Don't play that game

As Kevin Drum points out, the operative strategy for dealing with the Plame Affair is to obscure the issue and make is seem like it just a partisan fight over something of little consequence. Throw up so much mud that people will lose sight of what the fight was originally about.

We must not play that game.

As Kevin urges, keep it simple. Remind people that no one from the White House has denied that someone in the administration blew Valerie Plame's cover (a blatantly illegal act). Their response to the scandal is to turn the tables and attack the accusers. If there wasn't substance to the fundamental allegation then they would outright deny it. They are not because they know that it is substantial.

Stay on target.

(Another useful talking point: point out how so many people were outraged by allegations that Clintonites were trying to smear Monica Lewinsky. Yet the Republicans are openly urging a "slime and defend" strategy for dealing with Wilson and Plame. Ask a Bush defender to defend that little bit of hypocrisy.)

Plame v. Rove

John Dean, a man uniquely qualified to speak on these matters, says that the outing of Valerie Plame was an act even viler than anything he saw while working for Richard Nixon ("More vicious than Tricky Dick").

I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means.

For example, special counsel Chuck Colson, once considered the best hatchet man of modern presidential politics, went to prison for leaking false information to discredit Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer. Ellsberg was being prosecuted by Nixon's Justice Department for disclosing the so-called Pentagon Papers (the classified study of the origins of the Vietnam War). But Colson at his worst could barely qualify to play on Bush's team. The same with assistant to the president John Ehrlichman, a jaw-jutting fellow who left them "twisting in the wind," and went to jail denying he'd done anything wrong in ordering a break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, where the burglars went and looked for, but did not find, real information to discredit Ellsberg.

But neither Colson nor Ehrlichman nor anyone else I knew while working at the Nixon White House had the necessary viciousness, or depravity, to attack the wife of a perceived enemy by employing potentially life-threatening tactics.

Dean may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make a point. Does he really believe that Nixon's people would have never or indeed never did employ "life-threatening tactics"? If he really believes that than I think he is being naive. Dean may have never witnessed such activities, but Nixon's people were certainly capable of threatening people's lives, if not worse.

Still, his column is a good one because it offers some practical advice on what Wilson and Plame should do if they are really serious about keeping this scandal alive and exposing those who wrong them: they should sue. He highlights the little commented fact that the Watergate scandal was kept alive in part because of a civil lawsuit filed by the DNC against the Committee to RE-Elect the President (CREEP, one of the most descriptive abbreviations ever created). The "career prosecutors" at Justice could have been relied upon to conduct a perfunctory investigation of the DNC break-in. But a civil lawsuit, backed up with the power of subpoena, held their feet to the fire and may have forced the investigators to dig deeper lest they suffer the embarrassment of missing something that private investigators might dig up. It also allowed the DNC to leak damaging details of the investigation on their own and thus keep the story alive in the press.

Dean has done some investigation of this already and it is his opinion, and the opinion of several prominent legal scholars that he interviewed, that Wilson and Plame would have a strong case. Who would they sue? Rove would be the most obvious target. While he hasn't been fingered as the initial leaker, there is evidence out there that he condoned the campaign to hurt his wife (Wilson has apparently heard from multiple sources that Rove has said that Plame was "fair game"). That would be sufficient cause to bring Rove in for a deposition and quiz him, under oath, about what he knows.

Also, since the allegation is about an activity that was not part of any legitimate governmental duty, Rove would not be entitled to free representation by the Justice department. He would have to pay for it himself. Meanwhile, Dean says he knows of several lawyers who would be willing to take the case pro-bono. (Crazy idea: I wonder if Larry Klayman would take it?)

I hope Wilson and Plame are seriously considering this option. If Wilson is really serious about wanting to "frog march" Rove out of the White House, this might be the best way to go about it.

Why the Democratic leader needs to be a Democrat

I haven't talked much about the issue of Wesley Clark's party allegiance partially because I'm uncomfortable with the whole topic (after all, I was a registered Independent until I got involved with the Dean campaign) and partially because I think Dean is wrong to repeatedly label Clark as a Republican. But TAPPED makes some good points in a post about why it is important that the leader of the Democratic party be a Democrat.

[...] a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination is asking people not just to consider him as an individual, but as a potential leader of the party in whose name he is running. His role is not just to explain why he should be selected as the nominee, but to explain to the nation why the values and policies of his chosen party are ones they should support, too. If Clark wants to lead the Democrats -- as well as America -- his job is to explain why people should register as Democrats, donate to Democrats and vote for Democrats, not just donate to and vote for him.

