JustOneMinute

No Respect - Joe Wilson Folio

The LA Times reprises the history of Niger uranium rumors, but we have homed in on their description of the genesis of Joe Wilson's trip:

The Pentagon report quickly drew the attention of Cheney, who asked his CIA briefer for more information.

The agency responded by sending Wilson, a retired diplomat who previously had gone to Niger for the CIA, to Niamey in February 2002. The CIA didn't send its own operative because the agency considered it "a wild goose chase," said a former senior intelligence official.

Wait a second - a "former senior intelligence official" is suggesting that the CIA went with Joe Wilson rather than Jack Bauer because they did not take the request seriously?

No way.  Well, OK, maybe a little way - per the SSCI Ms. Plame did apprise her hubby of the proposed trip with the news that there is this "crazy report" they would like him to check out.

But still - the notion that this trip was not taken seriously by the CIA, and that Wilson did not exactly represent the creme de la creme of investigative sleuths, is an old White House talking point.  Which "senior intelligence official" is parroting it now - State, CIA, DIA, where?

Good-Bye To Gitmo

Messr. Belgravitas is closing down Gitmo:

Guantanamo will be viewed by historians, when it's finally closed (it will be, I predict, at some point during the next Administration, whether Republican or Democratic--unless a mediocrity like George Allen or Bill Frist wins), as a misguided excess born of national trauma/panic post 9/11.

...There's a better way forward, and I'll be sketching it in the coming days. For now, suffice it to say I view protestations about Guantanamo being critical to our national security--so that it remains open into quasi-perpetuity--as unconvincing in the extreme. As bullshit, you might say.

Read it all and don't touch that dial.

NOTE:  In our new division of labor, Belgravitas gets Hamas and Gitmo, and I get Maureen.  Man, do I need to renegotiate.

They Will Do That, Won't They?

File this NY Times headline under "Those Pesky Defense Attorneys":

Prosecutor Says Libby Seeks to Thwart Criminal Case

An early clue came when Libby pleaded "Not Guilty".

The article covers the newly disclosed response by Special Counsel Fitzgerald to Libby's discovery request.  My thoughts here; let's get the ReddHedd, a prosecutor herself, in the mix here.

Let me add this - the Times dwells on "greymail" and the implausible request for the Presidential Daily Briefs.

However, and this is proprietary spin *not* to be attempted at home, greymail cuts both ways.  It just might be that the CIA launched their criminal referral back in 2003 as a bit of a dirty trick meant to help them in their then-raging battle with the White House. 

But now that we have come this far, it might be that the CIA (OK, key folks within it) would like to find a graceful way to back out of this before they have to explain to everyone their own gloomy tradecraft and inability or indifference to Ms. Plame's secret status.

Well here is one way out for the CIA - get all balky at defense requests, crater the prosecution, and blame Libby.  It's all good, as they win another PR victory.

Time may tell - the request for the Daily Briefs is hard to take seriously, but some of the other stuff will (I predict) go in Libby's favor.

So there you go - the prosecution may fold and blame Libby's obstruction for their inability to try him on obstruction.

MORE:  I'm watching Luci re-runs, so it is ReddHedd day here - she is quite cogent on greymail.

When Hacks Attack

Carl Hulse of the NY Times engages in a half-hearted Hack Attack on the Times very own St. John the McCain:

Foe of Earmarks Has a Pet Cause of His Own

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — It is just the sort of parochial spending request that might lead Senator John McCain, nemesis of pork barrel projects, to give somebody an earful.

The bill would direct $2 million annually over five years to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from the state. While the goal may be laudable, some critics say, the measure is a classic case of lawmakers' trying to funnel money directly to a home-state institution for a project that should find financing elsewhere.

But it is doubtful that Mr. McCain will weigh in against the idea this time: the legislation to support the project is being sponsored by him and Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republicans who are among those aggressively promoting new rules for handling Congressional spending requests.

Senior aides to Mr. McCain say that he is pursuing the money for the center, a tribute to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in the open, transparent way that such special spending pleas should be handled and that he does not consider the proposal an earmark, the type of measure he is attacking in new legislation. Others are not so sure.

"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of Mr. McCain in the fight for new rules.

