As I think about this more, I'm starting to think that the most disturbing thing about the whole deal is just how lame the resulting attack was.

I mean, they outed Wilson's wife as a CIA agent, in order to imply that she helped him get the job of going to Niger to investigate the scam letter that made people think Iraq was trying to buy uranium. To which the only response is, "So?"

I mean how does the source of the recommendation affect his credibility? So someone at the CIA suggested an envoy-- so what? They've got an interest in having this sort of stuff checked out. Is the implication supposed to be that the CIA is all a bunch of America-hating librul types out to make Bush look bad? Yeah, that'll fly...

About the only way I can see this being an effective smear is if the goal is to have peopls sniggering behind their hands at the fact that Wilson needs his wife to help him get a job. And I have trouble imagining that being really effective among those of us who have moved beyong the 19th century...

So, it looks like they may have revealed the identity of a CIA agent-- something which is ordinarily so incredibly sensitive that we can't allow American citizens their Constitutional right to a trial by jury, lest intelligence sources be "compromised"-- in the service of one of the lamest smear attacks in recent political history.

Truly, the Bush administration shows remarkable ingenuity at finding ways to lower my opinion of them.

Wow. That’s straight out of John le Carré.

If I was Valerie Plame, and I really was a CIA operative, I’d be having a serious talk with my boss. What the hell are “unnamed administration officials” doing with that sort of sensitive information? What kind of circus are they running over there?

Er. No pun intended.

I am speaking from a position of refreshing ignorance, as I have no idea how the CIA is organised. (I am not supposed to have any idea about how MI5 and MI6 are organised either, of course.)

I googled on news for Valerie Plame, and discovered 4 stories, one of which referred to her as a "CIA official", two as an "Agency operative", and the fourth one is The Nation.

My question is, if Valerie Plame works for the CIA, is this really in itself a major secret? What is the problem here - revealing that she works for the CIA, suggesting that she's an Agency operative, or revealing her field of expertise?

This question has come up in Kevin Drum's comment section as well. Someone called "Sven" addressed the point:

If his wife is simply a pencil pusher, then why did Joseph Wilson tell 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." Now it's true he didn't say whether she is an operative 97 because he can't 97 but that seems pretty close to a confirmation.

Wilson also makes the point that this wasn't aimed at he or his wife; it's aimed at every other careerist in the CIA. In other words, it's intended to intimidate people blowing the whistle after the administration politicizes intelligence and prevent "revolts" like the one that scuttled John Bolton's scheduled slander of Syria on the Hill this week.

The thing that just this minute gave me the cave-creeps about this isn't so much the plausible stupidity, venality, or immorality of it, but the sudden sense of -- wait. Wait just a Tyr-damned minute, here. The Guy With The Button is getting close to a state of open war with his intelligence sources/security apparatus.

Say what?

Does Homeland Security get the foreign intelligence job, too, after the CIA is proven 'unreliable'? Does it just not matter who gets walloped on with the full might and fury of the US military? Is the Bush administration pushing for a state of affairs where policy dictates facts inside its own security apparatus? Too dumb to know that you can't beat your spooks into submission?

Can anyone make sense of this in a way that doesn't transform the Bush regieme from venal would-be theocrats and looters to actual madmen?

I googled on news for Valerie Plame, and discovered 4 stories, one of which referred to her as a "CIA official", two as an "Agency operative", and the fourth one is The Nation.

Hitting Google News for stories featuring the exact phrase "Valerie Plame" produces six results, of which one is the Time piece, one is the article in The Nation, and four are copies of the Robert Novak article in question. All come within the last few days.

More importantly, a regular Google search on the same phrase turns up a couple of online bios of Wilson, which are notable for not mentioning that she's a CIA operative.

This isn't an incredibly scientific survey, mind, but it's hard to imagine that her status as a CIA operative was common knowledge before someone started talking about it over the weekend.

The Bush administration's petty meanness and vindictiveness is an ingrained habit. It's often been useful to them, especially domestically. No one wants to be the target. But it backfires, as when Jeffords switched parties, or the widespread sense of repugnance at Rumsfeld's vase remark.

These guys aren't good at their supposed jobs. Essentially they're freebooters, and they're good at it; but being a freebooter requires a much smaller and more primitive skill set than it takes to administer a complex modern nation.

Well, we've had "War is peace" and "Freedom is slavery." I guess it was about time for "Ignorance is strength."

Gosh darn. Who would have thought there would even be a suggestion of politically motivated paybacks in Washington of all places? My goodness, I thought we were beyond all that when the crew that had hundreds of Republican FBI files magically show up in the White House left with their vans packed with government property. I thought that the days when many of the principals in the Paula Jones case just happened to get audited by the IRS were behind us. Maybe not.

The main question to be answered by someone who knows before everyone gets writer's cramp or carpal tunnel syndrome over this: was Wilson's wife an undercover CIA operative?

Yes, then the unnamed government officials are going to have significant legal bills sometime in the near future and we, the taxpayers, will have to endure at least two congressional hearings where Democratic Presidential candidates gleefully blow some bigtime hot air at us.

No, then, as I always told upset parents when I refereed kid's basketball games, no blood no foul.

Meanwhile, blog or talk or comment in appropriate places amongst yourselves.

Madjayhawk, it's nice to know you're a fine upstanding type who thinks CIA operatives are scum who deserve to be outed. (Which is what I get from your comment - since you appear to feel that the worst that can happen if Valerie Plame is an Agency operative is heavy legal bills for whoever outed her.) This is something that you and I have in common - speaking as a leftwing anti-American who is well aware of the scummy things the CIA has done ever since it was invented.

Oddly enough, prior to this post, I got the impression that you were a right-wing heavy American patriot who probably supported all the scummy things the CIA's done. But you never can tell, and I'm delighted you've shown your true colours.

Madjayhawk writes:

I thought that the days when many of the principals in the Paula Jones case just happened to get audited by the IRS were behind us.

Got a source, other than some right-wing birdcage liner?

Goshdarn yourself, MadJayHawk. Where would we be without people like yourself willing to put on your World-Weary Cynic hats and tell us to consider possibilities we were already considering?

Hold on here, folks. As Mark Kleiman said more eloquently than I, it *doesn't freakin' matter* if Mrs. Wilson is CIA or not. What matters is that two -- count 'em, two -- sources in the Amdinistration told a journalist for use in publication -- in short, blew her cover. The only alternative explanation I can come up with is that Novak just made the whole thing up (in which case he's set himself up for a dandy libel suit).

If she is not a CIA agent, her professional and personal reptuations have been damaged.

If she *is* a CIA agent, her professional and personal reputations have been damaged, her value as an intel asset is now zilch, and the information may literally have put her life -- or more likely, the lives of her contacts -- in danger.

And for what?

There's simply no good interpretation to this sordid event. At the very least, Mrs. Wilson's repuation has been sullied, whether the information is true or not. But what's worse is that this Administration that is definitely obsessed with secrecy and, we're supposed to believ, concerned about national security apparently did so out of sheer pique. It's simply unforgivable.

Wow. If true, an act of betrayal worthy of Joe Stalin. Bet I know whose idea it was, too--Cheney. I keep remembering Paul Krugman's comment about how these people are users; he knows them personally, of course. Since the Reagan administration, people loyal to this crowd, but not in the inner circle, have been getting the shaft--I am thinking of David Stockman and Colin Powell.