American politics is driven more by personality then by party allegiance, and in that sense Clark is a great candidate. But the real job of governing often depends more on party then on personality. The Republicans have proven this by establishing a strong precedent of party allegiance in their members (Reagan's 11th commandment and all). Their united front has allowed them to dominate the policy debate. Any particular Democrat may be able to beat any particular Republican in a battle of personalities. But winning the war over who controls the destiny of this nation will require more than just a few personalities. It will require a concerted effort at multiple levels of government and only a solid and cohesive party can do that.

The Democrats need to be united at all levels. Can they do that while being led by a man who has, until recently, demonstrated serious political ambivalence? Clark's protestations to the contrary, it is hard not to see his recent embrace of the party as nothing more than political opportunism (i.e., he had a better chance of making an impact as a Democrat than as a Republican).

I do not know if this criticism is accurate. But it is certainly fair. It is a question that will dog Clark for the foreseeable future. He will need to address it. Especially if he is going to win over Dean supporters should he win the nomination.

Not that I am sure that Dean can unite the party either. Dean certainly has the largest and most committed base of any candidate out there. But he has also pissed off a lot of establishment Dems with his "Bush-Lite" rhetoric. Dean's criticism of the party has been a spot-on wakeup call. But it will be difficult for some of the people that Dean has attacked to swallow their pride and get behind him if he should win the nomination.

But, at least Dean has the advantage that few are questioning his Democratic credentials.

Google News Democratic Primary Poll for 10/3/2003

		This Week (10/3)			Last Week (9/25)
1	Howard Dean	7420	18.6%	+0.7	1	6810	17.9%
2	Wesley Clark	6070	15.2%	+4.3	4	4160	10.9%
3	John Kerry	5420	13.6%	-1.6	2	5760	15.1%
4	John Edwards	4410	11.0%	-0.3	3	4300	11.3%
5	Dick Gephardt	3730	9.3%	-1.2	5	4020	10.6%
6	Joe Lieberman	3510	8.8%	-0.7	6	3620	9.5%
7	Bob Graham	3480	8.7%	-0.2	7	3390	8.9%
8	Al Sharpton	2330	5.8%	+0.8	9	1930	5.1%
9	Dennis Kucinich	2220	5.6%	-1.3	8	2620	6.9%
10	Carol Moseley Braun	1410	3.5%	-0.4	10	1480	3.9%

Last week Clark sucked media share primarily from Dean. This week he sucked it from pretty much everyone else (especially Kerry and Gephardt) as he now moves into second place. Next week will be interesting to see because it will be the first time Clark and Dean will be going head-to-head against each other for the #1 spot. I think it will be tough for Clark as stories about Dean's Q3 fundraising numbers will once again turn media focus on him.

I thought this might be the first week I had to drop someone but apparently the reports of Graham's dropping out were premature.

Sharpton may be getting a bit of a boost this week with the stories about Rush's problems at ESPN. When it comes to topics of racism, Sharpton is near the top of most reporters rolodexes.

The following is a chart of the Google News Media Share over the last few months.

(Methodology: All numbers are taken from the hit counts when searching on the Google News Service for news stories containing each candidate's name. Click on each name to rerun the search. You will get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)

CIA vs. Bushies: whom do you trust?

I agree with O-Dub:

I've got a lot of problems with the CIA. I feel that a lot of the miscommunication between them and the FBI led to 9.11, and that we still aren't doing enough to reform those two agencies. But when it comes down to it, I trust the spooks a hell of a lot more than I trust the president's political goons.

It is a measure of just how low my esteem is for the Bushies that I would consider them to be lower than the CIA. They are both liars. But, as ironic as it may sound, I feel that the CIA's lies are more trustworthy.

Interesting Times indeed.

Hiding the truth in plain sight

Kevin Drum wonders why there hasn't been more progress in outing the leakers in the Plame Affair.

I'm a little surprised that more progress hasn't been made yet. In a normal leak, you've got one leaker and one leakee, and as long they both keep their mouths shut the secret is safe. But in this case, not only do you have multiple leakers but there are apparently half a dozen reporters that they leaked to. And you just know that they've privately told friends, who have privately told other friends, so that by now half the journalists in Washington know who the culprits are.

