JustOneMinute

Valerie Plame Wilson - The Law Is An Ass

A bit of a koan here. The law is an imperfect guide to human behavior. I did not like it when the Clinton Administration claimed exoneration every time a special prosecutor declined to indict them, applying the standard that "if they don't indict, it's all right". And Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority" concept comes to mind.

Well, if I didn't like it then, I don't like it now as it relates to Ms. Wilson. In this post, I describe how Ms. Wilson could be technically covert, yet her outing might not jeopardize national security; conversely, she might not technically have covert status, yet her "outing" could represent a serious blow to national security.

The law may be either a shield or a sword in this case; White House staffers might hide behind a technicality, or Democrats might hang them on one. Either way, it should not be the central question.

People should focus on three issues - was national security compromised; was Ms. Wilson's safety endangered; and was the law broken. We throw in that last because, yes, White House aides are expected to follow the law.

I will have more later. But my answers don't come up good for the White House. Developing...

UPDATE: An update before we finish? YES! The Hammer has a good round-up of links, and we especially love this explanation of the different jobs at the CIA, and the speculation about where Ms. Wilson might fit in.

MORE: Kevin Drum has a similar theme. Since I may never finish this, here my quick version - even if the aides thought Ms. Wilson was "not really" covert; even if folks at the CIA confirmed that to them, as they did to Novak; it was not worth the risk that someone was wrong. Same point as to her safety - the Ambassador is calling a lot more attention to his wife than the White House ever did, but still, they are responsible for their own actions, which were not good. Increasing the risk to her is simply not acceptable.

Legally, I think we will discover this to be a thicket leading to a swamp. On the first two issues, I am not sure how the WH can defend themselves. Not that I won't try...

Valerie Plame Wilson - Tuesday AM

In a rare attempt to unbury the lede, I provide this: President Bush: "I want to get to the bottom of this."

The WaPo continues to work this, with the front page story by Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, and Howard Kurtz, Walter Pincus, Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt credited in the footnote.

Quick take - The WaPo has discovered the TIME magazine article! And tea-leave readers will ponder this juxtaposition:

An article that appeared on the Time magazine Web site the same week Novak's column was published said that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The same article quoted from an interview with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, saying that Cheney did not know about Wilson's mission "until this year when it became public in the last month or so."

Well, the same article quoted Ari Fleischer and attributed a quote to Condaleeza Rice; why single out Libby, hmm? Who is still my first round pick for this, BTW.

Now, I have been pushing what Josh Marshall would describe as the "damage control" theory - a lot of these leaks are coming from White House staffers intent on protecting President Bush. Two straws in the wind blow my way, so I will seize them:

A senior official quoted Bush as saying, "I want to get to the bottom of this," during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove.

And, in reference to the timing of this - why did the story break when it did - we get this:

Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week.

So, lawmakers got the news, and then a "senior administration official" leaked everything to the WaPo for their Sunday edition. Josh Marshall guessed the source to be George Tenet, but pointed to evidence that it was damage control; the timing in today's WaPo seems to be consistent with the damage control view.

I am starting to feel a bit like the engineer who was on the Titanic - I am encouraged that I seem to have a good sense of just how the ship is sinking. KIDDING!

UPDATE: Jack Shafer does not see a prosecution at the end of the tunnel.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey fails to alarm me:

...it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.

And later:

HEMMER: What does it mean if she's an analyst or operative and not a spy? Is that less serious? Is that the suggestion?

WOOLSEY: Well, most of the time in the business, people don't really use the word "operative." Analyst would normally mean -- if that's true -- that she worked usually in Washington, that she would be able to admit to people that she worked at the CIA. And it would not be nearly so serious a thing.

If she was a clandestine service officer, an officer who worked in the field, recruiting informants, spies, or undertaking covert action, then naming her really would be a serious matter. And we apparently have a factual dispute, from what Mr. Novak said there, about whether she was a clandestine service officer or not.

MORE: Good job by "Swopa", who notices that Howard Fineman is getting damage control style leaks from inside the White House. I dispute his hopelessly partisan analysis, of course, as he would mine.

We Try For A Correction At The NY Times

We leave Mr. Kleiman, below, to do the heavy lifting, and content ourselves with a swipe at the Old Grey lady and their coverage of the Ambassador Wilson affair (The "Who Named Plame Blame Game").

From the front page story by Carl Hulse and David E. Sanger:

It was Mr. Wilson who, more than a year and a half ago, concluded in a report to the C.I.A. that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore in Niger in an effort to build nuclear arms.

Oh, please. Here is the original "What I Didn't Find in Africa" article. The Ambassador makes a big deal out of his conclusion that no sales of yellowcake had taken place. His account in the Times made no reference to any investigation of "attempts" by the Iraqis to purchase uranium.

However, he did report such attempts to the CIA, if we can believe George Tenet and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. I excerpt Mr. Tenet:

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.

Now, this was released after the Yellowcake flap was underway, and may have a certain self-serving quality. However, the Brits claim to have seen the original report, and provide a similar description.

So, the NY Times is pretty much exactly wrong on this. In March 2003 the IAEA comments on this 1999 trade visit (see extended excerpts, or CNN transcript), and seems to be reassured, but it was not the Wilson report that did it.

MORE: The Times tries again with more success on Tuesday:

Mr. Novak's column centered on a retired diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, who concluded more than a year and a half ago in a report for the C.I.A. that there was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa in order to build nuclear weapons.

And the WaPo really gives us a laugh with this courageous, take-a-stand reporting:

Wilson has drawn attention for his report on a trip he took to Niger for the CIA that, he said, did not confirm an administration charge that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear materiel in that country.

Well, if he says so.

Valerie Plame Wilson - Huge News Day

Washington Post:

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

The disclosure could have broken more than one law. In addition to the federal law prohibiting the identification of a covert officer, officials with high-level national security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements, with penalties for revealing classified information.

And, a sharp-eyed observer noted that the sources have been downgraded - where Sunday we were told that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists", today we are informed that "An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson."

My tea leaves do not tell me if this is deeply significant.

Novak recants; his original column had Ms. Wilson as an "operative". Now, as to his comment that "nobody called me". Well, fine. We can imagine that he was chatting with some WH folks, heard the anecdote about Wilson and Wife, and said, "I love that, you should get that out there - after I print it". Many were called, none chose to bite.

Ambassador Wilson recants, again.

NBC News:

CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.
The CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said.

Now, Mark Kleiman has some very good material, with lots of links. I may see if I can limit myself to a combination of links and cheaps shots, uhh, comments.

VALERIE PLAME, VIEWED IN RIGHT PROFILE: Pretty good. He notes the electrons wasted by Clifford May at NRO, but properly ignores the lost bandwidth run up by Mark Levin. The best piece by an NRO contributor is by Don Luskin. Bonus - here is the piece Mr. Luskin wrote in July, and we now know his secret source was Bob "Now I wrote it, now I didn't" Novak.

AND WHO WILL CRITIZIZE THOSE SELFSAME CRITICS?: Through the media looking glass with Howard Kurtz of the WaPo, who overlooked TIME magazine's contribution to the confusion. A weak column that misses a key point - the media is now covering itself. How does NBC News report the White House denial that Karl Rove was involved, when Andrea Mitchell knows whether he was involved? Too tough a question for Howie.

