Sgt. Kevin Benderman

We'll start out this Friday night with Elaine's work at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude where she's filling for Rebecca:

Sgt. Kevin Benderman
Day three. I want to thank C.I. who is on the phone with me and has been a huge help. I want to thank everyone who's written via common_ills@yahoo.com. I think I've replied to every e-mail. Rebecca didn't give me the password for the e-mail to this site. Mike said some nice words in his post today and thank you for that, Mike.
I've got two things tonight. At the bottom is another peace quote. Before that, I'm posting something in full. I didn't write this and I'm not attempting to claim credit for it. I found it at Not In Our Name which is a great organization.
I'm posting it in full. If I'm asked to take it down, I will do so and put it up in a small excerpt but today is July 21st and, as you will see when you read it, there's not a great deal of time. I'll probably hit on this tomorrow as well.
This is by Monica Benderman and it's entitled "One Soldier’s Fight to Legalize Morality: Army Sgt. and conscientious objector Kevin Benderman to face court martial July 28:"
On July 28, 2005, in a small non-descript courtroom on Ft. Stewart, Georgia, a Courts Martial is scheduled to begin. Again. One Army NCO who decided that he had no choice but to make a conscious choice NOT to return to war is being put on trial for caring about humanity.
This soldier fulfilled his commitment, he kept his promise to his enlisted contract, and when ordered to deploy to Iraq at the start of the invasion, he went, not because he wanted to "kill Iraqis" or "destroy terrorist cells," but because he wanted the soldiers he served with to come home safely. He returned knowing that war is wrong, the most dehumanizing creation of humanity that exists. He saw war destroy civilians, innocent men, women and children. He saw war destroy homes, relationships and a country. He saw this not only in the country that was invaded, but he saw this happening to the invading country as well – and he knew that the only way to save those soldiers was for people to no longer participate in war. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a Conscientious Objector to war, and the Army is mad.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman, after serving one tour of duty in Iraq, filed for Conscientious Objector status, his Constitutional right. His commander refused to accept his application and one called him a coward. One chaplain was ashamed of his lack of moral fortitude, another, of higher rank, testified to the true sincerity of Sgt. Benderman’s beliefs, in writing. A military intelligence officer decided that he knew matters of the soul better than a man of God, and recommended to deny the CO claim. Five commissioned officers who had never met Sgt. Benderman agreed with the "intelligent officer" and the claim was denied, twice.
More than two weeks after my husband was placed in the Rear Detachment unit here at Ft. Stewart, charges of Missing Movement and Desertion were filed against him, even though he has never missed a single day of duty in almost ten years. At the first Courts Martial proceedings, the investigative hearing was over turned. According to the judge's decision, the presiding officer had shown implied bias toward Sgt. Benderman, and a new hearing was ordered. As the session adjourned, the same command that brought the first charges were marching up the aisle in the courtroom to file a new charge, Larceny, against Sgt. Benderman. The command that brought the charge, had erroneously ordered combat pay to be paid to Sgt. Benderman, along with 7 other soldiers in their unit. Rather than accept their responsibility for the error, these leaders chose to punish Sgt. Benderman for the mistake, and have yet to discipline any of the remaining soldiers for the officers' gaffe.
The new investigating officer strongly recommended dismissing this larceny charge, but the convening authority, Ft. Stewart’s garrison commander, pressed on and filed the charges anyway, along with desertion and missing movement. The Courts Martial is scheduled to begin on July 28. The games began in January.
At the conclusion of the first hearing, I returned to the courtroom briefly for some things I had forgotten. The lights were dimmed, and no one was there. This small dark room, vintage WW II, had a reverent calm. Desks and chairs sat waiting, slightly turned, empty jurist panel, attorney’s podium – the stage had been set. I look back on it now, and the feeling is strangely surreal.
Last week we learned that the United States Supreme Court allows itself to keep the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of its chambers, as a testimony to another form of law. The guardian of the Constitution of our country, presiding over the human rights of our people, maintains that the Ten Commandments, religious context aside, represent a form of law that is powerful enough to occupy a place in its chambers.
In a small, quiet courtroom, on the Ft. Stewart military installation, the stage is set. One soldier who, after firsthand experience with the destructive force of war, decided to take the Ten Commandments at their word – "Thou Shall Not Kill" – and use the rights given to him to declare his conscious objection to war, to no longer be in a position to voluntarily have to kill another human being, is now on trial for not wanting to kill.
The Army has removed itself so completely from its moral responsibility, that its representatives are willing to openly demand, in a court of law, that they be allowed to regain "positive control over this soldier" by finding him guilty of crimes he did not commit, and put him in jail – a prisoner of conscience, for daring to obey a moral law.
It is "hard work" to face the truth, and it is scary when people who are not afraid to face it begin to speak out. Someone once said that my husband's case is a question of morality over legality. I pray that this country has not gone so far over the edge that the two are so distinctly different that we can tell them apart.
A sixteen year old in New York, was charged with involuntary manslaughter yesterday for stabbing another teen in the chest twice, over a computer game. There is no question of why. He broke a law – a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill."After seeing war firsthand, Sgt. Kevin Benderman chose to follow a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill." A form of law significant enough to be represented on the walls of our Supreme Court. The US Army cannot let him go. I have to ask – "WHY?"
Sgt. Kevin Benderman is stationed at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.
He has served on combat tour in Iraq. After seeing war firsthand, he made the decision to file for Conscientious Objector status in December 2004. His command refused the request, and filed charges of Missing Movement and Desertion against him. They have since added a charge of Larceny.
Sgt. Benderman is scheduled to face a second attempt at Court Martial for these charges on July 28, 2005 and Ft. Stewart.
Please try to pass that on.-- Elaine
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
Thomas Edison

All the flag waving, support our troops spouting, fright wingers turn their heads and ignore this.
July 28th is next week. The media may not tell you about this. You heard it here and that's something but you need to take it to people you know so that they know about it too.

As for Elaine's thanks for my kind words, right back at you!

One thing that I want to note from Democracy Now! is this:

Did Rove and Libby Mislead Investigators in CIA Leak?
The Bloomberg News Agency is reporting that the two figures at the center of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame may have intentionally misled investigators. The agency says that President Bush's senior advisor Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby both gave accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said. Libby told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned Plame's identity from NBC News reporter Tim Russert. Bloomberg says Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity. Rove, meanwhile, told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak. But Bloomberg cites a source saying that Novak has given a different version to the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.