With this being the biggest open secret in Washington you would think something more definitive would have come out by now. Yet all we have had are some intriguing hints about Rove and Scooter. It makes me wonder if having to many people in the know might actually make it harder to figure out who is the leaker.

Follow me here. If you want to keep the identity of the leakers secret, yet you know that a LOT of people already know who they are, how do you do it? You could clamp down on information, but that would restrict the field of investigation to the information currently available. Or, you could follow the old disinformation route and put out multiple false leads in order to obscure the real story. Sometimes the best way to disguise the truth is to wrap in multiple layers of lies.

Hell, even the original Washington Post story that claimed that there were two leakers who talked to six journalists could have been disinformation. By claiming that so many journalists know who the leakers are you get the who Washington Press Corps distracted by a big old guessing game about which of their colleagues has got the goods.

There is no doubt that Plame's cover was blown. There is little doubt that this was done for political intimidation. But the question of who did it might be unsolvable so long as there is to much information out there.

That could be the whole point.

Never mind

Regarding yesterday's posting about the leak being a potential terrorist act, Jack Gillis sent along this correction:

I inadvertently cited the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. BILL and not the ACT yesterday. Evidently they dropped the Intelligence Identities reference somewhere along the line.

My supporting links:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/426.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/hr2975_ih.htm

Sorry to waste people's time.

Apologies from me as well.

And then there were nine

Graham's out of the race. It's a shame. I've always liked the guy, but he just never managed to make a connection.

But, at least it means that his Senate seat will be a lot safer.

I always expected Braun to be the first to exit the stage. But I guess she was never really running this thing to win and is, along with Sharpton and Kucinich, more of a statement candidate. I wouldn't be surprised to see all three of these candidates stick it out to the convention.

Of the more "serious" candidates I would have to say that Lieberman is the next most likely to fall. Edwards, Gephardt and Kerry will have the resources to hang around well through the first few weeks of the primary season. But if any of them fails to score any wins by the end of the first month I expect they will drop out as well.

I think this race will come down to a battle between Dean, Clark, and one of those three.

Don't worry! Be happy!

Whew! What a relief!

At least we don't have that to worry about anymore.

(la-de-da-de-da-de-da)

First they came for the dividends...

This is the kind of thing we are up against folks. Grover Norquist was interviewed this afternoon by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. Catch this little bit of moral equivalency:

Norquist [Discussing the death tax] I think it speaks very much to the health of the nation that 70% plus of Americans want to abolish the death tax because they see it as fundamentally unjust. The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and class division will say it's only 2% or 5% in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax. I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust, it's only a small percentage, it's not you it's somebody else. And this country, people who may not make, earning a lot of money, at the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just, if you've paid taxes on your income government should leave you alone, not tax you again.

Q. Did you just compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?

Norquist: No, the morality that says it's ok to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population, is the morality that says that the Holocaust is ok because they didn't target everybody. It's just a small percentage what are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you, it's them. And arguing that it's ok to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them, and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us it should treat us all equally. And the argument that Bill Clinton used when he wanted to raise taxes in 1993 is I'm only going to tax the top 2%, so this doesn't affect the rest of you, I'm only going to get some of these guys, not you, others.

The challenge there, when people use that rhetoric, in addition to the fact that I think it's immoral to separate the society, by, uh, when South Africa divided society by race, that was wrong. When East Germany divided them by income and class, that was wrong. East Germany was not an improvement over South Africa. Dividing people so when you can mug them one at a time is a bad thing to do. Whether you do on racial grounds, religious grounds, whether you work on Saturdays or not grounds, economic grounds.

Q. So you see taxes as being, the way they are now a terrible discrimination against the wealthy, comparable to the kind of discrimination of say, the Holocaust?

A. Well, when you pick, when you use, you can use different rhetoric, or different points for different purposes, and I would argue that those who say don't let this bother you I'm only doing it, the government is only doing to a small part of the population, that is very wrong. And it's immoral. they should treat everybody the same. They shouldn't be shooting anyone. And they shouldn't be taking half of anybody's income or wealth when they die.

How do you deal with a person who sees taxes as equivalent to shoving people into gas chambers? Is it any wonder they consider opposition to tax cuts to be one of the worst sins imaginable?

(tip-o-the-hat to Atrios).

Is the leaker a terrorist?