If even a substantial minority of the public can be made to see this administration and the current Republican leadership in that light, they will go down.

Here's the Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Valerie+Plame&btnG=Google+Search

As noted above by Yonmei and others, the only mentions are Novak's article itself, and a bio of Ambassador Wilson (which leaves out that he is married to a Company Gal, though it mentions her name).

A search of the CIA's website http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-page=results does not show any "official" recognition of Ms. Plame's name-- so she's not evidently a publicly acknowledged official.

We can safely assume that Ms. Plame and Ambassador Wilson (and presumably their contacts) are now engaging in appropriate damage control measures, as their careers, and possibly their lives (Ms. Plame and Ambassador Wilson have 3-year old twins; what a nice touch THAT must be for the President-- oops, I should say, whoever is responsible) are now fucked.

In the end, Watergate WAS a third rate burglary, in the personal service of a president. Assuming any of this is true (and the thing is, even though I disagree with Novak a HUGE percentage of the time, I find him to be a smart, credible journalist), this all adds up to another crime:
treason (in the personal service of a president. Of course.)

My parents are moderate Repubs who occasionally vote Dem: the classic swing voters. This last weekend I visited them, and they were furious at the Bush Admin, and the Repub party in general, for these attacks on civil liberties, taking us to war on a pretext, etc.

My mother says she's been polled (I assume as a critical voting demographic), and the way they force you to answer certain questions in certain ways causes the polls to be misleading. She doesn't trust the polls. They don't fully reveal this underlying groundswell of discontent.

I suspect this is part of a larger trend, and -- while I'm not willing to count on this, and plan to be as active as possible in the upcoming get-out-the-vote efforts -- I would not be at all surprised if we get quite an upheaval at the polls, come Nov 2004.

Here's hoping. These guys are _snakes_.

-l.

“I have spoken publicly and privately, countless times, about the danger of leaking classified information. It is wrong. It is against the law. It costs the lives of Americans. It diminishes our country’s chance for success.”

——Donald Rumsfeld

(I guess that memo was only circulated within the Pentagon.)

I would not be at all surprised if we get quite an upheaval at the polls, come Nov 2004.

I suspect the surprise will reside with others. So don't be surprised if Bush, trailing badly in the polls, pulls off a last minute miracle victory via electronic voting machines manufactured by Bush supporters, recording votes that can't be tracked on machines that can't be audited.

So when you ask, how can the administration do this or that, see if "because the votes have already been counted" doesn't answer your question.

The only thing they really have to fear is be tossed out by Congress, but don't think your Congressperson isn't perfectly aware that their votes have already been counted, too. Why are Congressional Democrats such pansies? Because the votes have already been counted.

And like any good conspiracy, anyone who dares to expose it comes off looking like a conspiracy theorist.

This has nothing to do with the thread above, but I'd like to share it with you. Erase it if you want--I stole it from the Dawn Patrol:

A Seattle man named Stefan Merken wrote back as follows to a magazine that

had rejected one of his short stories: "Please forgive me for not accepting

your rejection letter. At this time I cannot accept a rejection of my short

story. I accept more than 99 percent of the rejections I receive. Many I

don't agree with, but I realize that accepting a piece of fiction for

publication is a very subjective judgment call. My acceptance of your

rejection letter is also a subjective process and therefore I am returning

your letter to you. I did read your leter. I read every letter I receive.

Your letter was well-written, but due to time constraints from my own

writing schedule, I am unable to make editorial comments. I do make

mistakes. Don't you, as an editor, be disheartened by this role reversal.

The road of publishing is long and tedious. You need successful

publications and I need for successful publications to print my stories. I

will expect to see my story in your next publication. Good luck in the

future."

I prefer the less wordy “Your rejection didn’t grab me, alas.”

What strikes me as a weird side-story to all this is that Pappy was head of the CIA.

Word of this must be reaching him, and he'll probably be having a serious talk with Junior. Oh, to be a fly on that wall.

Hoodathunk that I'd ever look sympathically upon a maybe-CIA operative.

Adam raises an EXTREMELY interesting and important point. One might get the feeling that information about certain levels of CIA operations-- like who given field operatives are at a given location-- might-- MIGHT-- make its way, IF NEEDED, to the President, the Vice President, MAYBE the Sec Def, CIA Director, and MAYBE the White House chief of staff, if that many people outside the Agency had a reason to know it.

You get the feeling that because Poppy was CIA Chief himself, the Company shared a little bit more than it might usually with the politicos at 1600, and THAT is why the information was readily available for the smear doctors to hand over to the Prince of Darkness.

Frightening. If we actually BELIEVE (and this adds credence to those, such as myself, who DO NOT so believe) that there is a real danger that the Al Qaedas of the world might be bargaining to acquire WMDs as we speak, then in the interest of someone's pique, the White House has just cut off a principal means of intelligence regarding those activities.

The good news (I guess) is that we are in far less real danger than the Bush Administration would like everyone to believe. The bad news, assuming I'm wrong on this, is that we really ARE being led by a four year old.

Me, I doubt Poppy has any influence with Junior at all. No more than Lear had on Goneril and Regan.

ACtually, I think Gepetto and Pinocchio works better than a King Lear reference-- for a lot of reasons. But that's just me.

I let my boss read the Nation article, and he doubts that she's high-level CIA because he's sure they'd never send an American woman to either the Far East or Mideast to glean confidential information, because the relevant figures wouldn't talk. He also says that they'd never put someon with young children in such a dangerous position. So he believes this is just posturing on the administration's part. (My boss is a liberal Republican who'd love to see W out on his ear, BTW.) I'm not knowledgeable to refute any of this. Anyone have any comments?

I don't have any specific knowledge, but I'd like to engage in some speculation. I would agree that it seems unlikely that Mrs. Plame would run a clandestine spy ring somwhere in the Middle East, and probably her life is not put in danger.

However, from the fact that, according to Corn in the Nation, she is an "energy analyst", I would deduce that she probably had ample contacts inside energy companies and access to many people, in the US and abroad, in particular in the nuclear power industry, who would probably talk freely to her. My guess is that she regularily provided the CIA with "inside scoops" from the industry. That would fit well with the fact that she was reported to be a proliferation expert.

Her ability to do this job would certainly be compromised by identifying her as a CIA operative. All the networking she has done is now for nothing, for people who might have trusted her without knowing about her job as well as for foreign contacts who might have known but now have to be wary to talk to her.

Nice point, Raven.

No question, that if you are looking worldwide for nuclear weapons, you will need some snake-eaters to jump out of airplanes and sneak across borders and such -- the kind of people (with the requisite language and cultural skills) that the CIA has had a problem recruiting in recent years. (DIA does better -- they tend to start with Special Forces types.) There are also the classic case officers that interact with "assets". Both work for the Directorate of Operations and belong to what is sometimes called the Clandestine Service.

But I have been wondering, thinking about someone working as an energy anslyst and looking for WMD's. She might be a contract analyst doing work for the Directorate of Intelligence, but the very fact that you work for the CIA is not necessarily confidential if you work for DI or DST.

No, her husband's statement sounds more like what you are saying, Raven, which would make her a slightly different kind of spy, one part agent of espionage and one part agent of influence. The information she would pass might be just as important as the information she gathered. And this kind of a "legend" would be superbly difficult and time-consuming to construct. It's a lot to blow away for a political point.