Becky e-mailed to thank everyone for their advice. She's thinking it over and will be attempting to talk to her boyfriend tonight on the phone. She says she'll e-mail tomorrow to say how things are going.

What's My Name Fool?

First off, Dad told me I better recommend C.I.'s "NYT: Nobody Fluffs It Better than Bumiller." Dad says he laughed all day thinking about that so do yourself a favor, click the link and grab a chuckle as C.I. explains why Bumiller is the squad leader of the Elite Fluff Patrol.

Second off, Rebecca's taking a vacation and while she's gone, a friend of her's is filling in for her.
Elaine's filling in and she's doing a great job. So far she's offered a peace quote each day and I hope she continues to do that because I'm really enjoying it.

Now I want to share something from Democracy Now!:

London Mayor Blames Western Policy for London Bombs
The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that western foreign policy has fuelled the Islamist radicalism behind the July 7 London bomb attacks. In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Livingstone said: "You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavory governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic." Livingstone continued, "I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan. They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators." Livingstone also blasted the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the US prison camp at Guantanamo. An opinion poll this week showed two-thirds of Britons see a connection between the Iraq occupation and the bombings.

Shows you that the British people are a lot smarter than their leader Tony Blair and a lot smarter than most of us have been in this country.

Now let's go to the e-mails. Yesterday, I told you about Becky's problem and asked if you had any thoughts or advice. Here's what stood out.

Greg says pour the honey on him and start licking because maybe he'll hate it and stop doing it to you. Lenny says just tell him to knock it off. Starla says Becky's problem's not so big and that when it's dealt with "have I got a real problem, a real one, for you." Joe says that since Becky says it tickles sometimes, she should move her leg real quick and knock her boyfriend's nose and "that'll make him stop." Ellen says she should tell him this isn't working for him.

This time, I'm with Ellen. This isn't about a haircut or an odor that somebody's going to worry about forever. This is about something that can easily be changed. Tell him it's annoying you, not exciting you. You can say that it was fun at first if you want. You can even say that being summer, it's too hot outside to enjoy. But let him know that you're not enjoying it.

Now I want to talk about this great story Amy Goodman had today called "What's My Name, Fool?: Sports and Resistance in the United States." Dave Zirin was the guest and he wrote the book on sports. I listened online via WBIA because I had the day off from school and work and because Jonah's been sharing at The Common Ills that Democracy Now! is two hours long on WBAI this week because it's pledge week.

So you got two hours with Dave and he is just so smart and Goodman's so great at what she does that if you go to the link for the story you still won't be able to picture out how great it was.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's go back to another clip of When We Were Kings. Muhammad Ali was known as an anti-war symbol to some. This is a news clip from that film.
NEWS CLIP: Cassius Clay, at a federal court in Houston, is found guilty of violating the U.S. Selective Service laws by refusing to be inducted. He is sentenced to five years in prison and fined $10,000.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened to Muhammad Ali then?
DAVID ZIRIN: Well, Muhammad Ali was stripped of his title, and he was forced to report to a draft board in El Paso, Texas. Now, this was very interesting, because, you know, Ali was offered the same deal that many past heavyweight champions had been offered, which was, you know, that he could just – you know, it’s not like he was going to be sent to, you know, to Saigon or anything. He could have worn red, white, and blue trunks, boxed at some U.S.O. shows and kept the title.
But instead, what Ali said was – he was quite clear -- he said, "The enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my people, my religion, or myself by fighting against other people" -- speaking about the National Liberation Front in Vietnam – "who are fighting for their own freedom, justice and liberty." And so he came out very -- there was no mistaking where he stood on this.
So they stripped him of his title for his anti-war views, and he was sent down to the draft office there. And as he went down there, it wasn't known exactly what Ali was going to do when he got there, because he was facing a prison sentence of five years, you know, in a federal prison. So there was actually a rally outside the El Paso area that was organized by H. Rap Brown and the students at Texas Western, now Texas El Paso. And they were out there, a couple hundred of them, with a huge banner, and what it said was "Draft Beer, Not Ali." And when Ali went in there and when they called his name to take the step forward, I don't – I mean, I don’t know if this made a difference, but they made quite a mistake when they called his name in that they called for Cassius Clay to take a step forward, and he absolutely refused. Then they asked for Muhammad Ali to take a step forward, and he absolutely refused.
And there’s a tremendous quote by a writer named Gerald Early who said that "when Ali refused to take that step forward, I felt more than pride in him, I felt as if my honor as a young black boy had been defended. He was the dragon slayer, and I went home into my room that night and I cried. I cried for myself and I cried for our black possibilities." I mean, that's just the power that that moment had for people was incalculable, but not something that’s talked about when ESPN Classic does a look at Muhammad Ali.

There's a second part to it that I hope they air tomorrow but the second hour on WBAI isn't in the link. And he was talking about so many important things and talking about Steve Nash and so much more. His book sounds way cool and as soon as I finish the book I'm reading for The Third Estate Sunday Review. So make a point to look for it, it's called What's My Name Fool?
It sounds incredible. I'm going to suggest we all read it for next week, not this Sunday but the one after, for The Third Estate Sunday Review.

Iraqi casualities continue to mount, recruiters want to raise age limit, spicing up foreplay and a song

From Democracy Now! this morning:

New Study Says 24,000 Iraqi Civilians Killed
A new independent report released Tuesday puts the number of Iraqi civilians who died violent deaths in the two years since the US-led invasion began at more than 24,000. The study found that US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and the resistance responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence. Figures obtained last week from the Iraqi interior ministry put the average civilian and police officer death toll in insurgent attacks from August 2004 to March 2005 at 800 a month. The report was done by Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group.

24,000 seems like a big number to me. But I guess not to other people. My sister and I were talking about this today and wondering what the magic number was? What magic number do we have to reach before we care?

It's like the guys and gals we have dying over there. I'm looking at ICCC and the count right now is 1770 US soldiers have died.

What's the magic number on that?

You look around and it's hard to believe we're a country at war as we waste time worrying if Brad loves Angelina now and if it's more than he loved Jennifer.

We'll get to the e-mail in a moment but I want to tie in something else.

We are a country at war and for those who still don't get it, let's take a look at CounterRecruiter today:

The Defense Department has asked Congress to raise the age limit for military recruits from 35 to 42. According to a report from the Army Times, this is one of a series of what defense department officials are calling "urgent wartime support initiatives."