MORE PLAME: THE WHITE HOUSE STONEWALLS: I am in more agreement than I would like to be. Bush needs to get in front of this, as I have noted.

Valerie Plame Wilson - Monday

Technical difficulties plague my morning blogging, so this may be [witha few late adds] weirdly link-free.

Mark Kleiman has a very good post which hammers a point ai made earlier - however we got here, President Bush needs to decide whether he is part of the solution, or part of the problem. Up to now, the cover-up has been protecting staffers (or Cheney!). Anyone at he White House still working for George Bush has to remember, there is only one indispensable man in that operation.

And no, I wasn't speaking of Karl Rove. But on that subject, we see yet another denial (by Press Sec'y McClellan) of Rove's involvement.

Now, the White House explains that the Justice Dept is studying whether laws were broken, or national security compromised. Surely that has been established? Surely not. Allow me to muddy the waters.

Suppose Ms. Wilson had posed as a professor at the University of Islamabad while recruiting Pakistani engineers to spy on their countries nuclear development program. Reasonable minds can agree that outing her might compromise national security. However, if she came back to the US six years ago, she would not, for statutory purposes, be "covert". The WaPo notes that there may be another law relating to White House folks with a security clearance, so the lawyers have a lot to chew on. [LINK - wow, this blogging thing is a breeze in "stream of consciousness" no-link mode!]

Now, imagine that Ms. Wilson was serving abroad in a position that "everyone knew" was CIA. This is analogous to the notion that all Soviet cultural attaches were KGB. The CIA took care that she never met with sensitive assets, so outing her does not affect national security. However, and oddly, if she came back four years ago, she is still technically "covert", and a crime may have been committed. We note that Mark Kleiman links to the WaPo story with the ghastly news that "Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents." Troubling. But what is the source, and the motivation - we detect hostile fire, and perhaps we can discount it pending more information.

So, Ms. Wilson may or may not be covert, there may or may not be national security implications, and answering one question does not automatically answer the other. To further compound the confusion, the statute seems to require knowledge and intent on the part of the "outer" - repeating water cooler gossip may be VERY stupid, but not illegal.

So, on the one hand, there is certainly enough here for the Justice Dept. to mull over. However, for the Justice Dept. investigation to become an excuse for inaction on the part of the Bush Admin doesn't work for me - if, G*d help you all, I were in charge, I would want to know what happened, and address this.

And perhaps the Wh already has? Maybe the WH has done some homework and is satisfied that national security was not compromised, and that no laws were broken. Fine, then say so. That is very different from "we will cooperate with the investigation."

I have some quick asides in the continuation, and I air one of my personal demons.

Valerie Plame Wilson - Shit Hits Fan (So Why Am I Smiling?)

The Washington Post delivers the dirt on the Valerie Plame Wilson story.

Key grafs:

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

...Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

...The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said.

The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.

Our timeline is here; Mark Kleiman, Kevin Drum, and Josh Marshall comment. Mr. Marshall has several comments - start here, and work down (and up - the day is young!).

So, how dark a day is this for Team Bush? Mark Kleiman says that "I suppose this could be worse for the Administration, but it's hard to see how.". We infer that Mr. Kleiman is neither Irish nor a Red Sox fan - things can always get worse!

And actually, I think this is a pretty good story, relative to yesterday's news that we could look forward to a ghastly criminal investigation. Why?

(a) What sort of a dark and secret conspiracy are we talking about here? If the White House officials called Robert Novak, they probably called heavy talent at the Washington Post and the NY Times. For either of these papers to fulminate now about a secret conspiracy they have been in on for two months strains credulity. It also goes part of the way to explaining the media indifference to this story. What is the headline - "We Can Now Reveal That Which We All Knew"? Please. In fact, the NY Times story this morning had no byline, which may be a whole new way to cover this - our anonymous reporters will now reveal their anonymous sources.

(b) When originally asked, the CIA didn't seem to care about Ms. Plame being outed. Robert Novak asked (so, we infer, did TIME), and, if we can believe this story, it would not be unusual for the CIA to wave people off. They didn't. And they are still not sure if "outing" her mattered. Well, if they don't know whether her secret past is important, the White House aides probably don't know either. The absence of any intention to breach national security will be politically, if not legally, helpful. And don't ask me why the CIA finally made a criminal referral to the Justice Dept., I am on a roll. DCI Tenet placating disgruntled CIA types, the sly Admin pre-empting a Congressional show, who knows? The fact that George Tenet followed the "announce bad news on Friday" rule suggests he is not fully off the Administration reservation.

(c) Following (b), if her past is not that big a deal, than the Ambassador's heavy breathing about "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames" goes out the window.

(d) Is truth a defense? Novak and TIME suggest that the CIA confirmed that the substance of the White House "smear", that Ms. Wilson was involved in selecting her husband for the assignment, is accurate. I happen to agree with those who think the Ambassador had an impressive resume for the job, and his wife should not have become part of the story. However, if she really was involved, and "outing" her has no national security implications, the scandal diminishes to a discussion of the technical meaning of "covert".

Now, Mr. Marshall speculates that the WaPo source is George Tenet, and he gives his reasons, which include that Dana Priest (bylined on the current story) normally covers the CIA. However, we note that the original leak was wrapped up in the controversy about the "16 Words", a story Ms. Priest might well have covered - in fact, she may be one of the original "Leakettes". We are undaunted by the estimable Mr. Marshall, and cling to the notion that the WaPo source is a White House staffer protecting the President at the expense of an underling.

If we recall, it was Dick Cheney, his people, and his Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby, that were the sinister forces behind the "16 Words". My Psychic Prediction - two people on Dick Cheney's staff are to blame for this. Since we recently saw the President contradict Vice President Cheney on the linkage between Saddam and 9/11, we sense a division, and a vulnerability here.

What about Condaleeza Rice? She is a logical suspect, but seemed to deny involvement on Fox today.

So, here we go - Cheney steps aside for 2004 (health reasons - uh huh!), Colin Powell agrees to run as Vice President, and Dems are sorry they ever brought this up.

MORE: Round up the usual suspects! The perps were probably part of the White House Iraq Group:

Systematic coordination began in August [2002], when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

...The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

OK, then - Libby and Hadley.

MORE: I Blog For Bucks! Over at Ain'tNoBadDude, I see this:

BadDude has a Franklin that says Rove goes down on this. Any takers?

I'll cover that for $100. It's not Rove. Or, if it is, we have a deeply psychotic press corps. Look, the White House peddled this to at least six reporters. When Ambassador Wilson guessed out loud that it was Rove, what might one of them have done? Call Wilson, ask him to repeat the allegation, call Rove, ask for a comment - the story writes itself. And if that seems too easy, strongly urge a colleague to do it in your place. Saves the awkwardness of asking Karl a question like "Were you the source for the story you told me on the phone two months ago?"

Instead, the Ambassador backpedaled, and we get the vague impression from his interview with Mr. Marshall that the press warned him off Rove, or at least, failed to urge him on.

Which strongly suggests that the press is hoping that the Ambassador will guess again.

OTOH, these profiles of Rove suggest I will be out the C-note.

