of the Bush-Cheney program to the public via the press.

The importance of the Plame case cannot be underestimated, however, because Fitzgerald’s originally narrow investigation might well end “with a broadly defined charge that boils down to divulging secret information.”

Fitzgerald’s mandate was to determine if the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name violated a 1982 act barring the intentional disclosure of an undercover intelligence operative’s identity. Instead, he may be piecing together a case alleging that White House officials conspired to leak various types of classified material in conversations with reporters — not only Plame’s identity but also other secrets related to national security. (Another case currently under investigation involves the leaking of classified Pentagon information to the pro-Israeli lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

If Fitzgerald succeeds in building a case against leakers of classified intelligence instead of proving that the 1982 law was violated, it will have a chilling effect on journalists’ ability to talk to sources with security clearance. This in turn will make it even harder to inform the American people about what the government is doing behind their backs. But the Plame case is clearly exceptional, since hardly anyone this side of Phillip Agee and, apparently Scooter Libby, questions whether the name of a covert C.I.A. officer is an important secret. More typically, the government desires to keep information “classified” because it would embarrass someone in the bureaucracy, or highlight past errors of omission or commission.

Speaking of commissions, let us remember that it was the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, who said that 75% of what was stamped classified shouldn’t have been. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission itself — which is looking more like a Twenty-First Century Warren Commission everyday — is now at the center of an ongoing battle in the information war. As in Plame, this case also involves a public attack on a longtime veteran of America’s intelligence services. Known as Able Danger, the case centers around Anthony Shaffer, a lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve and civilian analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

As reported here, Shaffer and others in his group identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of a Brooklyn terror cell a year before the attacks on the World Trade Center. After the attacks, when the intelligence team realized the significance of their evidence and tried to take it to the FBI and the 9/11 commissioners, they were rebuffed and later vilified. Shaffer has since been smeared by the Defense Department as a alcoholic, womanizing thief, has had his security clearance revoked, and has been refused permission to speak publicly about Able Danger — either to the press or to any of the Congressional committees now looking into the matter. Along the way, all the Able Danger data — a colossal 2.5 terabytes worth — was destroyed by the Defense Department. The best explanation thus far is that the cover-up involves a bipartisan effort to hide the details of a series of stunning intelligence failures dating back at least fifteen years and three Administrations.

Thus, the Able Danger and Plame cases are linked by much more than just a superficially puzzling decision to smear and attack longtime public servants such as Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and Tony Shaffer. The real nexus of the two lies buried deep within the ongoing information war now being waged against the American people — and anyone serving them who dares to speak out against the regime currently in power.