There have been some nice substantive points made here about this story. Mine were a slightly off base, but it isn't the first time or the last.

There is something about this story that bothers me. Perhaps it is Robert Novak outting Valerie Plume. He did not have to. It did not have anything significant to do with the story he was writing as Klieman points out. If she was a clandinstine operative then Novak as an experienced beltway denizen would have known what the results of publishing those 2 or three lines about her would be. The safety and the job of an innocent person would be more important to most people than a couple of lines in a newspaper story. Could Robert Novak sat at his computer and casually said "Oh well" and with malice and forethought put this woman in danger? I have serious problems with him using the "I am reporter" line he uses to wiggle off the hook if she is a clandistine operative.

And why does it appear that Wilson directing questions away from his wife? Is it because she is a clandistine operative? Or is there something else involved here?

I have googled Valerie+nuclear+energy, Plame, plame+wilson and every combination I can think of. If this person was a known factor in the nuclear energy field there is nothing about her that google can find. I did find this: http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Polonnoye/PolList.htm Polonnoye is in the Ukraine. She evidently did genealogical research on Jewish relatives that lived in Polonnoye at the time of the Holocaust. She must be Jewish. Is this information somehow significant? I do not see any significance. Plame has a 3 year old child so that means she can't be very old. 40 at best? At what point in her life would she have been an active CIA operative? Wilson has been all over the world and must be in his 60s. Is she his second wife? Is this significant?

Wilson went to Niger for the administration then turned on them like an angry dog. Why? He was anti-war and appeared in the media as an opponent to the war yet administration people trusted him enough to tap him for what looked like an unpaid, mundane assignment. Why?

And then there is the French Connection. What role did the French play in the yellowcake story and how does that fit in with Wilson's visit to Niger? Who did Wilson actually talk to in Niger? How was he convinced that Niger was not selling yellowcake to the Iraqis? Could this have anything to do with France's opposition to the war? A chronology of the events surrounding the forged documents is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2085616/. Be sure to read the last line of the post concerning where to send emails.

I know that the story can be looked at from the evil administration thugs outted a CIA operative to punish her husband angle as well so don't "Duh" me. I am just trying to look at this from all angles and am not just looking for a reason to denigrate the administration as some people do reflexively.

As an OJ expert, I enjoy real life mysteries and this story seems to me to be one. I could be wrong though.

Wilson went to Niger for the administration then turned on them like an angry dog. Why?

Presumably because they had ignored his report, embarassing the United States by publicly using bad intel.

He was anti-war and appeared in the media as an opponent to the war yet administration people trusted him enough to tap him for what looked like an unpaid, mundane assignment. Why?

I think you have this backwards chronologically. He was tapped for the assignment; at some later time he became "antiwar." Perhaps he became antiwar when he realized the war was being started based partly on a forgery?

And then there is the French Connection. What role did the French play in the yellowcake story and how does that fit in with Wilson's visit to Niger?

Niger was formerly a French colony; the forged documents were written in French. You can see some of the documents for yourself here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030716flaweddocs.html

How does it fit with Wilson's visit? I can't tell what you mean by that.

Who did Wilson actually talk to in Niger? How was he convinced that Niger was not selling yellowcake to the Iraqis?

Presumably, as a former ambassador, he knew who to speak to, and had access to those people. Part of how he was convinced that Niger wasn't selling yellowcake to Iraq was that all of the yellowcake was accounted for, going to foreign firms which weren't under the control of either Niger or Iraq. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter exactly how he determined that the story was a fake; the whole world now sees what he determined back then.

Could this have anything to do with France's opposition to the war?

Are you suggesting that France forged the documents in order to support their non-support of the war? Unlikely at best, given the chronology -- the documents existed some time prior to February 2002, since February 2002 was when Wilson went to Niger. In February 2002 there wasn't a war with Iraq; the US was winding down its war in Afghanistan, hunting Osama, and otherwise busy. They'd be no reason for France to forge the documents at that time.

As for France's overall refusal to support the war, part of it must have been that France's intelligence service had determined that Iraq didn't present a threat. Germany and Russia, two other countries with well developed and highly regarded intelligence services, apparently came to the same conclusion. This is a classic case of "what did the dog do in the night time?"

A chronology of the events surrounding the forged documents is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2085616/.

That timeline is a timeline of journalists discovering that the documents were fakes, and starts in March of this year. Here's a better timeline: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_timeline.html

The uranium story was far more that "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. Recall the declaration that Iraq produced, in multiple volumes, reporting on all their weapons programs? U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 required Iraq to provide a "currently accurate, full and complete declaration" of any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq handed over its report to the UN inspection team on December 7.

Resolution 1441 is the one we went to war to defend, right? How do we know that Iraq violated 1441? Because they failed to mention their attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger in that report.

Here's a bit from the ABC timeline:

Dec. 19, 2002

The State Department says in a fact sheet that Iraq omitted its attempts to purchase uranium from Niger in its report to United Nations on its weapons program.

Jan. 23, 2003

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publishes a piece in New York Times, "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying," and says that the declaration of weapons "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad."

Jan. 23, 2003

At the Council on Foreign Relations, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also faults the Iraqi report, saying "there is no mention of Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from abroad."

It would be surprising if the Iraqis had mentioned those efforts, since it now appears that the efforts were never made. CIA and State knew (or should have known) for nearly a year by then that the documents were forgeries.

It's a primary blunder to believe your own propaganda. It looks to me like Bush and his administration fell into that ancient trap.

The junta have of course done far viler things than this, but something about this story gives me the creeps in a way the other things (in this specific way) don't. This action doesn't resonate with the history of 20th century totalitarianism, riddled though that is with tales of shot messengers and spooks hung out to dry. These betrayals at least had reasons of state behind them.

This is different. It smells of ancient Rome. It smells of decadence, of whim and spite indulged at the expense of the safety of the state. It's the sort of thing that was done to Belissarius.

Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about the later Empire can run with this - Jo?

Either (as someone suggested upstream) Novak is setting himself up for a libel suit, or someone in the administration has committed a serious crime. The sort of thing that if you or I did it might get us labeled "enemy combatants."

Of course, the Atty. Genl. isn't about to subpoena Novak to testify about this.

The only good thing I can see about this is that BushCo are making it clearer and clearer that their idea of loyalty is "you do what you're told, and we hang you out to dry", and it's harder to recruit or keep followers once this becomes known.

I don't know whether Valerie Plame Wilson is connected with the CIA. But if she is, people at the CIA know it--and know that they're no safer than she was. And if she isn't, lots of people now know that the administration thinks "so-and-so is a CIA operative" is something to be casually mentioned to the press. If I were a government official with relatives who could possibly be labeled CIA, I'd be looking for a private sector job soonest.

There is an interesting point made over on Just One Minute that may be worth reading.

It concerns Novak's statement:

"...Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me. "

Just One Minute analyzes to the sentence "The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him." It appears that the CIA was the source of the news that Plame was a CIA operative.

Just One Minute may have a good point here that was overlooked in the rush to judgement that the administration outted Plame. Read it all here. http://justoneminute.blogspot.com

James: excellent post. Very interesting. You have set me straight on several points. There are some questions I have about what you have written that I will have to research. (I have to mop the kitchen first though.) Thanks.