Jack Gillis sends along this intriguing line of legal thought:

Bear with me a moment while I repeat the legal gobbledeygoo operating in the Novak/Plame affair. I promise you'll all LOVE the kicker. Here's the relevant portion of the Intelligence Identities Act:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, codified as 50 U.S.C., Section 421: (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

And now here's the relevant portion that pretty much cinches Plame as being covered; she need only have been abroad on the Company dime once in the last five years.:

Section 426(4): The term "covert agent" means -- (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency (i) whose identity as such an officer or employee is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.

Now here's the kicker. Sorry for the ellipsis, but there's a lot of junk in the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act:

SEC. 309. DEFINITION.

(a) Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by adding after section 24 a new section as follows: Sec. 25. Federal terrorism offense defined

As used in this title, the term 'Federal terrorism offense' means an offense that is-- (1) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against government conduct; and (2) is a violation of . . .

4) section 601 (relating to disclosure of identities of covert agents) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421);"

That means that if it could be shown that the release of Plame's name was intended to intimidate or retaliate for government conduct--and Wilson's trip
and Wilson's subsequent report are government conduct--then the leaker isn't just a leaker, the leaker is a TERRORIST as defined in the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.
Act!!!!

Is that cool or what?

Neither Jack nor I are lawyers and this may just be sheer dreamland thinking, but it just goes to show you how complicated this whole terrorist business.

On Rush

I haven't commented at all on the story out today that Rush is allegedly a pill popper because, as much as I may like to see the guy squirm, prescription drug addiction is not a laughing matter. If the guy really is an addict then he needs to get help ASAP. I feel no desire to pile on someone else's misery.

I will, however, say good riddance to the guy now that he has left ESPN. The fewer outlets this blowhard has in the media the better.

Recognition where it is due

TAPPED has started to byline their blog posts.

Bush can't handle the truth

Jay Leno:

Have you been following the leak of the CIA agent?

Bush was furious and told his staff for once he wanted the truth and wanted it NOW.

So they said, "You lost the election and you aren't really the president."

Cracks in the wall

Specter breaking ranks?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Ashcroft came under increasing pressure Thursday to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation, with one senior Republican senator saying the attorney general should consider doing so.

Sen. Arlen Specter, an influential member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cited Ashcroft's ties to White House political aide Karl Rove, who, at one point, had been accused of being the leaker -- a charge disputed by the White House.

Asked whether Rove's history as a political advisor to Ashcroft during his gubernatorial and Senate campaigns were grounds for him to step away from the case, Specter said "recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider."

It's not an outright call for a special prosecutor. But it's the most off-the-reservation comment from a senior Republican to date.

"slime and defend"

The honor and dignity parade continues:

The Bush administration pursued a two-track political strategy on Wednesday to minimize the damage from the criminal investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity.

The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.

"It's slime and defend," said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House's effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson's motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.

In other words, in order to fight allegations that they slimed a critic of the administration, the Bushies are adopting a strategy of ... sliming a critic of the administration.

What was that saying about not learning from the past?

Whachoo Gestalting about Willis?

Billmon has a long and fascinating post this morning on Gestalt theory, how it applies to the public perception of George W. Bush and how that perception may soon go through a radical change.

We can but hope that Dr. Billmon is right in his diagnosis. There may come a time in the not to distant future when the number of people who say they ever trusted Bush will be considerably less than his once 80+% approval ratings indicated.

Update: Link fixed.

Howard, meet Larry. Larry, Howard.

You know Howard Dean has arrived when he's got Larry Klayman on his ass.

Actually, I've always felt that Dean should open his gubernatorial records. But he should agree to do so only when Bush does the same with his records.

Not just Plame

The Center for American Progress has come out with an interesting collection of examples of how the White House has fired, intimidated or defamed anyone who didn't get on board for the war on Iraq ("Intimigate" Scandal at the White House).

WASHINGTON - September 30 - The Center for American Progress has released the attached is a one-page document detailing “Intimigate”, the White House’s latest scandal. As the document shows, the White House has developed a pattern of firing, intimidating and defaming anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about Iraq. In fact, the Iraq policymakers whose influence has grown in the White House are largely those who parsed and distorted intelligence and misled the American people.

The recent story of the Bush Administration leaking classified information in an effort to defame a WMD report is just the latest in a well-established pattern. A look at the historical record shows that the Bush Administration has summarily fired, intimidated and defamed anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about Iraq. In fact, the Iraq policymakers who have remained in the White House are largely those who parsed and distorted intelligence and misled the American people.