Poverty In The United States

Very interesting comments from Mr. Schrank and Mr. Drum on a subject we hope to revert to.

Right now, I will limit myself to two words: "immigration", and a question for Mr. Drum - Kidding?

Ready For The Weekend - The Times Tilts For Clark (Again)

Last Sunday, we derided the selection of photos made by the editors of the NY Times in covering Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

Well, there they go again.

This Saturday, it is Clark earnestly connecting with a couple of working class folks at a diner.

And Howard Dean, auditioning for "Saturday Night Live":

Katherine Seelye has an article on Gen. Clark. Eventually, she identifies questions and concerns; however, my reaction to the first eight paragraphs was "Get a room".

Valerie Plame Wilson - The CIA Wants Justice!

NOTE - My latest thoughts, a quick summary, and links to the main stories, are here, or at the main menu. Carry on!

The Justice Department, that is. Our source is the Drudge Report, which gives this NBC News/Andrea Mitchell story a banner headline.

We have been following this story since early July; our timeline is here; Mark Kleiman and Josh Marshall have comments on the latest developments.

David Corn, whose piece in "The Nation" started this scandal, had predicted that the investigation would die in the CIA - George Tenet would stay loyal to George Bush and quash this. Evidently not. One guess - Mr. Tenet, pondering Bush's declining poll numbers and faced with in-house annoyance, decided to do the right thing. One presumes that, with Congress back in town, Mr. Tenet checked with his suporters on both sides of the aisle before proceeding.

So, does this mean that Ambassador Wilson has been telling the truth? A fair response would be, about what? If the CIA thinks a crime may have occurred, it certainly suggests his wife had covert status. However, the MSNBC story suggests that there are two relevant statutes - "Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act." This has me wondering whether Ms. Wilson was not covert, but that her identity was protected by the "Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act", which is a point to which I will revert after I finish being a Saturday Morning Soccer Dad.

That said, the Ambassador was careful to always speak in hypotheticals about his wife - she may in fact have covert status, but the act of identifying her may not have represented the dire security breach he speculated about with David Corn:

Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

I am not ready to jump on his bandwagon just yet, given his earlier exaggerations. However, the fact that the CIA found a basis for a criminal referral is certainly a blow to the White House.

Now, is there a way to pretend that this is all OK for the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania? Not really. Certainly, John Ashcroft may just sit on this. And there is another angle - suppose there were some Congressmen determined to bring this "Ms. Wilson" question up, perhaps during a hearing on the special appropriation for Iraqi reconstruction. Now, the Administration can play the "we don't comment on active criminal investigations" game, which may buy time at the expense of ghastly headlines.

But buy time for what? This story will become the classic cover-up tale the media live for, we will be treated to regular leaks as to the progress (or lack thereof) in the investigation, and for what? Watergate was about protecting Nixon; Whitewater was about protecting Billary!; no one thinks George Bush is involved in this. Losing Karl Rove would be a terrible blow to the White House, but that seems to be the current worst case. Only a cover-up can raise the stakes.

In my humble opinion, the White House needs to get a senior Admin official in front of a friendly Congressional Chairman, admit that it was an innocent mistake, take the pain, and exit. The Hearing Room, if not the Administration.

And was it an innocent mistake? Who knows? Although NBC News does not mention it, the original Robert Novak piece mentioned CIA sources, as well as "senior government officials". TIME magazine found "government officials" willing to chat about Ms. Wilson's status, in a story that also cited "Administration" officials. If one can presume that TIME understands how to attribute sources, it suggests that there were people discussing her covert status beyond the "senior administration officials" focussed upon by David Corn and NBC News.

I initially muddy the waters with this post, and summarize this theme in the timeline. Alternative explanations abound!

UPDATE: TIME pounces on the story! And does the website load the story with a "Twilight Zone" soundtrack, or is that just my imagination? TIME describes the reporting of Robert Novak, but makes no reference whatsoever to their own earlier reporting, including this sentence:

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Look, whoever these officials are, they are clearly part of the story. For TIME to feign ignorance of this is bizarre; if the ignorance is unfeigned, it is laughable.

That said, they do link to their earlier story. Maybe they think we are lazy, or stupid.

MORE: Check the comments - Dwight Meredith guides us to more, and we don't even have a cup of coffee before reacting, also in the comments, with more below, and here.

Here is the breakthrough WaPo piece noted by Dwight; here is the odd NY Times piece. Why is it odd? Note the absence of a byline.

The media silence on this story has puzzled blogspheric observers up to now, but the haze lifts a bit with the WaPo story. Apparently, two White House officials peddled the "Wilson and wife" story to at least six reporters; if Novak was one of them, we doubt the others included the Akron Daily - presumably the WaPo and the NY Times were on the call list.

In which case, in covering this story (or not) the NY Times has spent the summer in the odd position of writing about a White House cover-up of a secret shared by, among others, Rovert Novak, a NY Times reporter, and (if they gossip a bit) the Washington Post. Some dark conspiracy! Furthermore, if Mr. Novak is telling the truth (And TIME's reporting seems to confirm it), the CIA at least initially did not warn people away from Ms. Plame, when given the chance.

OK, Mark Kleiman has thoughts, as does the CalPundit. Josh Marshall has several posts - start here and work down (and maybe up - the day is young). I should move my reaction out of the comments and into a real post. However, it is fascinating that they see darkness where I see light.

MORE: Round up the usual suspects! The perps were probably part of the White House Iraq Group:

Systematic coordination began in August [2002], when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

...The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Hadley and Libby, then.

Read My Lips - Then Read The Words

Andrew Sullivan has "Second Thoughts on Clark", figuring any fan of Reagan and Bush can't be all bad.

Whether Democrats will feel as comfortable with this Reagan Democrat remains to be seen.

But what is up with Andrew Sullivan's reading comprehension? The post is marked "2:01:04 AM", which may explain this puzzle:

I was actually reassured by Drudge's quotes yesterday, where Clark comes across as a gung-ho hawk, an admirer of Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld. I agree with him that "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." I couldn't second highly enough his view that he was very glad after 9/11 that "we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." I'm delighted he has such a high regard for Ronald Reagan.

Emphasis added. Since Gen. Clark was speaking in May of 2001, I doubt he was praising the 9/11 response.

Andrew also agrees with the General that "we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." Since Drudge places that in a quote after President Reagan, it is entirely likely that the General was referring to the first Bush, whose peaceful resolution of the Cold War is, indeed, praiseworthy. As of May 2001, the second Bush had scarcely had time to show his leadership and statesmanship. (And I know some of you are still waiting).

Since Andrew places the excerpt immediately after praise for Rice and Powell, I wonder if he noticed which Bush the General had in mind.

Our current spin - the General voted for Nixon, loves Reagan, and admired the current foreign policy team back in May 2001. If elected as a Dem, he will be Mr. Triangulation, annoy everyone he works with, and be gone like Jimmy Carter.

Psychologists will blanche upon reading this:

...Speaking to a NEWSWEEK reporter on the night he announced his candidacy, Clark did not want to let go until he was sure the reporter understood him—not just understood him, but respected him, believed him, appreciated him, liked him. Clark quivered with a desire to please.