As Carl Hulse knows, and any careful reader will figure out, the Times is blurring two related issues - "pork", which we will describe as "wasteful" Federal spending that ought better to be done at a lower level of government, privately, or not at all; and "earmarks", which are a particularly surreptitious Congressional tool for sneaking pork into bills.

Mr. Hulse explains all this:

He and Mr. Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that Mr. McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny.

"You can have an issue with what the Rehnquist bill says, but it has gone through exactly the process that should be followed," said Pablo Chavez, general counsel to Mr. McCain. "It doesn't have the marks of an earmark."

In their push to rein in the explosion of spending on pet projects, Mr. McCain and others are concentrating on those tucked into the final versions of voluminous spending bills without first being approved as policy in a separate measure known as an authorization bill. The earmark bill he has introduced would allow lawmakers new avenues to strip those provisions from legislation and would require new disclosure of such requests and their sponsors.

Some others, mainly outside watchdog groups, take a broader view of what constitutes an earmark, defining it as any provision added to a larger measure in an effort to force spending on a specific project, particularly if the spending is not sought by the relevant federal agency.

Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he considered the Rehnquist Center initiative an "earmark in training." Should the proposal advance as a separate bill, Mr. Ashdown said, his group will have no objection. But if it is folded into broader legislation, then it could meet the earmark test.

So at this point John McCain, foe of both pork and earmarks, is offering a visible, stand-alone, porkish bill.  No one in the article thinks it is an earmark, or that this push by McCain contradicts his position taken on earmarks.

But with careful phrasing Mr. Hulse managed to preserve the suspense for several paragraphs.  And Dead Tree readers will note that this page A11 story gets a promotional blurb on the front page: "Pork Critic seeks $10 Million".

So why is the Times turning on their own St. John with this silly attack?  Have they moved on from McCain-Feingold, and are they positioning themselves for their endorsement of Hillary in 2008?

Who knows?

Maureen Dowd - Irretrievably Inaccurate

On the off-chance that anyone still reads Maureen Dowd, let me quickly praise her latest coinage - Cheney and Libby are now "Shooter and Scooter".

That is her highlight.  Now let's turn to this typically inaccurate passage from her latest message in a bottle to float to us from TimesSelect Island (aka "Lost"):

Asked by the Fox News anchor if a vice president had the authority to declassify secrets, Mr. Cheney replied that there's an executive order giving him that power, adding: "I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions." This neatly set up a defense for Scooter, who testified that "superiors" had authorized him to leak classified information on Valerie Plame.

Emphasis and groan added.  No, Maureen - the assertion, in a recently released letter from Special Counsel Fitzgerald, was that Libby had claimed to have been authorized to discuss parts of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

EmptyWheel can provided the details for any doubters out there.  However, my impression is that Ms. Dowd has lost her fan base.

Battling The Cult

Glenn Greenwald attracted a fair bit of attention with his post explaining that some Bush followers are "authoritarian cultists".  Let's squeeze some juice on Saturday morning:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

...And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

Whatever.  Look, the point of these Bush-bashing diatribes is not to make sense - there is a virtually insatiable internet market for anyone interested in trying to stretch "Bush Sucks" into five thousand or more words.  I imagine that, as podcasting develops, we will see this genre set to a danceable beat so that the target market can tap their toes and sway to the cadence. 

And as with other pop songs, a memorable tagline is important; "authoritarian cultist" provides a wonderful mix of menace and intellectual heft.

Beyond the tagline, Greenwald was also shrewd enough to position this post in a way that appealed to Andrew Sullivan's sense of victimhood - Andrew, the Solitary Soldier of Truth, Bravely Battling the Bushies... this tirade had to go to Number One, with a bullet!

But fun's fun.  James Taranto took the trouble to follow the links and see just what evidence Mr. Greenwald offered in suppport of his thesis.  What he found was not enough to get a passing grade on a seventh-grade paper, but was evidently more than enough for the Self-Invented Reality Based Community.  What's next for the "Best Of" team - in the weekend edition, will Mr. Taranto fisk "Stairway to Heaven"?  (How could all that glitters be gold, anyway - what about diamonds and rubies?)