Drawing on another parallel to Watergate, it is important to remember that that scandal was not just about one break-in at DNC headquarters but about a whole pattern of abuse by people working for Richard Nixon and his re-election campaign. "Intimigate" (catchy) could open the door on a similar pattern of harassment by this administration against its opponents, political or otherwise.

(tip-o-the-hat to Talk Left).

Confirmation Needed

Eric in comments just posted the following:

I can't believe what I just saw on "Buchanan and Press". Former agent Larry Johnson just strongly suggested that the leaker was Scooter Libby!!! First he said, he knew who it was. After prompting by Buchanan, Johnson (who I couldn't believe wasn't saying, "no comment") kept on talking. Please somebody tell me they just saw this also!

Can anyone else confirm this? Did Johnson clearly identify Libby as one of the leakers?

This would make sense since Scooter works for Dick Cheney and the Office of the Veep was the one that instigated the Wilson trip to Niger. Libby would probably have access to information about Plame's status as a covert CIA op.

Update: They are talking about this over on Kevin Drum's blog. One commenter, Galois, described it as follows:

I watched (and TIVO'd it the whole interview when I saw what was happening). Johnson said he had a friend "who would know" and that it was multiple people at the Old Executive Office Building. When asked for the name he said he wasn't comfortable saying it. When asked by Buchannan if it was Libby he said no comment. When Press noted Rove worked in the West Wing not the OEOB Johnson confirmed that it wasn't him. After the commercial break Buchannan gave a theory that Libby was upset Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger and so told Novak that in fact it was his wife who sent him. Johnson said it was a good theory. Before he left Johnson said he had not spoken with the FBI, but Press told him he would be soon.

So Johnson apparently didn't confirm it was Libby, but he strongly hinted it was.

This doesn't put Rove off the hook of course since there are allegedly two leakers. Nor does it mean that Rove didn't know about it before hand.

One problem with having the kind of reputation Rove has for running a tight ship is that when something like this happens it becomes that much harder for you to deny that you didn't know what was going on.

When did the President know it, and what did he do about it?

From today's press gaggle (which Josh called gaggledämmerung):

QUESTION: The President often says he gets his news not from reading the papers or watching TV, but from aides because he's very busy. Do you know if this was brought to his attention? Was he aware of this on July 14th or 15th, or in that time frame, either by reading it himself, or was it brought to his attention? I'm not asking you whether he said anything should do anything about it, but was he aware of this in a timely window --

MR. McCLELLAN: On July 14th?

QUESTION: When the Novak column came out, which I believe was July 14th. It was within that time frame.

MR. McCLELLAN: Call my predecessor. No --

QUESTION: Within a couple of days of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I haven't even asked that question.

QUESTION: Scott, it seems like a good question to ask.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: That would be a good one if you can take it.

QUESTION: It's probably worth following up on.

QUESTION: When did he become aware of this?

QUESTION: Right.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?

QUESTION: When did he become aware that --

MR. McCLELLAN: That there was an allegation that someone leaked classified information? When was that first --

QUESTION: No, no, that an undercover official of the United States government had been outed. When did the President of the United States know that? When was he informed of that? And what was his reaction? Where's the outrage, I think, was the question that was asked.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the outrage has always been made known. If someone leaks classified information -- are you -- when did --

QUESTION: When did the President know it, and what did he do about it?

Folks, we have our question!

St. Rove?

Jerome Doolittle has a few choice words for Scott McLellan's attempt to paint Rove as a man of high moral character:

I just finished, “Bush’s Brain,” last week. Thus my memory is delightfully refreshed about the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina. There Rove defeated frontrunner John McCain by smearing him as a man who had been unbalanced by North Vietnamese torture — and whose adopted Bangladeshi daughter was really his illegitimate child by a black mother.

Since Scott McClellan was a spokesman for the Bush campaign at the time, he certainly does know “the kind of person (Rove) is.” I’m with him that far. But what he also knows is that Rove considers the highest standards of conduct to be strictly for suckers.

Rove learned dirty tricks at the knee of the master, the late Lee Atwater, and taught them to others in seminars for Young Republicans. He once had his own office bugged during a campaign, and blamed it on his opponent. He orchestrated a whispering campaign that Texas governor Ann Richards had a soft spot for lesbians. Everybody in politics knows Rove's loathsome history.

As an old press spokesman myself, I would remind McClellan that it is okay to duck, dodge, divert, obfuscate, refuse comment, and otherwise behave in a less than forthright manner.