Please, can we have less interesting and intelligent (and politically frightening) posts? I'm trying to earn a living. I realize that many of you may be self-employed or salaried workers, but some of us out here cannot spend up to three hours a day reading these things. It comes out of our pay. So please, can we have more stories about puppies with abnormally large ears or something? This goes for TNH, too.

Jefalen, were you being sarcastic or something?

Quite.

Except for that bit about me not making money because of this (and many other) really good websites.

But blaming the sites themselves (and their corresponding authors/contributors)? That was sarcasm ("A tool of the weak," according to A Separate Piece). In this case, it's a tool of the weak-willed: I just can't stay away.

Maybe it will turn out that the difference between Watergate and Yellowcake is that Nixon was smart enough not to mess with the CIA. If I were in the Bush administration, I would pray that no accident--however plausible--befalls Wilson or Plame in the immediate future.

No, then, as I always told upset parents when I refereed kid's basketball games, no blood no foul.

How could anyone allow you to referee kid's basketball games? Calling fouls strictly is an essential part of teaching them the game. You're not only being macho and inhumane, you're being pedagogically irresponsible.

But then, we've established in another thread that you live in a county that doesn't value humanity (in the sense of humane-ness).

Ken: Google on "Flavius Aetius" sometime.

People in the Roman Empire had a lot of civil rights on paper, and a lot of civil rights by default, mostly nobody cared.

Feudalism was actually an improvement over slavery and arbitrary power. Feudalism assumed loyalty went in both directions.

How could anyone allow you to referee kid's basketball games? Calling fouls strictly is an essential part of teaching them the game. You're not only being macho and inhumane, you're being pedagogically irresponsible.

Excuse me. Have you ever in your life refereed or coached a 3rd grade or 4th grade basketball game? I coached basketball for 10 years and refereed for 5. And your credentials are...?

If every violation in a 3rd grade basketball game was called the game would end with a 5-3 score. The game would consist of kids standing around waiting for play to resume after the ref assessed a foul. The kids are totally out of control when the season starts usually. Our league used a running clock so the kids would not playif every foul was called. They would just stand around. It is more important at lower levels for them to learn skills than to enforce hard and fast compliance to the rules. The referee has to use common sense and strike a balance between calling everything and slowing the game down to a crawl or letting the kids play while calling enough flagrant fouls to teach them. Later in the season as kids get better refs will tighten things up. Good coaches at that level know that and work with the refs in a teaching environment. It is the parents, probably like you, that are the problem. They expect every foul on their kid to be called while we are supposed to ignore those that their kid commits. This happens even after I explain to them how I am going to call the game before the game starts. I would tell them that we would be using NBA standards for calling infractions - "no blood, no foul, they could drag a foot but no 'happy-feet or running with the ball" to lower their expectations of high school or college quality refing. Kids sports would be immensely better off with parents at home. The game is supposed to be fun. It was fun for me and that's why I was committed to it for so long.

But then, we've established in another thread that you live in a county that doesn't value humanity (in the sense of humane-ness).

You have established nothing. Just because someone lives in Maricopa County makes them someone who doesn't value humanity? The governor and everyone on down in our state government will be pleased to hear that. They all live in Maricopa County. A lot of famous people live in this county as well. Do they all not value humanity as well? Or is it just me.

You paint people you do not know with a mighty broad brush. Stereotyping people based on something they have little or no control over is ignorant and in some case racist. Do you condemn people the same way based on their races or religions?

I did not say I supported the way our county treats some of its prisoners. You would be shocked to hear of the other methods our sheriff uses if those bothered you. He has about an 85% approval rating and his life is seriously threatened about one a month.

"This is different. It smells of ancient Rome. It smells of decadence, of whim and spite indulged at the expense of the safety of the state."

And even the political goals of the actors. It does indeed smell of empire in trouble--"We're aristocrats--we don't have to care." I think you're right, Ken--this isn't "a boot stamping on a human face--forever", this is a boot stamping because the owner likes hurting people and wants to make a big noise.

You have established nothing. Just because someone lives in Maricopa County makes them someone who doesn't value humanity? The governor and everyone on down in our state government will be pleased to hear that. They all live in Maricopa County. A lot of famous people live in this county as well. Do they all not value humanity as well? Or is it just me.

Uh, "Dennis"?

You do realize that you've just acknowledged being "MadJayHawk", don't you?

As a footnote to this--if the empire of the west is falling, whose century is this? Japan, China, India, ...Islam?

julia -- well, given that his name is a hyperlink to madjayhawk.blogspot.com, it's not a terribly hidden secret...

Julia,

You have outted me!! **blushing**

I use this neat little program to auto fill boxes like name, email address, etc. When the program sees the word 'name' it fills in the box with my real name which I normally change to MadJayhawk. It is annoying at times but it really saves a lot of time. The program does the same for passwords.

I have used the MadJayhawk moniker for probably 7 years while playing games on www.zone.com or participating in things like this. I went to the Univ of Kansas and lived in eastern Kansas for a number of years. And I am crazy (or Mad) most of the time. But you knew that.

Dennis, you wrote: Just because someone lives in Maricopa County makes them someone who doesn't value humanity? The governor and everyone on down in our state government will be pleased to hear that. They all live in Maricopa County. A lot of famous people live in this county as well. Do they all not value humanity as well? Or is it just me.

On the whole, I'd agree with you, that it's unfair to judge the whole population of a county by a nutty few. However, a certain MadJayHawk claimed on another thread: We have county jails here in Maricopa County that consists of army tents surrounded by high fences. The tents are not air conditioned. It is 115 degrees today. It is probably pretty grim for those used to air conditioning 24/7. The Human Rights people are not happy with this set up, however, the voters overwhelmingly are.

So you may disagree, but this MadJayHawk certainly feels that overwhelmingly, all the voters of Maricopa County are fascistically inhumane. You should take it up with him if you disagree: we're just reporting his message to you.

Dennis, you wrote: Just because someone lives in Maricopa County makes them someone who doesn't value humanity? The governor and everyone on down in our state government will be pleased to hear that. They all live in Maricopa County. A lot of famous people live in this county as well. Do they all not value humanity as well? Or is it just me.

On the whole, I'd agree with you, that it's unfair to judge the whole population of a county by a nutty few. However, a certain MadJayHawk claimed on another thread: We have county jails here in Maricopa County that consists of army tents surrounded by high fences. The tents are not air conditioned. It is 115 degrees today. It is probably pretty grim for those used to air conditioning 24/7. The Human Rights people are not happy with this set up, however, the voters overwhelmingly are.

So you may disagree, but this MadJayHawk certainly feels that overwhelmingly, all the voters of Maricopa County are fascistically inhumane. You should take it up with him if you disagree: we're just reporting his message to you.

Sorry for the double post!

Novak's column referred to her as an "Agency operative". A lot of the commentary here and elsewhere refers to her as a (possible) "CIA agent". Is there a significant distinction between "agent" and "operative" that we're missing? I have no idea; I know very little about the CIA, and most of that is wrong.

I don't think so, Keith as neither are titles that the CIA itself uses. If Novak had use some variant of the term "officer" or "analyst", both of which are used by the CIA, that might be different. Someone has told him she works for CIA, but if they told him her job, he didn't repeat it.

I just had a look at the Niger documents and noticed another error that doesn't seem to have been mentioned. The name of Iraq is spelt incorrectly -- in French, it's "Irak". So, for what it's worth, whoever wrote them was almost certainly not a native French-speaker, and therefore not likely to be a Nigerien diplomat or a French spy.