The Bull Moose offered a few sagacious paragraphs, but we will steal only this:

Yes, there is an element of conservatism that attempts to apply a Lenninist discipline on ideological heterodoxy. In fact, the Moose was the target of their efforts. The Moose has enjoyed the distinct pleasure of being labeled both a Republican squish and a Rovian plant. But, based upon personal exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, this mammal can confidently observe that there is more tolerance for differences on the right side of the spectrum than on the left.

While Greenwald suggests that "loyalty" to Bush is the requirement for the right, the standard to to be a member in good standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush.

Emphasis added.  The always dry and sly Peter Daou is kind enough to illustrate this very point as he praises the Greenwald gurgitation:

Lately, there's been a burst of energy in the progressive blog world, with dozens of great posts from high profile - and high traffic - bloggers on Daily Kos, Eschaton, HuffPo, C&L, FDL, MyDD, TPM,  and several others. Among those blog entries are two seminal posts, one by Digby, the other by Glenn Greenwald.

Mr. Daou goes on to link to "a definitive piece on the "Cult of Bush".  But eventually, way down in a note at the bottom, he lets his readers in on the joke - Daou is making the same sort of assumption about Greenwald's politics (Greenwald is bashing Bush, he must be a progressive) that Greenwald is decrying in the post Mr. Daou praises.

[Oh, do you not trust my characterization of Mr. Daou's end note?  See for yourself:

NOTE: Although this piece is about the trajectory of progressive blogging, I should note that Greenwald's post is not written from a specific ideological perspective.

Why Mr. Daou chose a "seminal" but non-ideological blog post to celebrate the week in progressive blogs remains a bit of a mystery.  Another mystery - is that a "NOTE", or, more precisely, an "UPDATE"?  Put another way, did Mr. Daou seriously not realize that his "NOTE" and his opening paragraph contradict each other, or did he add the "NOTE" later, perhaps after outside intervention?  Answer: these are activists blogs, so say it with me - facts don't matter!]

Messrs. Greenwald and Sullivan chortle over that very "mistake" when made by Bush supporters, so I have no doubt they enjoyed the Daou drollery.

Meanwhile Bush supporters have been beside themselves all week, and are no doubt trembling in fear of the next lash from Greenwald's cat o' nine tails.  Or maybe they are watching the Olympics.  No worries.  A few weeks ago, we were "frightened bedwetters"; now we are "authoritarian cultists"; in a few weeks, we will surely be "authoritarian bedwetters", or something else entirely.  The well of juvenile insults is bottomless.

Meanwhile, my one secret hope - that a notable Dem would actually pick up on one of these silly, self-defeating themes - remains unanswered.  Too bad.  Don't we all agree that if Howard Dean had any stones, he would say "authoritarian cultists" right there on national television?  Howard, you hold the fate of a nation right there in your hand, or mouth anyway.  Go!

BONUS:  Let me offer supporters of the "authoritarion cultist" theory an easy shot at the hoop - George Will whacked Bush for the NSA program on Wednesday; Heather Wilson, the Congressfolk from New Mexico whose national reputation does not precede her, broke with Bush on the NSA program a bit more than a week ago.

So it should be easy to document attempts by the Cult to re-label Will and Wilson, yes?

If you need to keep it simple - Greenwald cited "Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt".  Jeff Goldstein also earned a mention somewhere.  That is not a lot of looking to do, and evidence of the Cult should abound, yes?

I have no doubt that the many hard-headed, truthseeking members of the Self-Invented Reality Based Community will rise to this modest challenge.  Just as I have no doubt they carefully evaluated the "evidence" offered by Glenn Greenwald last week before shouting "Huzzah!".

LAST THOUGHT 'TIL THE NEXT ONE:  A careful re-reading of the Andrew Sullivan post that started it all shows Andrew using the word "liberal" in quotes, as in:

I'm a little stunned that this is now something that now requires one to be seen as a "liberal."

However, following the links, Bozell never called Sullivan a liberal - that word was applied to The New Republic magazine (and is truth a defense here?).  Bozell (or whoever wrote the piece) says that "Andrew Sullivan has been off the conservative reservation for at least a couple of years", but surely there are other reservations than Camp Left on Dean Island that might hold Andrew.  Militant libertarians?