It is even okay to lie, provided some possibility exists that you believe the lie yourself. But it is absolutely fatal to lie to a roomful of reporters when every last one of them not only knows you are lying to them, but knows you know it.

As coincidence would have it, I also just finished reading "Bush's Brain" (comments on this latest scandal by its co-author, James C. Moore, can be found here) so I also know a little something about the moral character of Karl Rove.

He has none.

This is a man who doesn't believe in just defeating an opponent but in destroying him utterly. And Rove does not reserve his ire just for political opponents. He has destroyed republicans, including former colleagues (just ask John Weaver), simply because they disagreed with him or went over his head at certain points in time. Rove is a great believer in the philosophy that "revenge is a dish best served cold." He has been known to wait years to get back at someone who crosses him.

And, as Mr. Doolittle points out, everyone knows this. So for McClellan to hold up Rove as some kind of paragon of decency is laughable in the extreme.

The Lies of George W. Bush

Yet another liberal book that needs to go on the best seller list.

Two more journalists named?

Josh has a copy of the latest Gonzales letter to White House staff regarding the Plame investigation. It contains some specific descriptions of items that should be preserved including the following intriguing item:

3. Contacts with reporters Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps, or Robert D. Novak, or any individual(s) acting directly or indirectly, on behalf of these reporters."

Are Royce and Phelps two of the six journalists this information was leaked to? If not, why are their names specifically mentioned?

The Gonzales letter also includes a preservation order for the following:

1. Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, and/or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency;

This investigation could easily move beyond the question of who leaked Plame's covert CIA status to a more thorough investigation of who instigated Wilson's trip to Niger. Dick Cheney went out of his way to deny that he had anything to do with it. This investigation could prove that to be a lie.

Update: The more I think about it the more I think that the call to preserve all material related to the Niger trip is more important than the inclusion of Royce and Phelps' names. If that material becomes subject of an FBI investigation we might not only find out who instigated the trip but what happened to Wilson's report after he came back. Imagine, if you will, finding a document that proves that Cheney and/or Rice read and signed off on that report.

The money race

Ezra beat me to it in criticizing this asinine Washington Post headline: "Bush Far Outpaces Dean in Donations"

Now, if the race were down to just Bush and Dean this title might make sense. But, as Ezra points out, Dean is competing with nine other Democrats for a share of the fundraising pie (and so far he is winning it handily). Furthermore, because the Democratic race is still up in the air, a lot of potential donors are keeping their checkbooks shut until a clear victor emerges.

A better comparison would be the total of all Democratic candidate donations against Bush. Dubya would probably still come out on top in that race, but I bet you it would be a lot closer than this story seems to suggest.

Clear And Present Danger

Juan Cole has an excellent summation of the background on the Plame Affair:

What I would say is that Karl Rove should be made to resign if he said the words attributed to him, "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." He was condoning the breaking of US law and the endangering of US intelligence personnel and assets, especially in the field of Ms. Plame's specialty, the tracking of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And that is the greatest irony of all. Ms. Plame, who really was working to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, has been ruined by persons who only pretended to do so for political gain, and whose invasion of Iraq did nothing to make the US one whit safer.

Juan puts his finger on it. Even if Rove did not authorize the initial leak he apparently spoke approvingly of it after the fact. That alone is sufficient reason for Rove's ass to be out of there. This is not just a story of political intimidation. It is a story of a political machine that cares more about destroying its critics than it does about protecting the security of the American people.

Karl Rove is a clear and present danger to the safety of America and the sooner he is removed from the halls of power the sooner we can all breathe easier.

The rats are running

When you lose NewsMax you know you are in trouble.

Turd Blossom speaks

Karl Rove breaks his silence on the Plame Affair!

Three major Dean Internet Initiatives Announced

Amidst all the hoopla about the final drive to $15 million this quarter, the Dean campaign has publicly released three major initiatives related to the Internet.

The Net Advisory Net (NAN)

To quote DFA:

The Net Advisory Net, or NAN, is a collection of advisors working with one other to frame Internet Policy issues for Governor Dean and his staff, and recommend approaches towards technology issues for a Dean Administration.

This will not be just a group of Dean supporters as the governor is interested in hearing from a diverse opinion base on net related issues.

Principles for an Internet Policy

This is a statement of principles about the future of the Internet. (e.g., Principle #1 No one owns the Internet). Some really good stuff here.