Keith, I looked for the definition of operative too. The vast majority of the references I found used the word operative to refer to clandistine or undercover agent. The articles I saw would make it clear that the person had functioned as an undercover spy during his career in the intelligence community.

I am looking forward to some clarifications about this whole thing. I was surprised to see the serious accusations based on Novak's article come raining hard and fast down on blogdom. Now the nasty accusations of political payback and worse have been made and so many people are hanging out there with monumental conspiracy accusations I hope whether Plame is an undercover agent who has been compromised is either authoritatively confirmed or denied quickly.

Plame's current CIA status seems to be the basis for all the controversy. To me what her status actually is is unclear. The job title of operative that Novak uses does not help clear things up for me.

It seems Novak was trying to use that Plame was a CIA employee to explain why the CIA went to her to recruit Wilson for the controversial trip to Niger. Perhaps Novak had simply asked the administration officials in the CIA why and how Wilson was selected to go to Niger (because that was what the article was about *) and they told him that they had determined that Wilson was the right guy to go that since his wife worked for the CIA and they asked her to ask him to go. If Plame is not an undercover employee what is the harm here?

If the government officials that gave Novak the information about Plame were CIA employees as the story seems to say, they outted their own employee if, of course, she was an undercover employee to begin with. The CIA outting one of their own sounds somewhat implausible.

* The story begins with this:

"The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. "

Those doubting Valerie Plame's (formerly) undercover status should reread Corn's article.

Wilson basically says she was, and that this is a massive betrayal. Corn says Plame's public status was "an energy analyst for a private firm." I don't think either of them would make such claims if they were not verifiably true.

I just had a look at the Niger documents and noticed another error that doesn't seem to have been mentioned. The name of Iraq is spelt incorrectly -- in French, it's "Irak". So, for what it's worth, whoever wrote them was almost certainly not a native French-speaker, and therefore not likely to be a Nigerien diplomat or a French spy.

That is really interesting David. The history of that document is fascinating. Whoever forged it and tried to pass it off as authentic did not take much effort to insure it would get past a knowledgeable person. It seems that if someone were buying this document as proof of Iraqi uranium purchases they would try to authenicate it first like most 12 year olds do (or should do) when they buy expensive baseball cards.

Madjayhawk writes:

I thought that the days when many of the principals in the Paula Jones case just happened to get audited by the IRS were behind us.

Got a source, other than some right-wing birdcage liner?

So bitter, so much in denial, so ignorant about how to use Google.

Is something from a left-wing birdcage liner good enough? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/stories/pj091597.htm
this site has mention of a New York Post article about the audits. http://www.inlandrevenue.org/irsiss10.html I cannot find the NYP article. I can't tell if this site meets your left-wing birdcage liner requirements.

Need a good laugh: http://www.paulbacon.com/politics/integritizer/The-Weekly-Standard-Magazine.htm This shows why Dave Letterman and Jay Leno really miss Bill Clinton.

The ShrubCo administration is choosing to fight its battles on very low terrain, which tells me that they are already conceding that they are in trouble.

Isn't the IRS under congress's control, not the president's? How could a sitting president get the IRS to audit his enemies, especially with a hostile congress?

Isn't the IRS under congress's control, not the president's? How could a sitting president get the IRS to audit his enemies, especially with a hostile congress?
The President could pick up a phone, call the director of the IRS and "suggest" that it is time for so-and-so to get an audit. Nixon, I believe, did this a lot. LBJ might have too. Someone in the White House, during the wonderful years we were privileged to have the former governor of Arkansas as president, called up the FBI and asked them to illegally send over a few, maybe a 1000, files on various Republicans. If the WH says jump usually everyone in the administration asks how high no matter if it is legal or not. There are ways to get things done. It is the big leagues and they play hardball. All administrations all do or did. Like in basketball, if you play inside with the big boys, expect an elbow or two to come your way.

Yonmei: thank you. That's exactly what I was referring to.

My 'we', of course you know, was exclusive; MJH has admitted that his fellow citizens of Maricopa County overwhelmingly support things which I and others, notably not including MJH, believe are fascistically inhumane.

I remember during the Watergate era, all the Nixonites were saying "So, Democrats all did the same thing, they just didn't get caught." It was a lie then and it's a lie now. (Well, LBJ might have. That guy was a dirty underhanded playa...as anyone who knows about the 'pigfucker' incident cannot deny.)

There are a lot of good reasons why GW Bush should be impeached, but perhaps the best one is that anybody dumb enough to pick a fight with the CIA isn't qualified to be President...

There's a new story, with a background confirmation of Plame's role at the CIA, at

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-uscia0722,0,6160519.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

"A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger."

The Newsday story is interesting in the fact that it definitely says Plame was an undercover agent meanwhile her husband keeps using the words "IF what the two senior administration officials said is true" as does the article by saying this "IF their description of her employment was accurate". There is still hedging going on about Plame's employment status. Then there is also the discrepancy of Wilson saying his wife had no role in the matter and the CIA saying they asked her to speak to him.

Newsday:"A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger"

Time: In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case,"

So there are some loose ends to this story. I am going to reserve judgement on assigning motive and maliciousness and criminality until there are more facts on the table. Wilson acts like a wacko to me and there is something about this whole thing has an odor. Why would a CIA official come out and confirm her status in the agency? Were the two senior administration officials that originally talked to Novak from the CIA? The CIA has internal problems and apparent problems with the White House that might be related to this. (CIA problems with the WH go back to the wonderful, fantastic Clinton years - remember the bombing of the aspirn factory and the Chinese embassy?)

I'm going to wait and keep an eye on this story. It will be interesting when some substantive reporting by the NYT or WP is done. The Newsday article clarified some things but not everything for me. Somebody really needs to dig into this story. After Novak's story last week we have had stories by Time, NBC, and now Newsday. I discount Korn's anti-Bush screed in the Nation as being a serious news story. He more or less picked up on Novak's story and put in a bunch of "if-then" sentences designed to produce a negative Bush story. It will be interesting to see how this story evolves during the next couple of weeks. Is it on the media's radar yet? Maybe when they get through with beating those 14 words to death, this will be next up on their crisis-a-week agenda.

CIA org chart here: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/ciaorg.htm

Articles about problems within the CIA Directorate of Operations: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/9805lett.htm http://www.nap.edu/issues/18.2/goodman.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/04/980410-cia.htm

MJH writes: "Then there is also the discrepancy of Wilson saying his wife had no role in the matter and the CIA saying they asked her to speak to him."

I think Wilson was referring to a suggestion that his wife had a *driving* role in the decision process leading to his selection, and perhaps an implication that perhaps he was selected for the job despite there being better candidates.

(I can't imagine what *other* reason there could be for the White House to bring up his wife to Novak in this context. It really seems like a non sequitur. Why bring it up? How is it relevant? Never mind that it's a bit pathetic for this White House to be accusing someone of having gotten a job due to family connections!)

Anyway, that would be a very active role in the decision process, as opposed to the very passive role of not taking a role in the actual decision process, and just passing a message along after the decision was made.

To illustrate, it's the difference between "Kill my husband" and "Tell your husband he is going to be killed". Big difference.

MJH: Wilson acts like a wacko to me and there is something about this whole thing has an odor.