Still think it's not serious? They want to add seven years to the age limit. When's the draft coming?

Let's go to the e-mails. There are two I want to note.

First, Tonya e-mailed. She says she appreciates what Ellen's saying but that if she'd been honest with her boyfriend about this, they'd still be fighting over it. She says Ellen's advice may work for some couples but it wouldn't have worked for her.

Now we've got another woman with a question. Becky is in her thirties and divorced for ten years now. She says she's dated a lot of jerks but has a guy she likes now except for one thing.

Here's Becky's problem. He likes to add to foreplay. And Becky really doesn't care for what he adds. When they're in the mood, he brings out things like chocolate syrup or honey and will pour it on her inner thigh and lick it off.

Becky says that besides tickling, it's too hot for her to have someone's tongue on her like that and that even if he licks for thirty minutes, which he sometimes does, he never gets it all off. So she's left with spit and honey or chocolate still on her.

Besides the fact that she likes the guy and he's the first one she's liked since her divorce, she worries about saying anything because before the honey and chocolate got added, she was asking him to "spice it up" a little and this was his idea of "spicing it up."

She says, "It was fun for about a week. But five weeks later, I'm tired of it."

I have a few answers but Becky says he's out of town on business for the week. So I'll toss this to everyone and we'll share some answers tomorrow. I'll stick with mine and I'm looking for ideas that are different. So if Ellen's got an answer and it's different than mine, I'll include it.

If you've followed the news even slightly in the last 24 hours, you know that John Roberts Jr. is Bully Boy's nominee for the Supreme Court and you know that almost any other news has been pushed aside. You know that it's awfully interesting how Bully Boy's buddy Rove has vanished from the headlines and news. The outing of the CIA agent married to Joe Wilson is so pre-Supreme Court nominee.

C.I. had a funny song up about that. Ma sang it to me because I don't know the song it's based on ("It's Only a Paper Moon").

When Ma was singing it, I was laughing so I want to share it with you.

Say, it's only a summer scandal
Bully Boy will soon have the handle
He's the king of the make-believe
Do you believe in me?

Yes, it's only a scandal de sum
Reporters move on if we play mum
King George of the make believe
Do you believe in me?
. . .

It's a Bully and Cheney world
Just as phony as it can be
But it wouldn't be make-believe
If you believed in me

C.I. calls it "It's Only a Summer Scandal."

I also want to note that Elaine is filling in for Rebecca while Rebecca's on vacation over at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. She has a really good post on peace. So check that out.

And let me give a shout out to Common Ills community member Cedric who has just started his own blog called Cedric's Big Mix. It's up on my blog roll.

Violence in Iraq, Seymour Hersh on Democracy Now! and CounterRecruiter

We'll start off with Democracy Now!:

Bloodshed Continues in Iraq
In Iraq, gunmen opened fire on a minibus carrying Iraqi workers to a U.S. airbase in the central resistance stronghold of Baquba, killing more than a dozen people. The deaths came after assailants in two cars attacked the bus. This came a day after gunmen killed at least 24 police, soldiers and government workers on Monday. The latest violence follows a weekend in which more than 150 Iraqis died from suicide bombings.

Maybe it was yesterday or maybe it was last week, but Amy Goodman made a point on Democracy Now! about how we get upset about the London bombings. We should. But when we hear of Iraqis dying we don't react the same way. Why do you think that is? Why do we say "this life is important and that life isn't?"

Which reminds me of something Seymour Hersh said on Democracy Now! today:

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Westmoreland, one of the main U.S. military leaders during the Vietnam War, retired General William Westmoreland has died at the age of 91. You won your Pulitzer Prize covering Vietnam, exposing a massacre, the My Lai massacre. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, Peter Davis, the filmmaker, did a marvelous documentary called Hearts and Minds, in which Westmoreland is filmed saying, ‘Well, the Vietnamese’ he said, ‘are not like Americans and us in the West. They don't feel losses. They don't feel. They don’t have the same kind of family feelings we do. Death to them is not like death to us.’ And that's what he said on camera. I'm paraphrasing because it's a 30-year-old memory.
The movie, the documentary, was done in the 1970s, but his suggestion was somehow they're less human than we are. And that kind of institutional racism, which may have something to do with our, you know, the casualness with which we look at the daily atrocities in Iraq. You know, this is a stigma for all of us. And unfortunately, those who say that this is not like Iraq, should just start listening to the way the military in the last six months have begun talking about insurgents killed, 100 insurgents killed here, 80 insurgents killed there. It's all that talk and the same language we had and the body counts back in Vietnam. You know, they are less than real.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. And thank your family for giving us this time on your vacation.
SEYMOUR HERSH: Amy, for you, anything. Bye.


So let's dip into the e-mails.

We'll focus on Ellen who writes that she can't believe I encouraged Tonya to lie to her boyfriend about his crotch rot yestereday. Ellen says nothing gets done with a lie. Uh, war in Iraq?

But her point is that she thinks Tonya should have been upfront with her boyfriend. In fact, she composed a little speech for Tonya to give her boyfriend:

Mr. Happy may still waggle but the fumes are putting me to sleep. Shave 'em, spray 'em but do something because my nose ain't getting near that.

Ellen says he either gets it together or Tonya splits but her boyfriend gets the message and addresses the problem before Tonya's problem becomes some other woman's problem.

Ellen may have a point but I honestly don't know that this solution wouldn't have led to more problems. Besides, we got an e-mail from Tonya.

She tried what my sister suggested. He was rushing around so she had to jump in there and said she was nervous and he was looking at her like she was crazy when she grabbed his deodorant until she pulled off his towel. She said the only problem after that was getting him to put on clothes and that the smell was gone that evening when they got back.

He even commented on it and goes, "I don't know if you noticed but I was smelling pretty gamey." Tonya pretended like she hadn't noticed.

Was it honest?

Probably not.

But relationships aren't strapping lie detectors to your heart. I think sometimes you tell a little lie. I mean the last woman (see I'm watching my words) I was dating got a really goofey haircut and all her friends were telling her that. It was going to be 3 to 4 weeks before it looked half way decent. Did she need me going, "It really does look stupid."

I didn't think so. I told her it was cute and it made her feel good.

You really think she would have wanted to be around me for 3 or 4 weeks if I had told her, "It looks so stupid and it makes your ears look so huge." No.

There are things you can be honest about and there are things where you have to think is this comething you would say? Is there a reason to tell someone something hurtful? If not, then it's better to keep it to yourself or find a nice way to say it.