Web Community Kit

An open-source (GNU licensed) kit for developing web communities. I haven't examined it, but I think this might be the software that the campaign uses to manage their own web sites. This is, as far as I know, the first time any political campaign has released open-source software.

Dark Speculations

(putting tin foil hat on)

Billmon asks an interesting question: should we trust the spooks?

This is not to suggest that the facts of the Plame Affair, as currently known, aren't real and aren't serious. The deeper question is what are the CIA's motives for going nuclear at this time?

This gets into serious smoke-filled backroom stuff but Billmon suggests that we might be witnessing the early rumblings of either a coup or an attempt to short-circuit a coup in planning. In other words, Tenet and the boys are either trying to increase their influence within the White House by mortally wounding the Rove/Cheney axis or they are aware of nefarious goings on within that axis that suggest to the spooks that they had to do something now to break it up before it gets too dangerous.

Which brings us back to electoral politics. There has been the suggestion, in some quarters, that the reason the Democrats rolled over so easily on the issue of the stolen election was not just because they are wimps but because they were seriously concerned that if they didn't let Dubya take the White House through a bogus legal maneuver that he might try and take it by other means. With Dubya's poll numbers tanking, is the concern growing in some circles that the Bushies might not go quietly into the night if Bush should lose the next election?

Could the Plame Affair be the excuse some on the inside have been looking for to bust up the Rove/Cheney axis and prevent them from executing Plan B?

(removing tin foil hat)

Of course, this all could just be a simple case of payback. Bush made Tenet take the blame for the 16 words in the SOTU speech. Now Tenet is getting his revenge by making Dubya squirm in the klieg lights.

Or maybe Tenet and the boys are just honest patriots who are sick of the political games that Rove has been playing?

Choose your poison.

Rove Rove Rove Rove

Julian Borger of the Guardian Unlimited just named Karl Rove.

Link to audio report.

"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"

 

Also, this from Yahoo news:

The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved — and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.

And we all know how Bush just loves it when media attention is on someone else...

(Atrios has the same two items highlighted.)

We'll be stopping by tomorrow miss Borden. No need to worry about the mess until then.

Amazing:

The [Justice] department notified Gonzales about 8:30 p.m. Monday that it was launching an investigation but said he could wait until the next morning to notify staff and direct them to preserve relevant material, McClellan said.

Not that they haven't already had nearly three months to get their records straight, but, really, since when does the Justice Department tell a focus of an investigation that they its quite all right if they don't immediately put the clamp down on potential evidence? I can see there being a few hours delay in notifying the target of the investigation. But specifically giving the target a heads up?

(Tip of the hat to Atrios)

The heart of the matter

It's nice that the media is finally paying attention to the Plame Affair. But much of the coverage is still dealing with the surface issue of criminality.

William Rivers Pitt gets beneath the surface:

The third layer is where the darkness truly lurks, and where the deadly importance of this situation lies. Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. That sentence deserves to be written twice. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The Bush administration pushed very hard the idea that America is in danger from WMDs being placed into the hands of terrorists. This was one of the central arguments behind the war in Iraq. Yet in order to protect Bush's political standing, a couple of "administration officials" blew Valerie Plame, and by proxy her network, completely out of the water in an attempt to shut her husband up. In short, in order to protect Bush from the ramifications of using fake evidence to support his war, this White House destroyed an intelligence network that was protecting us from the threat posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Beyond the sheer vindictiveness of this criminal act is the basic fact that the Bushies put politics and personal vendetta above considerations for the safety of the American people.

It - Is - Just - That - Simple.

Time for an independent investigation

People For The American Way has a petition up calling for an independent investigation of the Plame Affair.

Interesting Rumbles

Don't know if this is a serious effort or not, but a former GOP state chairman is organizing an effort to draft someone to oppose Bush in the New Hampshire Republican primary.

And this was started before the Plame Affair.

Dean, Clark and being a True Democrat

In the last two days Howard Dean has made comments about Wesley Clark having been a Republican just 25 days ago. He did it yesterday on Face The Nation and today on NPR's Talk Of The Nation.

I think this is a mistake.

There is an important question to be asked here: do the Democrats want an ambivalent Democrat as their standard bearer? But Dean is obscuring this important point by making the claim that Clark was a Republican.

First of all, voting for and praising Republicans does not automatically make you a Republican. I used to vote for some of them (not since 1998) and have admired a some in my few short years on this planet. But I consider myself a Democratic leaning Independent much more than a Republican.