It's true he's probably a Democrat, but he's got a hell of a good CV for someone who's a "whacko." Take a look at:

http://www.ihc.ucsb.edu/events/past/winter03/wilson/

Some highlights:

"Ambassador Wilson holds the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Award, the Department of State Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards, the University of California, Santa Barbara Distinguished Alumnus Award, and the American Foreign Service Association William R. Rivkin Award. Additionally, he has been decorated as a Commander in the Order of the Equatorial Star by the Government of Gabon and as an Admiral in the El Paso Navy by the El Paso County Commissioners."

"Ambassador Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. His early assignments included Niamey, Niger, 1976-1978; Lome, Togo, 1978-79; the State Department Bureau of African Affairs, 1979-1981; and Pretoria, South Africa, 1981-1982."

As for the odor... It wasn't the CIA who outed their agent. It wasn't her husband. It was the Whitehouse. I don't know how you get around that simple fact. That is a thing that is Not Done. Period. End of sentence. The fact that it has been done, and by the Whitehouse, reeks of abuse of power. Whatever else may or may not be wrong here, that alone should be enough to make people fear the President. Which, I would guess, is the point. The message being given is, "We will stop at nothing."

As for those 16 words: I do not understand how it is possible for anyone to think that it is unimportant if the president lies about a casus belli. Not that it hasn't been done before, but when I was taught it in history, the text book made it clear that this was not America's finest hour -- though I think they tried to pin the blame primarily on yellow journalism, or some such.

If he is willing to lie about something that important (and I think that nuclear weapons are about as important as things come), then what else is he willing to lie about? If he's willing to out an agent, for whatever reason, what lengths will he go to?

Find me a benign explanation that fits the facts. I can't see one.

Why would a CIA official come out and confirm her status in the agency?

Possibly under orders from her superiors, who are pissed at the White House for outing her and therefore losing the CIA a valuable operative. I would imagine that she wouldn't confirm her status in the agency publicly unless her superiors had admitted to her that since the White House already leaked her status, it's known, therefore she need no longer conceal it since she can no longer be a CIA operative.

I have to agree with whoever it was (further up) that said it took a really dumb President to pick a fight with the CIA. Taking out Presidents is one thing the CIA are good at - they've done it to more democratically-elected Presidents than Bush....

Why would a CIA official come out and confirm her status in the agency?

Possibly under orders from her superiors, who are pissed at the White House for outing her and therefore losing the CIA a valuable operative. I would imagine that she wouldn't confirm her status in the agency publicly unless her superiors had admitted to her that since the White House already leaked her status, it's known, therefore she need no longer conceal it since she can no longer be a CIA operative.

I have to agree with whoever it was (further up) that said it took a really dumb President to pick a fight with the CIA. Taking out Presidents is one thing the CIA are good at - they've done it to more democratically-elected Presidents than Bush....

Damn! Sorry about the double post - not sure how it happened...

MadJayHawk, if you don't stop throwing in completely off-topic remarks about Clinton's peccadillos (real or alleged) whenever you feel like you're losing ground in some unrelated argument, I'm going to start taking the vowels out of 'em. Seriously. They're tacky. They're also too much of a temptation to talk about the rank hypocrisy and political opportunism of his accusers, many of whom are known to have far gamier sex lives than Clinton. And then there's the matter of Paula Jones's and Monica Lewinsky's health, which as far as I know is excellent; as opposed to (say) Pfc. Lori Penistewa's, which is nonexistent.

But as I'm sure you can see, that would be a digression; and so we aren't going to do it.

[spelling nitpick] Piestawa [/spelling nitpick].

Teresa,

I am more than willing to ignore the facts about former President Clinton. It extremely is hard to do that when other posters say stupid, tacky, and unrelated things about President Bush who more than likely does not have a gamier sex life than Clinton. Not many people do. If they did it is none of our business unless they commit a crime.

I get tired of seeing anti-Bush BS and it brings out the deep-seated simmering hatred and anger I have in me. When someone says something like Bush is a moron or a Nazi, I do my best to stay on topic. There are trolls on this thread that try to redirect the discussion to something I said that is an example or even on another thread. Conditions in Maricopa County prisons are something I mentioned as an side comment in a discussion about prisons in Iraq and someone thought it somehow appropriate to make a personal attack on me about it in this thread. I should have ignored it.

I made a comment that included the old sports cliche 'no blood and no foul' and someone literally personally attacks me about me being a bad referee because I used that term. Talk about off topic. I was not talking about basketball refereeing at all until they showed up with a nasty personal comment about something they did not know anything about. I should have ignored it too.

My comment about Jones was totally in the context of the discussion about whether there was payback in Washington DC. She was audited by the IRS and did accuse the administration of engineering it. I did not pass judgement in that post about the Clinton/Jones lawsuit. (My opinion of it might surprise you.) Nor did I bring it up because I was losing an argument. I just pointed that out as a possible case of payback. I mentioned Nixon and LBJ in the same post. It was a legimate comment and not a comment about our wonderful former President. An uptight poster took offense to me saying anything about Jones evidently and asked me in a nasty tone of voice to prove my comment, which I did. Is Googling a foreign concept, not taught in college or elementary schools?

It seems that most people in threads on this blog want everyone to think exactly like they do. If someone appears to be conservative then they become a target for nasty personal comments. If people cannot respect everyone's viewpoint then they shouldn't be here. I honestly try to discuss the topic at hand. Sometimes I get my facts wrong or am looking at things the wrong way. I do not have all the answers but there are people here that think that they do and want me to shut up because I do not agree with their point of view - antiBush. I take it as a compliment. I must be saying something more provocative that the usual snide, disparaging, and intellectually backslapping type of remark that sometimes passes as a worthwhile post here.

It seems to me that if it is okay to call the current President of the United States a moron or a liar or a Nazi or unelected, then it is fair to point out a few actual facts about former President Clinton. However, if Clinton is off limits on this blog, what can I say? It is your blog. Please note if I mention Clinton I do not usually bring up his problems with women and sex because I have heard that silly canard from the left about the right being sex crazed so many times I do not wish to get into that discussion again. I am not sex crazed and I could care less what the man did in his personal life.

I thought the article in the Weekly Standard that I ran across was funny and thought others from either party might enjoy reading it. They had a choice whether they read it or not. I did not cut and paste it. BTW, I will remember Lori Piestewa and the sacrifice she and her family made every time I drive into Phoenix and see Piestewa Peak looming in the distance. Personal sacrifice for one's country certainly isn't what I think about when I see Jones's or Lewinsky's name.

I think you and Patrick have a great blog going here. It has interesting topics and most of the people making comments seem to enjoy a good discussion. I have learned a lot from them and enjoy the challenges of being a fish out of water. I will constructively try to add to it.

MJH: It seems to me that if it is okay to call the current President of the United States a moron or a liar or a Nazi or unelected, then it is fair to point out a few actual facts about former President Clinton.

Calling Bush a Nazi is, I agree, out of bounds. While Ashcrfoft's tendencies are totalitarian, totalitarianism does not a Nazi make. Liar, now, Bush is a liar. The facts add up against him in the instance of the SOTUS. There are other likely lies, but they are not so well documented. Moron? It's hard to tell. There were days it was hard to tell that Reagan had Alzheimer's, too. Presidents have enough minders and keepers that it's possible Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I personally would 't bet on it. That "just folks" persona is great for getting oneself underestimated.