Groan. Where is the self-confidence? A bit later, we are informed that Gen. Clark is "Possessed of a defiant need to win, which was born of overcoming childhood insecurities...".

Echoes of Johnson and Nixon. And Knight-Ridder delivers shades of Jimmy, telling us that "Privately, his military critics complained that he was a micromanager".

Oh, boy. So Clark is an unpopular micromanager who is smarter than everybody. He evidently has had great success alienating every military officer he has worked with, so perhaps his natural instincts will be enough for him to fully antagonize Congress. However, a bit of free advice for the General - always remember, you are much smarter than the Congressfolks you are chatting with. They will be awed by your genius, and embarrassed to admit they can not keep up with your mighty river of logic and fact. So, try to speak VERY slowly. Enunciate! Repeat your main points frequently, and don't be afraid to ask questions such as "Are you following me" or "Am I going to fast?"

General, you are going to be fine.

MORE: The NY Post says it was Bush I, Cold War.

UPDATE: Reality gets results.

Character Issues

What did Gen. Hugh Shelton have in mind when he told an audience said about Gen. Wesley Clark that " I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart."?

The Man Without Dirt is wondering (and I see the InstaPundit is, too). Well, straight from the pages of TIME, we have a story with which Gen. Hugh Shelton is undoubtedly familiar:

Clark had a charmed career in the military, but, associates say, it began stalling out after he won his second star with his promotion to major general in September 1992. Bill Clinton gave him a third star in 1994. Two years later, then Lieut. General Marc Cisneros recalls hearing that Clark was seeking to win the four-star billet as head of the U.S. Southern Command — after the service had nominated Cisneros for the post. Cisneros would have seemed the ideal candidate: a Spanish speaker who had taken Manuel Noriega into custody in 1990 when the Panamanian leader surrendered to U.S. troops. Clark, in contrast, speaks Russian and had never held a Latin American post.

"When I was told by the Army that he was maneuvering to politically usurp my nomination, I visited with Clark," Cisneros says. "I said, 'I hear you're competing for the Southcom position also'--but he denied it. He told me, 'You're the nominee, and you're the one who's going to be selected, and I'm not trying to get that job.'" But within weeks, Clinton had nominated Clark. "I could have taken a 'Yes, I'm applying for the job,'" Cisneros says. "But when I confronted him, he was dishonest to me."

While Clark declined to respond directly to Cisneros, he told TIME, "People are entitled to their own opinions. The Army and the armed forces are very competitive institutions."

Althogh I am not a military man myself, my impression is that for one general to lie directly to another's face is a bit of a no-no. Presumably Gen. Shelton has other stories in mind as well, since he did mention Clark's departure from Europe. Whether we will get more details, only time will tell. Obvious places to look - who told what to whom about the incident with the Russians at the airport; and did Gen. Clark resolutely refuse to get on the same page with Gen. Shelton on the question of the Apache helicopters.

This TIME story also addresses the question of whether President Clinton was deceived into dismissing Gen. Clark three months early. TIME's source is Samuel Berger. We smilingly recall Mr. Berger's talk therapy with TIME a year ago, when he explored his fantasy that Team Clinton had a serious, thought-through plan to Get Osama, which the Bush people dropped it after the transition. The Man Without Mercy was delightful on that point.

We have more!

Normally, I Am Able To Follow Along

However, the VRWC seems to have left me behind with the latest Clark scandal. Let's go to the Weekly Standard:

WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

Eccentric? Erratic? Weird? Whatever. But what did Howard Fineman report, anyway?

...Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, [Gen. Clark] happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

OK, so Clark says he was kidding. The Weekly Standard checks the phone logs, and can't find a call from Gen. Clark. From this we are supposed to conclude that when he says he is kidding, he is lying, and when he says he tried to call Karl Rove, he is lying again? Is there any chance that he was just kidding, kinda like he says?

C'mon, guys - save it for my other weekly fave.

UPDATE: Well, now Andrew Sullivan re-reads Fineman, and gets the joke. But he is still not laughing.

Valerie Plame Wilson - Josh Marshall Interviews Amb. Wilson

Josh Marshall interviews Ambassador Wilson in a wide-ranging discussion that does get to the question of his wife having been outed by the Administration.

Here is our timeline; when last we looked, the Ambassador was backpedaling from his suggestion that it was Karl Rove that outed his wife. And (spoiler alert), he remains firmly back-pedaled in this interview.

Now, some points upon which Mr. Marshall and the Ambassador might benefit from a bit of clarification:

George Bush At The UN

George Bush spoke to the UN today. Instant reaction - a good speech to the US audience, and a tough one for the UN. President Bush listed a number of accomplishments of the UN in Iraq - vaccinating children, rebuilding schools, reopening hospitals - and left one wondering how they could graciously refuse to do more.

The segue to an international effort against the sex trade seemed to have come straight off the desk of Karl Rove. The religious right should be pleased. Traditional conservatives will grumble that this is not really a vital interest of the US; however, they are unlikely to defect to Dean or Clark as a result.

Meanwhile, the goo-goos amongst the US media, the left, and at the UN, will find it hard to oppose this, other than reflexively (which some will do). Since "Bush opposes slavery" clashes with "Bush is the Prince of Darkness", Karl Rove scores a few cheap buckets (basketball? Make that "Rove scores a few quick runs").

And if you are asking me, a war on slavery is fine. Is it a silly diversion of police and intelligence resources? I expect there is more overlap in the criminal underworld amongst terrorists, drug traffickers, and slave traders than most of us realize. Especially me. Plus I admire the cheap PR ploy.

Enough. End the suspense. (8:05 AM Tuesday; Blogspot archives, grr.)

Words From St. Rudy

Rudy Giuliani, back from touring Europe, was interviewed on "Imus" this morning, and was asked about Iraq. Paraphrasing here, he said that the weapons of mass destruction were a side issue for him - the key point was that we could not have a credible war on terror that did not eliminate or contain Saddam. Furthermore, when European leaders asked him about the weopons of mass destruction, he said that he asked them about the mass graves. "We may not have emphasized the humanitarian reason going in, but it sure looks like a good one now".

Welcome support as the Bush teams revs up the fall campaign for the hearts and minds of the American people.

No Law Against "Stupid"

But no law for it, yet:

Confederate flag flap flies again in specialty tag

Sounds like Rep legislators are already honing their excuses and dodges. Not quite as satisfying, to this Yankee, as telling 'em to go take a flying flag, but we can make that point when the Yanks burn Atlanta. Again, and again.

A Hummer For Arnold

Arnold invented the "Hummer"? Mickey is puzzled, but leans that way. Well, I am leaning that way too. Maybe everyone figured it was good mutual backscratching PR to tell this story while promoting the H2, but the story is ubiquitous and consistent. I'll excerpt one:

The Hummer's story begins in Oregon. While in Astoria filming his 1990 vehicle Kindergarten Cop, Arnold Schwarzenegger spotted a convoy of military Humvees driving on the highway. When he contacted the U.S. military, they refused to sell one to him. The Terminator was undeterred and lobbied the military contractor that manufactures the Humvee, AM General, even flying to the company's headquarters in South Bend, Ind., to plead his case.

The first civilian Humvee, renamed the Hummer, was produced in 1992, with Schwarzenegger as the first customer.