But, even more important, there is a significant minority of Republicans who are unhappy with Bush's leadership who are are looking for an alternative. Several have expressed strong interest in Dean. But comments like this could make them feel unwelcome (and may, ironically, make Clark seem more appealing).

I think Dean should drop the "he used to be a Republican" line. The question of Clark's ambivalent party membership is an important one that needs to be addressed. Especially if Clark starts going around saying that he is strongly Democratic (that just rings false with me). But Dean's ham-fisted approach will only diminish him.

Bush doesn't want to know

I have a new appreciation for the job journalists have after reading the transcript of this morning's White House press gaggle that Josh Marshal has so kindly posted on his blog. Just reading this stuff makes my head spin. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to actually be involved in it:

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he --

McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've -- and I've spoken clearly to this publicly that -- but it's -- yes, I've just said it's -- there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: But I mean --

McCLELLAN: So I think it doesn't --

QUESTION: But is the President getting his information from you? Or did the President and Karl Rove talk, and were there assurances given that Rove was not involved?

McCLELLAN: I've already provided those assurances to you publicly.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this --

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?

QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct?

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or --

McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true.

QUESTION: Based on what?

QUESTION: Based on what?

QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you --

McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes.

QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue?

QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly?

McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes.

QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Keith.

QUESTION: Well, that was the question.

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this?

McCLELLAN: I have spoken -- I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things.

QUESTION: He categorically denied to you --

McCLELLAN: I just told you, it's simply not true.

QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it's untrue.

McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about -- no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I've spoken to him.

QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true --

McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling --

QUESTION: -- or is it just you --

McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling you what I did.

QUESTION: -- or is it just you who is telling us?

McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that's why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.

McClellan never says that Rove told him that he was not involved, even when the press gave him multiple opportunities to say just that. McClellan went out of his way to re-iterate the "it's simply not true" line without simply answering yes to the "did Rove categorically deny" question. Furthermore, he says the President "knows [Rove] wasn't involved" but he carefully avoids explaining how Bush knows this.

I think the evidence from this is pretty strong that Rove was at least involved if not one of the actual leakers. "The President knows he wasn't involved" line is a convenient dodge for Bush because he probably doesn't know that Rove was involved even though he has to know there's a good chance that he was. McClellan clearly avoids confirming whether Bush has specifically asked for a denial from Rove. This allows Bush to continue asserting that he doesn't "know" Rove was involved.

Clearly the White House is in a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mode right now. Bush probably doesnt know if Rove was involved in this, but he isn't bothering to ask either and is hoping that some perfunctory Justice department investigation will be enough to get them beyond this matter.

Strong evidence has been brought forth that at least two of his close advisors have revealed the identify of a CIA asset for political purposes. Does Bush respond in outrage to this and ask his people to come clean on this in order to demonstrate that this kind of thing will simply not be tolerated in his White House? Of course not! If he were to do that then he really would know what was going on and then he would be responsible for what happens next. And what happens next might mean losing his most trusted aide, Karl Rove, just as the 2004 election is ramping up.

Bush doesn't want to know what is going on because the political cost to him are too frightening to deal with. He would rather risk the lives of CIA assets than risk his own political future.

So much for "Honor and Integrity".

Hearts and Minds

A poster over on Table Talk named Wendy Orange came up with a great way of describing the dynamics of the Dean/Clark race: "Dean wins hearts, Clark wins minds."

Democrats were heart sick before Dean came along. He gave them something to believe in again. But the mind of the Democrats still had to deal with the "electability" question and Clark appears to put the mind at ease more than Dean.

I'm not convinceed, yet. If this were purely a battle of resumes then I would pick Clark over Dean to go up against Bush. But winning elections requires much more than having the right stuff on paper. It means showing that you know how to run the gauntlet of what will surely be the ugliest campaign any of us have seen in our lifetime.

Dean has already demonstrated he is a great campaigner. Clark may as well, but I haven't been convinced of it yet.

Medals are not bulletproof as I like to say. Clark will need to prove he can defeat Bush as a politician, not just as a military man.

 

Still Laughing?

Josh makes an interesting find in light of the Plame Affair:

Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

 

"Why Are These Men Laughing?" Ron Suskind
Esquire
January 2003

Hmmmm....