As for unelected, he was. We don't know if Bush won or lost Florida because we weren't allowed to count the votes according to Florida Law. The Supreme Court found in favor of Bush without good election results to support them. An uncomfortable fact, or even a frightening one, but he didn't win by getting all the votes counted. He won in court.

Clinton did things that people find horrifying and offensive. Mostly, they didn't bother me because they didn't seem to have much to do with running the government. No matter what Clinton did, though, has nothing to do with what Bush has done. If you can get your knickers in a twist about lying about a blowjob, how can you not get bent out of shape when the POTUS lies about major affairs of state and foreign policy? I can't see how they're related, actually. All lies are not equal. Andc it's not Clinton who's in the white house at the moment, and so any past judgments of him aren't relevant. Right now, I'm evaluating and passing judgment on the guy who's got his finger on the trigger. Clinton is a thousand years ago. Even assuming you could make an argument showing how all this is Clinton's fault (and you can't) that doesn't change the central problem, which is Bush is in charge and I think that the way he's been handling foreign policy is terrifying and dangerous, and I really didn't want to get blow up until I was 90 or 100. So I don't propose to take my eye off the ball (Bush) to watch the instant replay (Clinton). No time.

Yonmei: Taking out Presidents is one thing the CIA are good at - they've done it to more democratically-elected Presidents than Bush....

Kennedy was more democratically elected than Bush only in the sense that that Richard Daley was democratically elected as mayor of Chicago, whereas the Supreme Court is appointed.

(Besides, it's still not clear whether Oswald was working for the CIA, the Mafia, or the Bavarian Illuminati.)

Alan, I assumed Yonmei was talking about Presidents of other countries.

I also assumed "more" was comparing the quantities of Presidents the CIA and Bush have respectively taken out, rather than modifying "democratically-elected".

But now I'm getting a verbal equivalent of one of those one-way-or-the-other optical illusions from Yonmei's post.

Either way, pissing off the CIA doesn't strike me as a good idea.

I'm sort of getting tired of the myth that Richard Daley threw the 1960 election to JFK. It is possible--even likely--that Daley cooked the books in Chicago to give JFK victory on Illinois, but it is not certain. And even if it were true, Kennedy still would have won the election. JFK won the election by 84 electoral votes overall; Illinois at the time had only 27 votes. If it had gone to Nixon, Kennedy would have won by 30 votes.

84 - 27 = 30?

I know the electoral college is strange, but does it really count like that, so that votes for the other guy subtract twice from your total?

No, Graydon, the math works. There was an 84-vote margin. Take away 27 votes from the winner and give them to the loser, and that reduces the margin by 2x27=54. 84-54=30. QED.

Duh.

Right. Margin.

Sigh.

I always thought it was interesting and amusing to think that if Gore had won New Hampshire he would have won the election by 270-267 no matter what happened in FL. So much attention was focused on FL everyone thinks that it decided the election. Of course it played a part, but there were other states like NH, where Gore did not campaign, that played just a big of a part in a very close election. In NH Bush won only by 7,300 votes. All the neighboring states went for Gore. The fact that Nader had 22,000 votes in NH points out a serious problem for the Democrats if Nader steps into the picture again in 2004. Most of those 22,000 votes would have gone for Gore. It was Nader that cost Gore FL's electoral votes as well. Nader had 97,000 votes in FL. Just 5% of those 97,000 votes would have given Gore a victory and there would not have been the spectacle there was. Nader came close to being a factor in NV, MO, and OH as well. Gore won in NM and OR but Nader made it close in those states. Saying that the USSC gave Bush the election makes nice partisan campaign rhetoric but it isn't true. Gore gave Bush the election. Bush worked hard to earn it but the election was Gore's to lose and he lost it.

Gore didn't even win his "home" state of Tenessee (winning TN would have given him enough electoral votes to win too). Even McGovern won his home state. Dukasis won his home state. Gore didn't win Clinton's "home" state of Arkansas either. Blaming the USSC is a way to ignore the fact that the Democrats nominated someone who was the best qualified to be president but did not have the ability to run a campaign to get him the job. I think like that Gore ran the worst campaign in modern history right after Bush 41's 1992 campaign.

Gore should have realized what Bush's strategy was and the threat that Nader posed to him. Nader was 5000 pound gorilla on Gore's back. Bush had similar problems that the wacko wing of his party always poses and took care of them early. Gore more or less ignored his wacko wing and it cost him the presidency. Either he got bad advice or this was a good example of one his main character flaws.

Because it seems even after 3 years that most hard core Democrats are still reliving Gore's FL debacle they might have a hard time focusing on what needs to be done for them to win in 2004. Negativity and having Nader running will not win for them. The FL is over and complaining about chads, butterfly ballots, not counting votes etc. 24/7 will not accomplishing anything positive for the Democrats. Bush has a huge amount of money and the Presidency. The Dems need to get Nader out of the picture, find a positive non-self-serving role for the Clintons, and nominate a good solid candidate that can pull everyone together to overcome that. They are in trouble, deep trouble at this point in my opinion.

MadJayHawk, your points sound very good (I don't know enough about political strategy to judge).

But what does any of that have to do with Bush's administration exposing CIA agents for political gain?

Nothing, we have beaten the main subject to death and are waiting for Patrick to come back and provide us with something else to chew on. In the meantime I took the opportunity provided by some previous posters' comments on the previous election to offer my astute opinions about it. A discussion door opens a little and I will walk in with my opinions. You are welcome to ignore it.

Let me take this opportunity, then, to recommend all of the followups which both Mark Kleiman and Tom Maguire have made to their original posts on the subject. Between the two of them, I think they've largely beaten the subject to death, absent additional information (which ought to come soon, no?).

I just tried to read Kleiman and it looks like he is getting almost desperate to find something that points to the White House that will call for at least a congressional hearing. He has used up a year's worth of "ifs" and "maybes" in his ruminations about this incident.

Kleiman knows, as anyone who has seriously looked into the story, that Plame's actual real life employment status at the CIA is the real key to the entire story. We, I feel as does Kleiman, do not know that at this point with absolute certainity. Once that is known we can legitimately call the motives and actions of others involved into question. Without that information about her actual employment status we are just guessing about a lot of things. My list of questions would include: job title, job duties, length of service, undercover or not, desk or field, etc.

And who are the senior administration officals? If they were CIA then the next sentence Novak writes in that paragraph makes sense. The request for this mission came out of the WH, however they did not know who was selected to carry it out. That decision rested with the CIA. If Novak was writing about how the CIA chose Wilson he would go to CIA oficials and not to the WH. The WH would probably refer him back to the CIA where the decision to send Wilson was made if he had done that. So, did the CIA out Plame? Unlikely.

It is interesting how quickly the engines of Bush hatred got revved up and rolling at the mere mention of scandal with every kind of off-the-wall, semi-plausible scenario imaginable. Kleiman isn't above that type of jumping-to-conclusions blogging himself. Apparently he is going to blame the White House of something no matter if they are guilty or not. He seems to be torturing himself with this story. He has put out quite a few false or misleading statements about it that others have picked up on. Like he said that the WH did not deny the story. They have.

that Plame's actual real life employment status at the CIA is the real key to the entire story

Not really. The key is which "senior official" told Novak Plame was a CIA operative. If Plame is a CIA operative then said official is guilty of a felony. If Plame isn't an operative then said official is guilty of irresponsibly spreading disinformation which could damage Plame's career, endanger her life, and possibly impair future CIA investigations. The first is a felony; the second is grounds for a civil suit. What Plame actually does is only relevant in determining the gravity of this leak.