Many other sources peg Arnold as the first customer.

I'm sold! With Mickey and Arnold behind this idea, who will stand in front of it?

And, as a bonus thought for those who figure Arnold is just some dumb actor - he may not be a "book-larnin' " genius, but under the category of finger-on-the pulse marketing savvy, he has an extraordinary track record. Starting, obviously, with his most important product, himself.

Sullivan And The "Imminent Threat"

Here we go again - this post from Andrew Sullivan should re-open the "Bush said there was an imminent threat" discussion. Perhaps the "He did, too" side will have a bit more evidence on offer than last time - one evil commenter was distinctly unimpressed. Although we are impressed by the chap's new site!

Andrew Sullivan excerpts from the President's State of the Union Address (OK, I did too). However, since the President was asked, more or less directly, about an "imminent threat" at his March 6 press conference prior to the war, an extended excerpt might be helpful:

Now, The NY Times Tilts For Clark

First, the story: "The Fight for the Democratic Party" is a fight between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. The only mention of another Presidential candidate comes when they use a quote from an advisor to Dick Gephardt. Bit of a rough go for the Excluded Eight.

But the pictures selected by the Times to accompany the story are the key - can we get them, please?

If this works, we will see an earnest Clark intently discussing the issues with two veterans, or codgers, or something.

Dean is caught doing a Rodney Dangerfield impression.

Appalling! OK, funny, too, but who is kidding whom?

An Apparently Ongoing Service To Our Readers

Raise the level of the debate! Address the issues he raises! So cry the many enthusiastic supporters of Professor Krugman.

Daniel Drezner obliges here.

Jane Galt obliges here.

At Dr. D's site, one of the earnest K-supporters has an interesting suggestion - serious Krugman critics should restrict themselves to what Prof. Krugman writes, not what he says, as in, for example, the CalPundit interview linked by Dr. Drezner.

Since the particular topic was income inequality and political polarization, we oblige. Stay with me, there are banana peels coming, I promise. Two substantial ones, actually - Prof. Krugman apparently failed to read the final version of a paper to which he linked. Although the draft version (found elsewhere) supports his conclusion, the final version to which he linked does not.

And, we drag in a couple of experts to argue that immigration has a significant affect on inequality statistics in the US. Since Prof. Krugman totally fails to mention this, we deem it to be an important oversight.

Unleash the hounds!

Civil Liberties Outrage

"Attorney General Threatens to Expel Extremist Muslims

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — America's law-and-order Attorney General has threatened to close any mosque in the United States that is considered extremist and expel any Muslim prayer leader who preaches a radical message.

In an interview on Howard Stern, John Ashcroft also pledged to deny visas to Muslim participants in conferences who did not respect the values of the United States."

Oh, civil libertarians are screaming! Or we hope they are. But, mon erreur, we expect they are screaming in French. Because, as you suspected, the story above has a certain unreality to it. Actually, the correct story, below, has a certain unreality as well, but we know its true because we read it in the NY Times:

French Minister Threatens to Expel Extremist Muslims
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Sept. 19 — France's law-and-order interior minister has threatened to close any mosque in France that is considered extremist and expel any Muslim prayer leader who preaches a radical message.

In an interview in Le Figaro published on Thursday, the minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, also pledged to deny visas to Muslim participants in conferences who did not respect the values of the French state.

"The Muslims are not above the law, but they are not below the law either," Mr. Sarkozy was quoted as saying. "Because I have reached out my hand, I can be very firm against all fundamentalist movements."

The Market For Security

John Tierney, quirky free-marketeer for the NY Times, reports from Baghdad.

The big media have not noticed, other than yesterday's yesterday's WaPo, but there are Ghurkas in Baghdad. Privately contracted, if I am following this correctly. This is very cool.

Projection

"Kerry Says Dean Is 'Imploding' "

Future headlines - "Kerry Says Dean 'Flip-flops' ".

He Shoulda Had A Blog

From The Note's chat with George Stepanopoulos:

The Note: Any surprises?

Stephanopoulos: The sheer volume. The man must have been writing for hours every day to produce these kinds of letters.

We always knew he was a great talker, I never realized what a wonderful writer he was. And as George Shultz says in the forward, you can't be a good writer without being a good thinker.

The clarity of thought, the consistency of thought, his intelligence and humor, just shine through.

Ths subject, if that link is not working, is the upcoming interview with Nancy Reagan, where she discusses the soon-to-be published collection of President Reagan's letters.

A Better Day Will Come

General Clark hung out a "Help Wanted - Staff Needed NOW!" sign today. The NY Times hates him, and the Smartest Democrat Ever (since Billary! - did you know he was a Rhodes scholar, too!) couldn't, having spent the summer reflecting, articulate his position on Iraq.

OK, maybe asking him about Federal education policy, or immigration, or welfare reform, might have been a bit much. But it simply should not have come as a surprise to him that reporters would ask about the most significant issue facing the country, and the issue on which the entire premise of his candidacy is based.

Anyway, the downward spiral continued with Andrew Sullivan's unkind recycling of a September 2002 Washington Monthly article by the Handsome (and SO Smart!) General. We will hand the hatchet to Andrew:

CLARK ON THE WAR: Reading this essay by Wesley Clark, I have to say I'm not reassured that he has what it takes to wage a war on terror. If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. His first instinct after the deadliest act of war against the American heartland in history was to help the United Nations set up an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism.

...His insistence throughout the piece is on process, process, process. Everything is seen through the prism of NATO's Kosovo campaign, his one claim to military glory. Can you imagine having to get every special ops target in Afghanistan approved by 19 different countries...

...There's also no sense in Clark's essay about other agendas from our allies. It's all very well to achieve maximum international consensus on every international action. But what if you cannot get it? What if you cannot get the U.N. even to live up to its own resolutions, let alone American priorities?

I should note that Jack O'Toole (Irish day here? Every day is Irish Day!) and Ted Barlow take issue with Mr. Sullivan's presentation. Well, their posts are titled "Lies, damn lies and Andrew Sullivan" and "A Bodyguard of Lies", so I guess they disagree strongly. But I see updates reflecting a reader rebellion led by "Ogged", so perhaps their views are softening.

Well, call me a liar too, then. Representing Mr. Sullivan, we freely excerpt the following, where Gen. Clark begins his discussion of how he would have dealt with Afghanistan:

And Then There Were Ten

With Wesley Clark completing the cast, the Democratic Presidential field can turn its gaze to a distant stormcloud.

However else they feel about Iraq, Democrats agree - Bush's diplomacy was a disaster. Now, however, Tom Friedman has declared war on France. This follows by several days a bit of ritualistic Bush-bashing by the NY Times editors which was interrupted by an uncharacteristc admission that the French were daft:

...Secretary of State Colin Powell quickly rejected France's proposal for an unrealistically rapid buildup to Iraqi elections in the spring.

This is not helpful. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our allies, but in ourselves. Or at least, Dems need to say so convincingly. If they are losing the Times, they are in trouble.

When Cool People Like "UnCool" Things

Tricky news for those of us always found one step behind the cool crowd - "counter-branding" has emerged. Ms. Cool has some news on this. I have just grasped "no-branding", so I'll have another.