Sullivan and Greenwald - could be a great name of a law firm.  But don't count on them to actually read the evidence.

AND ONE MORE THING:  James Taranto links to the wrong Greenwald diatribe (Jan 16, 2006), or at least, his excerpt does not match the diatribe to which he linked.  The Feb 12 tirade is correct.  We will accept the "They all read the same" defense, this time.

The Latest Fitzgerald Filings

Diggers delight - here is a 30 page .pdf file containing Special Counsel Fitzgerald's response to Libby's discovery request.

The original discovery request is linked here, so you can see how the high-priced talent plays point-counterpoint.

It is a bit late for me to spot anything other than the clearest diamond, and none jumped out at me.

However, I liked this, from p. 13, on the question of whether Fitzgerald should turn over more of what he learned from other reporters:

Nor is the defendant entitled to know the identity of every reporter’s source in order to prove that such a source may not have “considered” Ms. Wilson’s employment classified, or to be able to investigate the possibility that Ms. Wilson’s employment was actually well known outside the intelligence community before July 14, 2003. Since the withheld evidence is not relevant, much less material, it certainly cannot be characterized as “favorable” to the defense within the meaning of Brady.

Well, saying the evidence is not relevant or material is not enough to make it irrelevant and immaterial.  I think it is great that Fitzgerald managed to write that with a straight face (assuming he did), but I will be surprised if a judge goes along.

Section 3, covering the defense request for CIA material about the harm done by the leak, is fascinating:

3. Request for Information Concerning Damage Caused By the Disclosure

The defendant also argues that he is entitled to information about any assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s employment because “potential harm to national security was a focus of the government’s investigation.” (Memo. at 4). This claim is illogical. First, there were many things that were investigated that are not reflected in the charges in the indictment. The actual – as opposed to potential – damage caused by the outing of Ms. Wilson is not alleged in the indictment, nor was it a focus of the grand jury investigation. The indictment alleges only that the outing of CIA employees could cause damage. The actual damage resulting from uncharged conduct is irrelevant to whether the defendant lied about his conversations with reporters.

Even if the defendant had been charged with a violation of either the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) or the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (50 U.S.C. § 421), there would be no requirement for the prosecution to prove actual damage, much less obtain, or produce, a damage assessment prior to trial. Actual damage is not an element of either substantive offense. A fortiori, where as here Libby is charged only with obstruction offenses, there is no basis for requiring discovery of any documents bearing on a damage assessment.  Libby makes the argument that “[i]f the evidence shows that this disclosure did very little, if any, harm to national security, this fact will undermine the prosecution’s expected argument that Mr. Libby had a motive to lie to cover up his alleged disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation.” Even if the defendant were to contend that at the time he spoke to the FBI and testified to the grand jury, he did not believe that any actual damage had resulted from the earlier disclosure so that he had no reason to lie, this purported belief could not have been based upon any official government analysis that he never saw, and that had yet to be undertaken.

Moreover, the publication of any informal assessment of actual damage caused by the leak could compound the damage by disclosing intelligence sources and methods. Given that the defendant has not established that such an assessment would be material, much less “helpful” to the defense, there is no basis even to consider providing him with access to such sensitive classified information. See United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

In any event, the defendant’s entitlement to documents related to the assessment of actual damage is appropriately addressed in an ex parte filing pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA, and the government will follow this course.

Emphasis added.  Again, we will see what the judge says.  But suppose Libby's defense includes the argument that no one, in June, July, September, or October of 2003, hinted to him that Ms. Plame's status was a problem and that a leak could be (or had been) damaging to national security.  In that case, confirmation of Libby's extraordinary intuition (or contacts) ought to be relevant, since it would support his absence of a motive.

Fitzgerald does use the word "greymail", and his arguments against the request for the Presidential Daily Briefs seem fine; that was never going to be approved anyway.

Meanwhile, Back At The Grassy Knoll

A second shooter?  The pieces are falling into place...

Cheney Claims Declassification Power

My goodness - Dick Cheney is now saying the same thing I said last week, and last year.  Let Dick tell it:

When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to spread sensitive information [Note: "sensitive information" refers to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, not Valerie Plame's CIA status], the prosecutor did not specify which superiors.