And from CounterRecruiter, I want to note this on recruiters:

The CBS story also notes that the Army needs over 101,000 new soldiers this year. And this is putting pressure on recruiters, who face declining enthusiam for the military, along with a continuing decrease in new recruits.
"It's very stressful," said former recruiter Jeffery Bacon.
Bacon says he's been busted from Sergeant to Specialist for not meeting his quota of 24 soldiers a year. "I'm losing my house because I'm losing my job, you know. I'm in financial debt," Bacon said.

I'm not feeling too sorry for Bacon or any of the others. They trick people and they do it to meet their quotas. I won't be shedding any tears that they have trouble meeting them. I hope they have a lot of trouble meeting them. Lots and lots of trouble.

Aidan Delgado, Hadley, Rove, crotch rot

It's Monday and before we go any further, thanks to C.I. and Isaiah for letting me rerun the cartoon this morning. A lot of you e-mailed to say you really enjoyed it.
In fact, we all enjoyed it so much that I'm going to rerun it again!



















Now let's go to Democracy Now!

Rove Watch: Time’s Cooper Speaks About Grand Jury Testimony
The Sunday talk shows this weekend were dominated by the ongoing investigation into the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. One of those at the center of the story, Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" where he discussed his testimony in front of the Grand Jury. Cooper also has an article piublished last night by Time in which he says that President Bush's senior advisor, Karl Rove, was the first person to tell Cooper that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. Cooper said he told that to a grand jury last week and that Rove ended the call by saying "I've already said too much." Cooper wrote that Rove did not disclose Valerie Plame's name, but told him in July 2003 that information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Cooper wrote, "So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper continues, "When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me." Cooper wrote he had previously told the grand jury he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. He said he asked Libby about Wilson's wife playing a role in the Niger trip, and Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too." This all raises serious questions about whether several administration officials intentionally misled the public and investigators about the involvement of Libby and Rove. White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said in October 2003 that Rove, Libby and another official had assured him they were uninvolved in the leak.

So what's everyone thinking about all this? From the e-mails, most of you are wondering why no one's name checking Hadley? Well I put up C.I.'s thing and C.I. caught that on Saturday. Cynthia wrote in about that and said I could share her thoughts.

Before I do that, I should probably make sure everyone's on the same page. So let me quote from C.I.'s thing:

If people are paying attention to today's talking point, Rove just ratted somebody out (though he probably doesn't realize it). Did he tell who he got the information from?
No.
But the talking point advises us that the deputy of national security knows the press is talking about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent. Did Hadley follow up?
Don't toss out any nonsense that, "They may not have known she was undercover!" Hadley's job should have required him to find out what Plame's position was. Regardless of what her job was, the CIA should have been advised what was about to break. And Plame should have been warned.
Was the CIA advised? I don't know. But from Joseph Wilson's reactions, Plame sure wasn't warned. From his statements, she didn't get a heads up. Novak's column appears on the 14th of July. Rove talks to Cooper on the 11th of July. In those three days, what did Hadley do? What was the administration doing? (Yeah, I know, probably helping the story along, but that's not in their talking points.)
How did Hadley follow up? Did he report it to his superior? (Condi Rice.) What measures did they take to protect Plame? She wasn't assigned body guards at the time. Wilson's made no reference to her getting a call that said, "Hey Val, just a heads up, the press are talking about you, you're probably going to be the topic of a story and be named. Those friends and neighbors that don't know anything about who you really work for -- you might want to break it to them."
Hadley's job was not to protect Bully Boy from fading poll numbers. His job was national security.
If people are paying attention to today's talking point, one question should be, "What was done when Hadley was informed?" What steps got taken?
Was the CIA informed what was coming down the pike?
Or was everyone who is supposed to be working for the nation suddenly under the impression that their job was serving on the election committee for the Bully Boy?

Let me toss out something else before I get that topic. Know how Cynthia found the thing C.I. did? Not from my site. She just started going to The Common Ills this weekend and she's been going around to different links and getting to know the community. So how she'd find it?

Something called Waypath. It indexes posts by things mentioned in them and all. Cynthia found it at Waypath while looking up news on Matt Damon!

C.I. does this thing in there where there's an illustration of what Rove did and C.I. asks you to pretend you're a reporter and C.I. is a flack for Matt Damon. It's funny and you should read it.
But like Saturday when we were all working on The Third Estate Sunday Review, Jim was telling C.I. how great the post was and the only thing he'd change was the Matt Damon part. And C.I. goes, "Really, cause that's the only thing I wouldn't change." I have Jim's permission to tell that story and Jim doesn't think C.I. will mind because it goes to one of C.I.'s big points and all.

Which is? People need to speak in their voices. If I'm answering a question about oral sex who knows who comes by to read that? And this is advice C.I. gave me and I think it's okay to share and it's when I get on to blog, I don't need to try to sound like Bob Somerby. C.I. goes "Bob Somerby is the best Bob Somerby. You be the best you. That's how you'll enjoy yourself and how you'll reach people."

And it may not be serious enough for some people (and I'm not attacking Jim who's a buddy now) but that might be just what gets someone to notice. Jim is against talking points too. And he'll tell you that the talking points have pretty much reached everyone that they are going to reach on any subject. You have to do more than talking points unless you just want to reach only the same group of people.

And I called Jim when I read Cynthia's e-mail and he goes, "See, I was dead wrong. C.I. was right about the Matt Damon part." (There's a longer version of that conversation Saturday and if I get C.I.'s permission to put it up here, I will.) Jim goes it's like Ava & C.I.'s TV reviews and how they pull people into The Third Estate Sunday Review. And some of those people will check out the editorial and other stuff but the drawing power is the TV reviews that Ava & C.I. do. And Jim went into this thing about how their TV reviews are political and they are political but I don't want to get lost on that.

But Jim goes he was really amazed that Matt Damon grabbed someone and that proves C.I. was right to do it that way because I told him what Cynthia said about being burned out on going to some sites that are just too cut and dried and "have a stick up their ass" and she just wants to scream, "Okay, I got that already!" She said reading that stuff is like sitting in her geomerty class and "politics shouldn't be boring!" (She uses a lot of exclamation points.) "Make me laugh! Make me angry! But don't make me bored!!!!"