Al Gore Is Visiting In California

Well, that is what I infer from this comment by California Governor Gray Davis:

"...we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet..."

Who else knew?

Down A Road We Have Walked Before

Wesley Clark enters the race! Democrats and patriots swoon at the sight of a Real American. And who can not be mesmerized by his resume - the Southerner with high marks at the military academy, the impressive graduate work, the military service, the incredible intellect and the steely gaze... wait a minute! Wake me up!

Here we go again - the Dems nominate a guy who looked good in a uniform, is smarter than anyone in the world, and, best of all, is a complete cipher on every issue, including Iraq. And don't bother asking - he wants to "listen to the people" before his focus group experts decide what message to re-transmit. From the Miami Herald:

But the political newcomer who only recently decided he was a Democrat and who enters the race with a blank ideological slate made it clear he wants to keep that slate blank, at least for a while.

He offered a stump speech devoid of detail, and then in an interview late Thursday with The Herald -- one of his first since entering the race -- studiously tried to avoid being pinned down on any specifics.

He explained that he just wants to ''listen to people'' before saying where he stands on topics such as the trade embargo with Cuba, the economy and immigration policies.

''It's not like the election's tomorrow,'' he said.

UPDATE: The flip-flops begin. See the continuation for gruesome details.

Parallel Parking

We are watching a woman attempting to park her Suburban in a space God left for a Toyota. The exhortations of the three screaming kids in the backseat do not seem to be helping, although I do not doubt their sincerity or good intentions. Inevitably, the spectacle of screaming combined with the prospect of impending embarrasment and disaster turns our thoughts to the Democratic Party.

Dems are exchanging high-fives over the latest plot twist in "Total Recall" - by applying the logic of Bush v. Gore to the California recall, the Dems really stuck it to Scalia and Company.

Well, done, chaps. Maybe it is the screaming kids that are muddling my thinking, so please explain it clearly and, I guess, loudly - isn't this a bit backwards? A major rally point for the Dems in 2004 was that Bush v. Gore was wrong, wrong, WRONG! But if Dems, via their friends in California, are now arguing that Bush v. Gore was reasoned jurisprudence, doesn't a bit of air come out of the balloon?

Just wondering. Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney tells us that at the national level, Dems have been counting the days until October 7, so they could resume their normal (limited) oxygen flow. Delaying the recall vote until March and combining it with the primary is a disaster. The California primary is part of a Super Tuesday of eleven states, including New York and Texas. The winner may very well be the Dem nominee, and who will know, because what would normally be his big TV night (Sorry, Carol), will be devoted to the last episode of "Total Recall".

I will commence thinking this is all a brilliant scheme IF the broader California panel overturns the three-judge panel that delayed the recall, and ridicules Bush v. Gore in the process. Double-play! And it may happen.

And, a Bold Prediction: the US Supreme Court will not take this case.

You Can't Be Too Rich Or Too Thin

The "Start A New Job" Diet addresses both points at once.

A Service To Our Readers

As part of our ongoing effort to offer the finest in whatever it is we are peddling around here these days, we respond to the many earnest supporters of Professor Krugman. Their major complaint - Krugman's critics are drooling lunatics. Sorry, can't help you with that one. Their minor point is, no one dares challenge the brilliant illumination cast by the dazzling sun called "PK" on his central subject of economics.

Why that is important is somewhat elusive - if the Earnest Prof is commenting on other subjects, surely we are free to follow?

Whatever. We will enjoy an unexpected alliance with an ardent but optimistic lefty, and wave in Brad DeLong to address P. Krugman's comparison of the United States to Argentina, and his frequent use of the phrase "banana republic" to describe the United States. (Sorry, no links to that phrase, and Where's Bobby?!?)

On the subject of income inequality, we have recent commentary here, and my own (endless) effort from out of the archives.

If you stay with it, I have good questions about China here.

And that's it. We resume limited service.

MORE:

We Are Poised On The Border Of North Korea

Whoa, relax, that is the editorial "we". We are actually sitting at the keyboard, brainstorming. With links.

Valerie Plame Wilson - Continuing

Mark Kleiman points us to Timothy Noah at Slate. Our timeline is here; when last we looked, Ambassador Wilson had dramatically pointed the accusing finger at Karl Rove.

And the breaking developments - a member of the White House press corps used the Ambassador's statement as an excuse to ask WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan directly if Karl Rove was the source of the leak. Mr. McClellan was not fully responsive, as Mr. Noah documents. The Ambassador then backpedaled:

Wilson, for his part, denied today that he ever accused Rove. He told Chatterbox "Karl Rove" was simply a handy metonym for whatever two "senior administration officials" fingered Plame (correctly or falsely, Wilson still won't say).

Mr. Kleiman is disappointed by this behavior, and may be just slightly more receptive to the alternative view of the Ambassador that we have been pedaling for a while. As proof of the theory that if you write enough, something will seem prescient, I excerpt this:

OK, wild theory as to why there is so little media attention - probably the press can't find sources, but maybe they smell a rat.

I bet Tim Noah does. And I doubt that the reporter who staked his White Hose cred on the Ambassador's earlier statement won't be going back to that well again either.

Tim Noah suggests that someone put the question directly to Karl Rove. Since Mr. Noah spoke with the Ambassador, perhaps a question could be put to him - why should we take your hypotheticals seriously, and are there are others that are merely metonyms, synechdoches, metaphors, and allusions?

MORE: Boy, that will jinx me. Sort of like the way to produce more cars in five minutes than Detroit can produce in a month is to say "Hey, trafic is really light!"

MORE: My letter to Tim Noah (cc: Mark Kleiman) is below.

"Paul Krugman - Dangerous To Liberals"

"Paul Krugman - Dangerous In Liberal Doses"

Oh, what is it Luskin says?

But speaking of a danger to liberals, my real question is, where is Bobby, keeper of the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archives? The site was there last weekend (I was researching the Sunday Times Magazine article), but it has been unavailable since Monday (or at least, I have checked once or twice daily, and can't get it).

Possible theories - (a) annoyed by their unmasking in the Sunday magazine, Grover Norquist and Karl Rove finally exerted their dark powers and stifled this outlet of dissent; or

(b) the site was a huge violation of copyright - since the publisher is buying Krugman's columns for the book, having them all in one spot on the net didn't quite work financially. Oh dear, did Krugman and his publisher put making a buck ahead of spreading the truth about the incipient dawn of fascism? I am shocked.

The truth is out there.

UPDATE: Hey la, hey la. He's Back in Black.

Read My Latte - No New Taxes

Seattle voters reject espresso tax

Orrin Judd finds wisdom in a cup of coffee.

Listening to The Kids And Their Friends

"I love that new TV show, Orange County. But it's on hiatus until October."

"Darn, we don't get that channel."

The Ever-Helpful Dad

My two teen-age daughters are sharing one telephone. Imagine! They have a whiz-bang answering machine that gives the caller three different voice-mailboxes for leaving messages. Hmm, the first mailbox was for one, the other was for the other, but what to do with the third?

At the suggestion of someone with an unrelentingly dark heart, the following message was concocted:

"Hello you have reached C and J. To leave a message for J, type "*1". To leave a message for C, press "*2". If you are a Red Sox fan, press "*3" to leave your message of submission and despair."