Novak, much as I might disagree with him, is usually a careful writer. When he wrote "senior administration officials," I suspect that's what he meant; it's common journalistic jargon for White House officials usually at the deputy level or higher, or so I understand. Anyway, you're right. We don't know enough about these matters. That's why they need to be investigated further.

To continue the digression a bit...

In NH Bush won only by 7,300 votes. All the neighboring states went for Gore. The fact that Nader had 22,000 votes in NH points out a serious problem for the Democrats if Nader steps into the picture again in 2004.

As it happens, I live in New Hampshire. Having Vermont and Massachusetts go Democrat is no very big surprise, and Maine swings both ways. New Hampshire is a strongly conservative, strongly Republican state.

In 1996, Clinton won New Hampshire with 49% of the vote, 47,402,357 to 39,198,755. But consider that Perot siphoned off over eight million votes, and those votes didn't come from the left.

The same thing happened in 1992 -- Clinton and Bush were nearly in a dead heat, with 209,040 and 202,484 votes respectively -- while Perot pulled 121,337 votes. Most of them would have likely been Bush's had Perot not been on the ballot.

Before that you'd have to go back to 1964, to Johnson v. Goldwater, for New Hampshire to give its electorial votes to a Democrat, and before that to 1944 and FDR. In the last century New Hampshire went Democrat just eight times out of twenty-five possible: twice for Wilson, three times for Roosevelt, once for Johnson, and twice for Clinton.

Did Nader's 22,000 votes in 2000 come from Gore? It's just as likely they were Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Bush. What the 2000 election did was marginalize the Greens. You've seen their high-water mark as a party in the US, when they picked up the a-plague-on-both-your-houses vote. In 2004 you'll see every hand turned against them.

James:

I will comment on your digression. You made some good points.

Gore talked a lot about saving the environment, but I always felt like he was doing it out of one side of his mouth. The Greens must have felt the same way. One of the big problems that the Greens had with Gore were his comments about the huge WTI incinerator in Ohio. This article, which I admit sounds partisan, explains the Nader vote in NH as a reaction to what Gore had said about the WTI project.

"WTI hazardous-waste incinerator (world's largest) in East Liverpool, Ohio. Gore promised voters in 1992 that a Democratic administration would kill it. It was a double lie. First, Carol Browner's EPA almost immediately gave the incinerator a permit. When confronted on his broken pledge, Gore said the decision had been pre-empted by the outgoing Bush crowd. This too was a lie,... You can certainly argue that the last-minute disclosure of Gore's WTI lies prompted enough Greens to stay firm and cost him New Hampshire, a state which, with Oregon, would have given Gore the necessary 270 votes"

The entire article, which is interesting as well as somewhat shrill, can be found at http://www.commondreams.org/views/110900-105.htm. The original article is from a website called Counterpunch.

If you are from NH then you would have a better idea about the motivation of Nader voters than I would. I would imagine that if a Republican was not happy with voting for Bush he/she would have stayed home or skipped the Presidential part of the election rather than vote for someone like Nader. In Republican NH an unhappy Bush voter with a strong conscience would have been more likely to stay home because he/she knew his vote wouldn't cause the Republicans problems.

I was not that happy with Bush myself in 2000 (being from AZ I dislike McCain so this left me few choices) and only the fear of having someone like Gore in office led me to vote for Bush. I would have never have voted for Nader even though I am environmentalist.

I look at a vote for Nader as a vote by those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Gore rather than, as you say, as a vote by those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Bush.

I think that maybe 20%-30% of Ross Perot's vote was Democratic. He had a wider appeal than Nader did. Not everyone thought Bill Clinton walked on water in 1992 or 1996. He only got 43% of the vote in 1992 so there were quite a few Democrats going for Perot. I lived in KS at the time and knew lots of people who voted for him. I no longer speak to any of them. Just kidding, of course.

that Plame's actual real life employment status at the CIA is the real key to the entire story

Not really. The key is which "senior official" told Novak Plame was a CIA operative. If Plame is a CIA operative then said official is guilty of a felony. If Plame isn't an operative then said official is guilty of irresponsibly spreading disinformation which could damage Plame's career, endanger her life, and possibly impair future CIA investigations. The first is a felony; the second is grounds for a civil suit. What Plame actually does is only relevant in determining the gravity of this leak.

Novak said "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." If she is not a CIA undercover operative, how can this sentence harm Plame or the CIA in anyway? If she is a CIA undercover operative whose identity is protected by the law, then it is possible that the law has been broken. That is why I say it is imperative to firmly nail down Plame's actual employment status before engaging in wild and unnecessary speculation. It does not matter which senior administration official said she was an operative unless the law has been broken.

Dennis, what "matters" depends on who you are and what question you're trying to find an answer to.

If you're a Federal prosecutor, deciding whether to investigate a possible felony, then, yes, the first question is "was Valeria Plame an undercover CIA agent"? If she was, then you investigate where the leak came from; if not, you move on to the other cases on your desk.

Those of us who are not federal prosecutors are rather interested in what our elected officials and their staff may be doing to silence informed critics. If they're committing felonies, that's pretty shocking (on the level of Watergate, except the Watergate burglars didn't do anything to impair our national security). If they're merely making false allegations to try to make their critics look bad, that's still pretty reprehensible.

So to me, the first question is "Who told Novak what?". As a second priority (to me), I hope a Federal prosecutor is investigating whether Novak's informants committed a felony.

The WTI in Ohio? That wasn't even on the radar here in New Hampshire.

What was on the radar was Clinton/Gore and their forestry policies that cost New Hampshire jobs. The Clinton forestry requirements, aimed at protecting old-growth forests out west, were nonsensical in the northeast where every acre of timberland has been logged over two or three times. The requirement that people who wanted to hike in the White Mountains buy a federal tax stamp was also vastly unpopular. Those two things hurt Gore a lot.

The big turnout for the Greens wasn't an affirmation of the Green position. No one thought Nader had a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. A vote for Nader was a vote for None Of The Above. Rather than staying home, I see disaffected Republicans trying to send the message "Give us something better next time."

===

New subject ... you ask "If [Plame] is not a CIA undercover operative, how can this sentence harm Plame or the CIA in any way?"

Ask yourself this: how many of her foreign contacts will speak freely with her now? How many of them might now refuse to speak with her at all? How many might find their own jobs or lives in danger because they were seen with her in the past?

How many, here or abroad, will now take her advice? The question in her collegues' minds will always be, "Is this advice the opinion of an expert, or is it a plant by the CIA?"

I see her job effectiveness, indeed her employability, negatively affected by this apparent revelation.

James/Dennis: the other part of the Nader-in-NH equation is how many people voted. Much as I despise Nader's attitude, I have to acknowledge that the nationwide fraction of eligible people who actually voted went up in 2000 -- not enough (from the rough figures I've seen) to account for all of the Nader & Buchanan votes (even when allowing for a steady downward trend in participation).

I'm not as sanguine as James about the fading of the Greens; too many of them seem to have a weak acquaintance with reality -- as in, this is a winner-take-all system in which getting even double-digit percentages is meaningless. Changing that would be a Good Thing -- hell, I'd settle for "instant-runoff" balloting -- but would require working within the system.