I hear you, Cynthia!!!! :D

So Cynthia's theory is two parts. She thinks that in terms of online, people didn't notice Hadley and they won't now because it's out there and it wasn't them that noticed. She's talking about people who wrote about that article. Now in print ("coporatocracy" is what Cynthia calls it), they're not going to touch it. "Maybe later but right now it's too scary!" Why is that?

Because it does lead up. It does ask questions. She said it's like any other scandal, the "corporatocracy" will focus on the individuals named already because "they don't lead!" And she's right. They haven't led on any of this. Online has driven this story for two years. So Cynthia thinks that unless they're "forced to get their heads out of their asses" they won't do a damn thing on this.

For the people who wrote going no one touched this, it was brought up at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I'm going to reprint their editorial (I helped with it and so did others, there's a credit at the end):

Editorial: What did Hadley know and what did he do?

Karl Rove's latest defense (as pointed out by The Common Ills) is that after speaking with Matt Cooper when Valerie Plame's name came up he immediately e-mailed then deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley. And then what?
And then what?
Did the e-mail confuse Hadley? Was their a follow up conversation of "Karl, what's this e-mail about?" Did Hadley immediately notify his boss (Condi Rice) what was going on? Did she follow up by notifying the Bully Boy?
For those who forget, before she moved over to the State Department, Condi Rice was in charge of national security issues. It's easy to forget that because 9-11 happened while she was in charge and there was no accountability for her. There needs to be accountability on this.
Did Hadley do his job? If so, did others do their job?
We're not foolish enough to think the White House wasn't orchestrating the outing of Plame. But if that's going to be the spin point ("I prove I'm not guilty with my e-mail to Hadley!") then let's examine that spin point.
The spin argues Rove passed the news on up. Did it stop there? If so Hadley didn't do his job.
Did it go higher? How much higher? A CIA agent was a national security issue. The outing of an agent was a national security issue.
No one's attempting to say Rove's absolved and innocent. We think he's neither. But if he's going to push this latest point, then we say let's explore it.
Once someone in charge of national security was notified, it was incumbent upon them (due to their position) to immediately determine the nature of Valerie Plame's work. It was also incumbent upon them to notify then CIA director George Tenet. If they themselves did not alert Plame, the reason should be because they were given assurance from within the CIA that someone in the agency would alert Plame.
Plame doesn't appear to have been alerted. Nothing in the public record suggests that she was anything but surprised when Robert Novak outed her in a July 14, 2003 column. Cooper spoke to Rove on the 11th of July. Rove's spin is that he e-mailed Hadley immediately upon getting off the phone with Cooper. What was being done by the administration in those three days? Rove's conversation with Cooper, by Rove's account, made it obvious that the press knew Valerie Plame was CIA. What did Hadley do? If he didn't know who Plame was or what her position was, he should have checked with the CIA (or maybe read the memo that the State Department prepared). That was Hadley job.
Unless Condi relieved him of the responsibility. Then it became her job. (And regardless, his actions reflect upon her because she was his boss.)
Did anyone contact the CIA to alert them? If Plame had been a translator for the CIA, we'd argue a notification would be required. If she'd been an office assistant, we'd argue a notification would be required. If Hadley and/or Rice had done any work on the issue, they'd know that she had been an undercover agent.
And as such, regardless of when she was last undercover, it was their job to ensure that she and those she worked with while undercover knew what was coming. This goes beyond the quibbling by Republicans of whether a law was broken due to some five year rule on when you were last undercover. Plame appears to have been undercover as late as 1999 so the rule is in place and outing her was a violation of the law.
But in terms of procedures and responsibilities, it didn't matter if Plame had retired from the CIA ten years prior. It terms of procedures and responsibilities, the administration should have been working overtime to ensure that all working with Plame and Plame herself knew what was about to come out.
Whether you personally favor the use of undercover CIA agents or not, it should be obvious that having gone undercover for their government, when their cover is about to be blown, it's the government's responsibility to alert them.
That was the administration's responsibility. Did they carry it out? If not, why not?
Were any agents currently undercover and in the field, agents who had worked with Plame, alerted that someone who'd taken part in missions with them was about to be outed and that, therefore, their own cover was in danger?
It doesn't appear that they were.
The latest spin is "Rove's not guilty! He alerted Hadley!" The spin doesn't prove that. But the spin argues that the administration knew (Hadley) and that they did nothing. The spin suggests that Plame was outed with the administration's knowledge while the administration (with at least a three days heads up) sat around and waited for the explosion.
The spin's imploding. This talking point is cratering. Not only does it not clear Rove, it suggest incompetence (at best) on the part of the administration. It's time to know what Hadley did after he received the e-mail from Rove. If he did nothing, he needs to explain why. If he passed it up, we need to hear what those above him did.
It's time for Congressional hearings on this matter. We're no longer dealing with only the outing of a CIA agent. We're now dealing with, by Rove's talking point, the impression that the administration sat by and waited for a CIA agent to be outed. There need to be some answers and there needs to be some accountability.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]

So is Cynthia right? Do you think it won't become an issue? Or do you think some people may start to notice?

It's a good question. Cynthia also said she read some of my old stuff from a few weeks back and was wondering what made me decide to blog?

It was seeing stuff like Cynthia saw at The Common Ills and wondering why no one else was talking about it. Like the Rainbow Warrior getting sunk. Two weeks before the news broke about the president of France in the 70s giving the okay to sink the Rainbow Warrior, a guy who died on the ship, his daughter was in the news. "Who was Fernando Pereira?" was about that. And C.I. didn't pretend to be an expert and even writes about not pretending to know about this event before. So we get a walk through of the events and what happened and the questions that still remain on June 26, 2005. So like when July 10th rolls around and suddenly it's news that the former president of France, they got documents that prove he gave the okay, we already have a basic knowledge of the events when "Where is Fernando Pereira in 'Report Says Mitterrand Approved Sinking of Greenpeace Ship'" comes up. Stuff like that happens all the time and my folks say it's the difference between writing about the same topic everyone else is writing about or going elsewhere. They're big on social justice, my folks, so they really love The Common Ills. (But since I'm their son, they love my site best!)

So, Cynthia, it's like what you're feeling, "Why isn't anyone else talking about this!" That's why I started blogging. And that's why I love Democracy Now! and why I'm really loving Amy Goodman and her brother David's book The Exception to the Rulers. That is an amazing book. I'm half-way through it and I'll talk about it next week because it's one of the books we're going to be doing at The Third Estate Sunday Review this coming Sunday. But Amy Goodman is a candle in darkness. That's why Ma says. She says that if there's a story that matters to you and it's not being discussed anywhere else on a TV or radio show, you know it will be discussed on Democracy Now! because Amy Goodman's not going for the easy stuff. Dad agrees but he says it's also that the network guys anchoring have gotten too fat and rich to give a damn about what effects most of us.