The girls wondered if they would need to update their message ocassionally, but I promised them it would be good for years.

Unleash the Hounds Of War!

Let's shovel some dirt on Wesley Clark early. Courtesy of the Hammer, we see this from Brian Carnell. Why was Wesley Clark spreading Bush Administration lies? Was he a dupe, or a dope?

The high-end casualty assessment is that Saddam sees us coming as we're staging in Kuwait. He says, ''I've never liked those Shias anyway,'' and unleashes on them all his biological and chemical stocks, such as anthrax by the truckload, south of the 33rd parallel. When the Americans drive through on their way to Baghdad, we will ingest all that dust and it will present a high risk to us.

But more importantly it will affect the Iraqi people themselves. And Saddam will try to say to say we caused it. Here we are talking about 12-14 million people at risk in southern Iraq. Even if we have our protective suits on, how are we going to take care of all the sick and dying?

Saddam may also try to use his few remaining Scuds to strike Israel. The Israelis will shoot back with their anti-missile systems. And we will also be attacking the Iraqis to neutralize the threat from the Scuds. Still, there is always the possibility that a Scud loaded with anthrax spores might slip through and strike Israel.

Where did Saddam, get all this imaginary anthrax, anyway? Everyone knew Bush was lying, and hyping the threat. Geez.

And that said, Clark actually looks prescient on the "quick war - tough occupation" scenario:

...even under the most optimistic scenarios, the troubles are likely to begin. Food distribution will break down. Health care will break down. There will be violence and revenge in the streets as Saddam's secret police melt away. Despite our efforts to maintain order, there are likely to be uprisings, as in Basra at the end of the Gulf War. The popular violence will be widespread and targeted on those associated with Saddam's regime.

Emphasis added - he saw a period of payback, not guerrilla war, as one dire outcome. Well, we seemed to have avoided that. He also anticipates, without eager anticipation, the "flypaper" strategy:

Another danger is that Iraq could become a battleground of fundamentalists. Under Saddam, the fundamentalists have been the enemy in Iraq. If he is replaced, Iraq could become a wide-open target for the fundamentalists from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which would be preaching anti-Western extremism. There is little our American soldiers can do to prevent this -- it will depend on establishing quickly an effective Iraqi government.

On my scorecard, this is OK. But I was a dope on WMDs, so the real question is, how can proper Dems support this liberal assclown?

In other dirt, Wesley Clark's stature in Kosovo may not exactly rival Eisenhower's in WWII. YES, it was a slightly smaller war, but his relationship with his allies and superiors seemed a bit weak. More research needed!

UPDATE: Qando supports "Clark for Pres" like he supports the letter "U".

MORE: The CalPundit has a fairly balanced review of Gen. Clark's book. We love his conclusion:

I'm also pretty agnostic about his disagreements with fellow Army officers. This fractiousness is similar to what Donald Rumsfeld is going through right now, and I think it's practically impossible for a layman to judge these things. Was Clark an arrogant twit convinced he knew better than anyone else, or were his opponents representatives of an ossified and change-phobic bureaucracy? Beats me.

Or both. But read it all.

The Krugman Conspiracy - No Way To Treat A Lady

I suspect I will be referring to the Krugman Conspiracy quite a bit as time unfolds, so in a rare moment of self-discipline I am going to plop it in one place for easy reference. For some people, it's "Seinfeld" reruns - for me, if I read this Krugman interview with the CalPundit one more time, I will need Botox for my laugh lines.

Briefly, Krugman is promoting his book, touring the country with the message that Bush and Company are planning a Nazi style take-over of America. The end objective - the impoverishment of the elderly and downtrodden!

And how did he discover this conspiracy? Easy! It is "one whose organization and goals are pretty much out in the open....".

Man, you think I must be kidding. Don Luskin does a nice job of pulling together a variety of Krugman quotes to summarize this. Fearing link-rot, I excerpt wildly in the continuation. I also link to Dan Drezner and post my own thoughts below.

As to the Sinister Conspiracy itself, if Prof. Krugman is now Special Agent "Fox" Krugman, who is the Dana Sculley that will help him expose the truth? Hmm, the ideal candidate would be female, single, red-headed, and a Bush-basher bordering on delirium. Dum de dum, who could it be?

And I have got to stop laughing about this, but I cannot shake my mental image of Kevin Drum during his encounter with Prof. Krugman. I picture Mr. Drum looking about nevously, wondering if Special Agent "Fox" Krugman might get violent, and cautiously thumbing the safety on the thorazine dart gun given to him by Krugman's minder.

Purely my fevered imagination, mind you, I have no evidence whatsoever that Prof. K is violent and unhinged. Well, "violent", anyway.

OK, to learn about the dearth of civility, and why this is no way to treat a lady, you will have to press on.

CalPundit Interviews Paul Krugman

Daniel Drezner reacts:

"I was entranced by the interview's mix of defensible economic critiques and wild-eyed political paranoia."

As were we. We are marveling at the scope of the Evil Conservative Conspiracy Special Agent Krugman has unearthed, although we cannot give him huge props for discovering it, since, as he says, it is "one whose organization and goals are pretty much out in the open....".

We will stab somewhat randomly at a couple of his points, then muster a big finish.

Paul Krugman, political scientist:

The strength of the hard religious right — even though the numbers are probably smaller than they were in the 80s — is higher because the fanaticism of those who remain is much greater.

Whatever you say.

Paul Krugman, psychologist:

It's odd that the better things get if you are rich or a fundamentalist Christian, the more angry they get.

For expressions of anger from what I presume are at least some non-rich, non-fundamentalist Christians, try Kevin's comments.

Paul Krugman, social historian:

"Is this the same country that we had in 1970? I think we have a much more polarized political system, a much more polarized social climate. We certainly aren't the country of Franklin Roosevelt, and we're probably not the country of Richard Nixon either, so I think we have to take seriously the possibility that things won't work out this time."

We're not the country of Richard Nixon, and that is a bad thing.

Is he kidding? I am sure Prof. Krugman hums along when he hears "Ohio" on the radio. When CSN&Y get to the bit about "Four dead in Ohio", what does he imagine they died of, food poisoning? In 1970 we were two years past two assasinations, and four years from Watergate. When people in the late '60's worried about a "long, hot summer", does he suppose they were fretting about global warming? Now, I will grant that the Clinton impeachment and the Florida recount were dramatic, but let's have a bit of perspective. [Hey, what about 9/11? Well, did that polarize, or unite us? Time will tell!]

Paul Krugman, entrepeneur:

"...when I wrote the intro to the book the guys at Norton were worried, they were saying, that's pretty tough stuff. But at this point it doesn't seem that far out anymore, there are a fair number of people saying the same thing. In fact, I almost felt as if we missed the window when this stuff would still be shocking, because a lot of people are starting to see it. The scales are falling from people's eyes."

"Good news, Paul! The public is waking up to the Sinister Bush Conspiracy!"

"Ahhhh! What about my book sales? Darn that Al Franken!"

Paul Krugman, international finance expert (wait, isn't he?)