But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

I had cited Executive Order 12958 from Bill Clinton, 1995.  However, it was supplanted by a revised version (EO 13292) in (care to guess?) March 2003.  The revisions specifically create a role for the Vice President.  Here is an example from Part 1, relating to Classification Authority:

EO 12952 (1995):

Sec. 1.3

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

...(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), above; or the senior agency official, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

EO 13292 (2003)

[1.3 (c) (3) ] "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or the senior agency official described in section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

Thanks to Cathy and Rick for their guidance on this.

UPDATE:  I *knew* someone mocked this idea at the time!  Well, they laughed when I stepped up to the keyboard...

OK, let's serious up - Kevin Drum (in his UPDATE) translated my suggestion that it may be legal for Cheney to declassify some material into "Tom Maguire suggests that even if Cheney's the leaker [to Bob Woodward], he didn't do anything wrong".  Hmmph.  First, not everything that is wrong is also illegal.  And somehow, "didn't do anything wrong" also managed to overlook this paragraph from my post:

My official position is this - if Cheney was Woodward's source, he ought to be impeached.  Not for any national security issues, or legal reasons - he ought to be impeached for utter gutlessness.

Whatever.  The agit-prop sites have a job to do, but getting the facts right isn't it.

MORE:  Hmm, the AP wrote that "Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information."

But Cheney is not quoted as specifically addressing his de-classification authority.  But that said, I expect he has enough influence in the White House that if he tells his staff that something will be declassified, they believe it, and he can get it done.

Or, we could check the transcript (right at the bottom):

HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

HUME: There is.

CHENEY: Yeah.

HUME: Have you done it?

CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.

HUME: Have you —

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

Bless It And Move On

The Senate looks as if it is going to figure out how to quietly OK the NSA warrantless eavesdropping.

But has the House resolved the impeachment question?  Keep hope alive!

This Meet The Russert transcript from last Sunday is pretty interesting, as a study in buck-passing.

The guests were Senators Roberts and Daschle, and Congressfolk Harman and Hoekstra, all of whom were briefed on the program.

The key dynamic seems to be this - since, God forbid, we may be attacked again, no politician wants to be tagged as the person who disrupted the NSA program and let Americans die.  Bold.

Paul Hackett Moves On (Sans Org)

Netroot darling Paul Hackett, who lost so nobly in an Ohio by-election, has, per the Times, dropped out of the both the Ohio Democratic Senate primary tussle and all of politics.  Why?  The Dem machine pushed him out:

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.

Whatever.  We are more intrigued by the reaction of the left blogosphere.  MSNBC tells us that:

Democratic bloggers abuzz over Hackett exit
Activists angry Marine reservist was allegedly pressured out of Ohio race

And MSNBC should know - they quote Kos himself, two other bloggers and a commenter at MyDD.

More reaction can be found at Memeorandum.  Lots more.

And in looking through it, I am surprised by the surprise.

What happened to all weekly conference calls between netroot activists and top Dem strategists?  How could The Machine have pulled the plug on Hackett without even running it by their netroot base?  Where is the L-U-V?  Where is the R-E-S-P-E-C-T?  Where is the courtesy call?

Here are two early reactions from Kos.  He doesn't say he was tipped in advance, and he doesn't say he wasn't.   All very odd.

And his first reaction was to defend and explain the Machine decision.  Maybe he got a heads up, at least.  Who knows?  But perhaps this is a straw in the wind as the Dem establishment tries to regain low earth orbit despite the enthusiasm for interstellar exploration on the part of their netroots.

Blogger v. Blogger (O, Canada! Edition)

So who is up to speed on Canadian libel law?  Yeah, me too.

Well, a Canadian blogger, Mark Bourrie, is being sued for libel by Warren Kinsella, a Canadian columnist with the National Post, a blogger, and, from his own bio, a "lawyer, author and consultant".