If you haven't checked out Democracy Now!, Cynthia, I hope you'll look into it. From your e-mail, I think it's a show you would really enjoy.

Now for other e-mails. Tonya says thanks for writing about crotch rot but wonders how you bring the subject up with someone? Her boyfriend's got a problem there. It just started in the last week, she writes, and it's never been a problem before. But she's not in the mood for oral and keeps telling him no to her and no to her doing him because she wants to gag. She put "911" on her headling for her e-mail cause she doesn't think she can wait long for an answer.

I thought she should just tell him. Then I thought, "Wait, cause I probably wouldn't just tell some woman I was seeing if she had a problem like that." So I asked my sister to get her point of view.

My sister never had the experience and first thought the guy just wasn't watching. So, Tonya, I told her how you said he takes a shower or a bath at least one time a day and now that it's summer and it's hot and he's sweating, he's taking at least two and sometimes three. (This is my youngest sister by the way. She's still in high school.) I was explaining to her about what I had to do that summer and she said you should be with him when he's getting ready to go out on a date. She said like tell him you want to help him pick out what to wear.

So while he's using his deodorant, she said grab it and go, "I really like the smell of this." And then laughingly start applying it around his groin.

I think it would work too because if you pull off his towel and are anywhere near his equipment, he's not going to argue with you. He's going to be wondering what's coming next. So then go out on your date and see if it didn't clear up the crotch rot by the time you two are winding down.

Hope that helps you, Tonya. If it doesn't, drop a line and I'll try to take another shot at it.

Now I want to note a story called "A Different Duty." It's from In These Times magazine and it was written by Lisa Sousa and it's about Aidan Delgado.

Unlike most soldiers, Delgado speaks Arabic, having grown up in Egypt as a diplomat's son, and was able to communicate with Iraqis. He thought differently about fighting after interacting with prisoners of war. "When I came face to face with the people who were supposed to be my enemies, I thought that I had no reason to fight them," he says. "They were the same as the guys in my unit." The captured men were mostly young and uneducated, and did not have many choices in life.
"I felt like they were trapped in the war as much as I was and we were all victims of it, so I felt that fighting them would be wrong," he says.
During his third month in Iraq, Delgado told his commander that he wanted to be a conscientious objector. "I turned in my weapon, I said 'I'll stay. I'll finish my duty, but I'm not going to fight. I'm not going to kill anyone.'"
Obtaining conscientious objector status was difficult. Delgado endured investigative interviews, bureaucratic paper work, and harassment from his superiors and his peers, some of whom regarded him as a traitor. His commanders also confiscated part of his body armor, rescinded his leave time and assigned him to 16-18 hour shifts. Delgado was granted conscientious objector status and an honorable discharge only after completing his year-long tour in Iraq.

Now the guy goes around trying to educate people about what's going on.

He's really making a difference and I think that's cool and something we should know about.

Cause like, he's trying to make a difference by talking about it. But that only works if people listen and they talk about it. And like that's what Cynthia was asking about kind of. When she was asking me about why I started a blog and all. (And that's also what C.I. was asking about this weekend when I got asked what I was hoping to accomplish.) So that's the sort of thing I feel like we should know about. And maybe you'll see it elsewhere and maybe you won't. But you saw it in In These Times, you saw it at The Common Ills (that's how I found it) and you saw it here. And like maybe it's not being talked about when you get together with your friends? Well you can bring it up. That's the only way word gets out or that we make a difference. The guy's name is Aidan Delgado so try to find someone to pass on his story too.

Why Ain't The Spin Working?

From Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts (with Isaiah & C.I. of The Common Ills' permission), here's a cartoon that made me grin.

Hadley knew and did nothing

It's like 20 minutes before we're all getting together to work with The Third Estate Sunday Review. I went to work this morning, hung out with some friends and came back here for dinner. And at dinner, Dad, Ma and my sister are talking about Hadley and how he failed to do his job. I go "What are you talking about?" I hadn't been online today.

Hadley was under Condi Rice and Hadley knew the press leak on Valerie Plame was coming before it came out. He didn't do a thing about it even thought his job was national security. Everybody had been to The Common Ills but me today.

I'm putting up C.I.'s thing. Read it cause in my house this is BIG.


NYT: Rove's latest talking point implodes but the Times doesn't notice

Grab the tiger by the tail. That's what the daily reporting on Rove is these days.
As Sidney Blumenthal noted on Democracy Now! yesterday, the grand jury leaks are springing in an awfully convenient manner for Karl Rove:

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: Well, Karl Rove is waging a communications battle in the way he wages communications battles. He is trying to act -- he's acting as though this is -- this matter is going to be decided by a court of Washington pundits. He is leaking stories now. There are stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post that are clearly leaked by his lawyer trying to depict him in a light in which he is innocent of the charges, but that's not how this is going to be decided. It's going to be decided by the prosecutor. And I think that Rove is in a panic mode. He's acting in a very frenetic way, and he is undermining himself, and he is undermining his principal, the President.
AMY GOODMAN: How is he undermining himself?
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: He's undermining himself by putting out all of these stories and keeping this at a -- in the forefront of the news. He has regarded his defense as though it is the defense of the administration himself. He cannot separate himself. Furthermore, the President has not separated him. He walked to Marine One, his helicopter, accompanied by Karl Rove, a clear statement that he stands by Rove. So, Bush has embraced Rove, as well. This is -- Bush -- Rove's damage control, in my view, has created more damage. This so-called master of communications is undermining himself in terms of communications, but in the end, none of that matters. It all comes down to Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and what he decides to do.


So today's talking points come via a team of reporters in this morning's New York Times. It's entitled "State Dept. Memo Gets Scrutiny in Leak Inquiry on C.I.A. Officer" and it's written by Richard Stevenson. (No "W." in his byline for a change.) But wait, that's not all.

Before we can move on we need to scroll credits: " "By RICHARD STEVENSON . . . This article was reported by Douglas Jehl, David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson and was written by Mr. Stevenson."

Munch on that popcorn a little longer, we're still not done with the credits. "David E. Sanger and Scott Shane contributed reporting for this article." "With special guest-star Heather Locklear."
Okay, I'm kidding on the Locklear part. (I think.)