...you might also get in a situation where the interest rates the [United States] government has to pay to roll over its debt become so high that you get an accelerating problem, which is what happened in Argentina. What happened was that suddenly no one would buy Argentine debt unless they paid a twenty something percent interest rate, and everybody says, but if they have to roll over their debt at a twenty percent interest rate, there's no way they can pay that back. So the whole thing grinds to a halt and the cash flow just dries up.

We will give the microphone over to Brad DeLong for this one. Suffice it to say, comparisons with Argentina are a bit over-heated.

David Brooks Earns A Paycheck

The newbie amongst NY Times columnists, and potential heartthrob of conservatives everywhere, delivers, finally. He has a researched response to the question of whether Dean will be a formidable opponent for Bush in 2004.

Now, my thoughts first - the CW has been that Dean is Karl Rove's secret choice. There have been rumblings in the blogosphere and at various cocktail parties I attend (link) suggesting that this view is mistaken. I concur - a candidate that excites his supporters and delights the media is more threatening than a candidate that waffles and annoys.

I also think, perhaps stealing inspiration from Mad Max, that this will be the "Mr. Jones" election - something is happening, but you don't know what it is. We will find out next year.

So, over to Mr. Brooks:

Total Recall?

Forget it. For now, anyway.

A Challenge For Cheney Supporters

Yes, I am one! Or have been, anyway.

TAPPED throws down the gauntlet with this post, which says Cheney is moving the goalposts on Saddam's nuclear program. Cheney's current position, from a recent appearance with Tim Russert on "Meet The Press":

So to suggest that there is no evidence there that he had aspirations to acquire nuclear weapon, I don’t think is valid, and I think David Kay will find more evidence as he goes forward, interviews people, as we get to folks willing to come forward now as they become more and more convinced that it’s safe to do so, that, in fact, he had a robust plan, had previously worked on it and would work on it again.

No aspirations? TAPPED will want his supporters to square that with comments like this, also from Meet The Press last March 16, just before the war:

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree....

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.

Emphasis added to the misquote explained by myself, Eugene Volokh, and others.

Now, the gist of my explanation of the misquote was, in the context of all Cheney's comments, he meant to say "we believe he has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program". Eugene Volokh made a similar point.

Leaving me where? Ahh, maybe what Cheney meant to say was, "we believe he has reconstituted his nuclear weapons aspirations and ambitions." Yeah, that's the ticket. For somebody else, maybe.

I need to dig up a transcript. But if you don't hear back from me, well, talk about something else.

UPDATE: "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?"

Ooops, that's not Dick Cheney, that's John Kerry, spreading Administration lies. Or maybe Kerry is a dupe, rather than a liar. Or maybe responsible people believed the worst based on ambiguous intelligence.

OK, "dupe" works for me, and sounds deliciously like "dope".

Beatles Sue Apple Computer

In other news, the Immortal Serpent joined with the heirs of King James to sue both companies. And Mott's.

Jay Caruso Has Advice For The Lovelorn

Sort of an unexpected source, but a lot less groan-inducing then the advice to which he links.

Frank J of IMAO Is A Genius

Glenn (thanks for the link) reminds us of the ongoing tussle between the "Axis of Naughty" and the "Blog Alliance". Some of it is very funny, some of it is a bit "insiderey".

However, this "Liberal Assclown" experiment launched by Frank J is just LOL funny. Scroll down to the "Scientific Experiment", where Frank J carefully explains the inner workings of Google. He then encourages his supporters to link "Liberal Assclown" with the InstaPundit, so that Glenn becomes the number one hit for that search.

The results, and the forlorn comments, are priceless.

And Frank J's blogiversary walk down memory lane has some killingly funny stuff.

We Go To The Archives

It seems to have started again - Democrats complaining that Bush and Company are attacking their patriotism.  Apparently, John Kerry (did you know he served in Viet Nam?) intends to "be a president for all Americans who takes back the flag of our country because it doesn't belong to any party". 

We have meme sightings here and here.

Our first response is one from the archives:

Sept. 18, 2002

The Next Big Thing

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, announced today that she will be pushing Silicon Valley to speed development of a Verbal "Edit-Delete" device, so that the spoken word can be retracted and modified. As she noted in her statement to an astonished press corps "It's too late for me personally, but others may benefit. If we can save one politician from heartbreak and humiliation, it will be worthwhile".

Impetus for this project was provided by Sen. Feinstein's comments as reported in the San Jose Mercury News, and now mercilessly promoted by Andrew Sullivan:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., just back from Europe, said she detected growing opposition to the United States among America's allies. ``The driver of a lot of this animus,'' she said, ``is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To leave this unresolved and to attack an Arab country is going to be viewed as an attack on the Arab world.''

She said the anti-American sentiment was so strong that she felt it personally.

``As an American, I have always been proud,'' Feinstein said. Referring to her U.S. flag pin, she said, ``I was embarrassed to wear it.''

Emphasis added? No, phrase highlighted for deletion.

Secondly, a while back there was a very interesting discussion in someone's comments. 

Those Defeatist Dems, And Those Excruciating Elections

We should file this under "Drezner Gets Results!". A few days back, Dr. D. worried that Sec'y of Defense Don Rumsfeld was a bit harsh on Administration critics, with his worries that terrorists might take heart from their commentary. In a follow-up comment, the Good Doctor adds that "It would be better for private actors to carry the water on this argument."

And so they have! Here we go:

Mr. Bush has so far failed to explain satisfactorily how he plans to secure Iraq... And his maneuvering room may soon shrink, since the Democratic challengers are desperate to break out of the herd on Iraq. If Mr. Bush does not demonstrate a clear and convincing strategy soon, he may face political pressure to bring home American troops under conditions that would be embarrassing for America and perilous for the Middle East.

What next, accusations that the Democratic candidates are unpatriotic? Whatever will the NY Times think of next.

Bill And Hill - Together Again!

We think we understand the chess game being played amongst the various Democratic presidential candidates - Hillary! wants to wait for 2008, when her nomination is assured and her opponent will be some unknown Republican (or Laura Bush!).

Her risk - some other Dem wins in 2004, denying Hillary! her destiny until 2012. Not likely, unless a weak economy and a dismal War on Terror leave Bush vulnerable. However, with primary filing deadlines, she has to decide soon.

And so does Big Al, who has name recognition in the polls, proven fund-raising experience, a defensible resume, and so on. If Bush appears weak enough to entice Big Al into the race, Hillary's schemes for re-doing the Oval Office are more likely to be put on hold.

So, either Bush needs to show a bounce in the polls, or Big Al needs to be pushed away from any open mike where he might blurt out the words "I'm a candidate".

Hence, the subtle significance of Bill Clinton's appearance at an Iowa rally:

While some have warned that the field of nine Democratic candidates will have a tough time ousting Bush, Clinton dismissed those worries.

“I like this field, and I’m tired of people saying that this field can’t beat an incumbent president,” he said. “This is the best field of candidates we have had in decades.”

Clinton urged the candidates to hammer home their differences with Bush, differences he said haven’t penetrated with most voters.

“The American people, not 5 percent of them know they gave me a tax cut and then kicked children out of after-school programs,” said Clinton. “They are not putting those things together. All we have to do is make it clear what our differences are.”

This is a great field, give them time, and Al, beat it. I second that last bit.