I know you want to see the offending words.  Just so you know, they are workplace-safe and child friendly; in fact, do not read this while driving or operating heavy machinery:

4. Mr. Bourrie's entry on Ottawa Watch at 4:15 a.m. on January 14, 2006 read, in part:

And they remember Kinsella was executive assistant to Pulis [sic] Works minister (sic] David "I'm entitled to my entitlements" Dingwall. Kinsella was the guy who foisted Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy. He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal. And that scandal is about half the reason Paul Martin is on the skids. (Hereinafter the "Libelous Words").

They sure do scorch 'em up North, ayuh?

To compound the absurdity, this fight is apparently based on an ambiguous pronoun - did you think that Kinsella was the key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal, or did you ride with the new entrant and figure "he" meant Chuck Guite? 

There's a tip for bloggers everywhere - be clear with your pronouns or you may be sued for $600,000 (Canadian, but still).  As it happens, the author intended to refer to Chuck Guite.

Now, I know nothing about Canadian politics (and yes, ignorance *is* bliss), but a few minutes with Google tells me this - we are talking about AdScam, back when The Captain nearly brought down the Canadian government.  Well, sorta nearly.

Cool.  Blogger sued for poor use of pronoun; beats curling, anyway.  Bring it.

UPDATE:  Some Canadian libel law background:

For a finding of liability for the tort of defamation in Canadian realspace and then as applied to Cyberspace, three elements must be proven. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defamatory charge was published; this does not mean that the defamation must have been printed and distributed, rather it is sufficient that the statements have been communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must establish that the defamation expressly, or by reasonable implication, referred to him/herself. Third, the materials must have been false and, in the eyes of a reasonable person, discrediting to the plaintiff.(13)

As noted by Dietrich, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Nor must it be proven that the defendant did lower the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of persons accessing the materials and that the plaintiff actually suffered any damages from the defamatory materials.(14) The onus lies with the defendant. As the threshold for what is defamatory is low, the majority of the courts time is spent assessing whether the defendant has one of the defences available.

Sounds like being the plaintiff is the easier side.  On the other hand, if your nickname is "Prince of Darkness", what sort of reputation are we talking about?  And this legal summary gives some oxygen to the defense.

Good For Bill

Bill battles the bulge:

Former President Bill Clinton and officials from a health foundation on Monday unveiled a plan to fight childhood obesity with better school meals and more exercise.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation put up an $8 million grant to back the Clinton-backed Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which also will work with teachers to encourage them to be healthier role models for kids.

More than 9 million U.S. children over the age of 6 are considered obese, and during the past three decades, obesity rates tripled among U.S. children aged 6 to 11, according to data from the Johnson Foundation.

"Just The Facts" Versus "Check The Statutes"

The Saturday Times reported on the widening probe into the NSA leaks, but we were especially intrigued by this:

The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information.

What?  They are reviewing the statutes to see if a law has been broken?  Didn't these guys listen to Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference, when he explained that that is exactly the *wrong* way to run an investigation?

Here we go:

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

Guns Don't Shoot People; Dick Cheney Shoots People

The gang that couldn't shoot straight takes its act on the road, and the most dangerous man in Washington DC shows he is also the most dangerous man in South Texas:

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a prominent Austin, Tex., lawyer on Saturday while the two men were quail hunting in South Texas, firing a shotgun at the man while trying to aim for a bird, a member of the hunting party said.

Mr. Cheney, a practiced hunter, shot the lawyer, Harry Whittington, on an outing at the Armstrong Ranch in South Texas. Mr. Whittington, 78, was taken by helicopter to Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital, where he was listed in stable condition in the intensive care unit on Sunday, according to Michele Trevino, a hospital spokeswoman.

The Times even provides a motive for the attempted assassination:

In 1999, George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, named Mr. Whittington to head the Texas Funeral Service Commission, which licenses and regulates funeral directors and embalmers in the state. When he was named, a former executive director of the commission, Eliza May, was suing the state, saying that she had been fired because she investigated a funeral home chain that was owned by a friend of Mr. Bush.

The suit was settled in 2001, but the details were not disclosed. Mr. Whittington still serves in the position.

If I. Lewis Libby had not been forced to resign, Dick Cheney would not have had to get his hands dirty with this.

More background on the Texas Funeral Service Commission here.

UPDATE:  Some coverage of the cover-up.