But that's six reporters from the paper working on this story. And yet I honestly don't think they grasp what they're reporting.

Let's nutshell the article. There's a memo. From June 11, 2003. State Department memo. It refers to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson so it's obvious that Novak didn't see it, right?
Right? Why right? Why wouldn't he use her previous name? The same way that the right uses "Rodham" to clobber Hillary Clinton with to this day. Novak's not a talented journalist, but as a hack, he knows how to appeal to his base. "She's Wilson's wife! And she doesn't use his last name! Bra burner!"

Nothing's proven about whether or not Novak saw the memo by the fact that he used "Plame" and not "Wilson."

Here's the other big talking point: Rove's "warning" to Matt Cooper, it's okay because he immediately phoned Stephen J. Hadley (deputy national security advisor at the time). So see, Rove didn't do anything wrong.

Far from clearing Rove, that actually adds to the problems.

Why is that?

Rove e-mails (allegedly) Hadley that he "didn't take the bait" when Cooper asked about whether or not Joseph Wilson was damaging the Bully Boy with his statements.

We find out two important things right away. Let's go real slow.

1) Rove put the Bully Boy ahead of national security.

Do we all get that? He "didn't take the bait." No, he didn't. He deflected "the bait" by confirming he'd heard Plame was CIA. (According to the accounts.)

Is this going to be his defense? Is this how it will play out?

When confronted with possible bad polling, Rove confirms that someone's CIA? That's the defense?

Standing by his main man means putting the nation at risk?

That's a defense he wants to stand on?

(Like Blumenthal, I personally believe the leaks are orchestrated by Rove and others interested in saving Rove. Saving Lack of Privacy Rove. I'm just not sure if they're just tossing just about anything out there until they can find the best talking point or if they're tossing anything out there because they're trying to obscure the issues involved. Regardless, this talking point doesn't make things "rosy.")

Let's walk it through real simple. You're a reporter for Premiere. I'm a p.r. flack for Matt Damon. You call me up and ask, "Is it true that Damon's new movie bombed in previews?"My response is to confirm you to that the woman filling out the card with her husband at the preview is CIA. I then fire off an e-mail to my boss saying, "Great news! I didn't take the bait! I steered the reporter to a CIA agent!"

Do we see the problem here? Supposedly, Cooper wants to know if the Bully Boy is being damaged by Wilson's statements. Rove deflects. He confirms that Wilson is married to a CIA agent.

Put out two hands in front of you and pretend they're scales. See which one tips when you weigh Bully Boy's polling with identifying a CIA agent.

2) I can't believe they did this. Bully Boy's no brain (neither is Rove) but are people going to pay attention to this defense?

If they are, do they get what the leak is saying?

Rove talked to Cooper before Novak's column was published. Rove told Hadley about the conversation. Let's say Rove just confirmed Plame to Cooper. (That's just as bad and it is identifying, but let's move on to a larger point that I don't think they see in this latest talking point). When Rove sent that e-mail (if he did) to Hadley, we have someone in national security that knows a CIA agent is on the verge of being outed.

I'm sure Condi will offer her "bowels of the agency" or "basement" or whatever looney remark she made re: the sixteen words originally.

It wasn't lower level. Her right-hand man knew. That's the talking point today. Her right- hand man knew that a CIA agent was about to be the topic of the press. What did they do at that moment to find out about leaks? Did they alert the CIA?

Or were they all high fiving and saying "Way to go Karl-ster! You didn't take the bait!"

Let's be really clear, Rove supposedly sent an e-mail to the deputy of national security immediately after getting off the phone with Matt Cooper. Let's go the Times' article:

After his conversation with Mr. Cooper, The Associated Press reported Friday, Mr. Rove sent an e-mail message to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, saying he "didn't take the bait" when Mr. Cooper suggested that Mr. Wilson's criticisms had been damaging to the administration.
Mr. Rove told the grand jury in the case that the e-mail message was consistent with his assertion that he had not intended to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity but instead intended to rebut Mr. Wilson's criticisms of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq, The A.P. reported, citing legal professionals familiar with Mr. Rove's testimony. Dozens of White House and administration officials have testified to the grand jury, and several officials have been called back for further questioning.

If people are paying attention to today's talking point, Rove just ratted somebody out (though he probably doesn't realize it). Did he tell who he got the information from?
No.

But the talking point advises us that the deputy of national security knows the press is talking about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent. Did Hadley follow up?
Don't toss out any nonsense that, "They may not have known she was undercover!" Hadley's job should have required him to find out what Plame's position was. Regardless of what her job was, the CIA should have been advised what was about to break. And Plame should have been warned.

Was the CIA advised? I don't know. But from Joseph Wilson's reactions, Plame sure wasn't warned. From his statements, she didn't get a heads up. Novak's column appears on the 14th of July. Rove talks to Cooper on the 11th of July. In those three days, what did Hadley do? What was the administration doing? (Yeah, I know, probably helping the story along, but that's not in their talking points.)

How did Hadley follow up? Did he report it to his superior? (Condi Rice.) What measures did they take to protect Plame? She wasn't assigned body guards at the time. Wilson's made no reference to her getting a call that said, "Hey Val, just a heads up, the press are talking about you, you're probably going to be the topic of a story and be named. Those friends and neighbors that don't know anything about who you really work for -- you might want to break it to them."
Hadley's job was not to protect Bully Boy from fading poll numbers. His job was national security.

If people are paying attention to today's talking point, one question should be, "What was done when Hadley was informed?" What steps got taken?

Was the CIA informed what was coming down the pike?

Or was everyone who is supposed to be working for the nation suddenly under the impression that their job was serving on the election committee for the Bully Boy?

From Thursday's mid-morning entry:

Wally e-mails to note Pirate Smile's post at Democratic Underground ("Plame has worked undercover within the past 5 years according to the WP") where Pirate Smile draws our attention to an October 4, 2003 Washington Post article entitled "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm" (by Walter Pincus and Mike Allen):
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.
-snip-
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. "That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

Shouldn't Hadley have been able to find out what the Washington Post did? Did he attempt
to?

What did he do when he received Rove's e-mail?

His job wasn't to prop up the Bully Boy, his job was to protect the country. Serving the country, his job, would have entailed passing the knowledge on. Possibly up to Rice, possibly to the CIA.

But there should have been a follow up to determine a) what Plame's position was, b) what risks there were for the CIA and c) ensuring that a warning was conveyed to Valerie Plame and any agents or assets that worked with her.

Was that done?

Let's drop back even further. The Times article tells us that Rove spoke to Novak before he spoke to Cooper. Two days prior which puts that conversation on July 9th. Did Rove also e-mail about that one?

What was our National Security Agency doing when at least one participant knew that Plame was about to be outed?

Can't blame this one on outmoded computers at the FBI. If there's a breakdown in the sharing of intellegence, it appears to be a human breakdown. It appears to be someone or someones not doing his or their job. Maybe Hadley passed it on up the chain and, if so, maybe his hands are clean.

But all this posturing after the fact by the Bully Boy that he was committed to finding out who leaked Plame's identity -- it's false. He should have known it was coming before Novak's column was published. Rove sure should have told him. Hadley or Rice should have told him. He should have known what was coming down and efforts at questioning the staff should have begun prior to the outing being published.

If I'm not being clear here, Bully Boy wasn't watching someone snag change from a candy machine. This was a national security issue. And the claim that Valerie Plame wasn't undercover (1999 puts her in the five year provision, other reporting carries it further) doesn't negate the fact that the leader of the country should have ensured that action was taken to warn Plame of what the press was asking.

Now maybe that 'triple decker, chocolate mocha joe, double secret background' meant that along with Cooper not talking, Rove was also supposed to be silent? That doesn't wash and not just because of the fact that that Rove allegedly e-mailed Hadley after speaking to Cooper. It doesn't wash because Plame's working for the government. The administration (at least Rove) and our National Security Agency (at least Hadley) know a government employee is about to be a topic in the press. If she were a secretary at the CIA (which she wasn't but some dismissive pundits have portrayed her as such), she still rated a heads up. Her bosses rated a heads up.
What did Rove and Hadley do with the information?

What it looks like, accepting today's talking point, is that they both put Bully Boy ahead of serving the country and ahead of doing their jobs.

Novak's column did not take the administration by surprise. Rove's latest talking point demonstrates that the administration knew people were asking about Plame (at least knew of Cooper, possibly Rove's not claiming he also passed on the news that Novak was snooping around also). There should have required no pressure (via the public urged on by David Corn and BuzzFlash) to get the Bully Boy moving on finding out what happened. In fact, the administration should have already been on it.

And instead of offering what appears to be the subtext of the article today (Scoots Libby going down!), the crack team of reporters for the New York Times (look at the list: Douglas Jehl, David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson, David E. Sanger and Scott Shane ) should have included one individual who grasped what we've walked through -- one reporter who picked up the phone and asked Hadley for a statement. The article should have included it even if it were only, "Hadley stated he could not commment . . ."

I honestly don't think the Times realizes what they are reporting today. Or maybe they see it as a talking point and didn't feel it needed looking into.

But what they're reporting is that by July 11th, the deputy national security advisor knew that the press was asking about a CIA agent and apparently nothing was done to warn her agency or to warn her. The only phrase that comes to my mind is "Dereliction of duty."

long one

Trying to listen to The Majority Report because Janeane is hot and funny. (She is hot. Maybe it's an Irish thing but I think she's totally hot. She's always knocking herself and putting herself down but she's hot. With dark hair. I didn't go for the blonde.) And because Anthony Lappe is on. I saw that at The Common Ills today.

I want to say BIG THANKS to friends and family. Family's been calling like crazy about last night's post and if you're e-mailing me, you're my friend. I'm glad everybody liked it and like felt it was a long time coming. I agree.

I hope by saying "I agree" I'm not being abusive lol. You know how those tiny freaks are over in loser-ville.

The big questions was "Mike, do you think you're blacklisted?" Since most of you wrote "you were ripped off!" I'll say that if you are right, I'm sure they'll continue to lift and reword.

But yeah, I probably am blacklisted. So is Rebecca and C.I. and that's cool. I called C.I. a few times today and got a call back about two hours ago. It was a quick chat because from work, it's volunteer work. So I tell C.I. there's been calls and e-mails and C.I. goes you don't know about them do you?

And no, I know they have this "staff" but anything good is written by someone else. Like you look at it and go, "Oh yeah, C.I. linked to that CounterPunch story awhile back." But C.I. gives me some sites to go to and goes that they have a history online that's not pretty.

So I go surfing and sure enough, Narco News got ripped off. They took Narco News' stuff and you can read about it here. There's no question on the Narco News stuff. Maybe with my funny line, they just happened to think the same? But they ripped off Narco News and you can read about it here.

And FAIR and Project Censored. Go read about it.

Project Censored is one of the books we read for The Third Estate Sunday Review last week. And we had this really great conversation about it and four other books and then the whole darn post got lost. But we're going to come back and start over tomorrow so look for it.

So yeah, there is a blacklist. I'm proud to be on it. C.I.'s proud and so is Rebecca. It's like Rebecca says, "They banned Tom Hayden. Mike, we're in the same company as Tom Hayden!"
And yeah that's so cool. My folks have all his books.

I didn't mention them by name yesterday. That was partly cause Rebecca was hoping the asshole would apologize to the kid. He didn't. So Rebecca was pulling a 'C.I. high road' yesterday. But she said, "C.I. is not naming them and don't you because links are measured and don't you give them a link." I won't. They're bad. They're boring.

Let's pull out some e-mails:

Raylene wants to know why they're set up like a magazine when all they do is reprint stuff? She says that their blogs are "laughably bad."

On their blogs, Callie writes in to say that they do not know what they are doing "obviously."

Lynne says she realizes C.I. only linked to the one blog and did it because members from the UK thought it had something to say but that she was offended from the start and kept saying that to C.I.

I heard from bloggers including one biggie who told me that "they are such a joke and so fucked up." He said BuzzFlash has so replaced them and asked me if I knew about the time they ripped off Intervention? I didn't then, but dude I do now. It's all over the net.

I can't believe anyone thinks they're a good organization. I like the guy who wrote in about how they were paranoid. That would explain why they treated the kid the way they did. Writers who have had their work used there, some without permission, complained and got banned and I guess that was "abusive" too like when they told the kid he was "abusive" for saying "Step out of the GOP closet."

They're a bunch of little cowards screaming for money.

And like the blogger pointed out, BuzzFlash is the one. BuzzFlash doesn't rip people off. They also put out premiums. And don't ask their workers to write phoney reviews at Amazon.com the way this link says that the jerk offs did.

They want to act like, "Look at us, we're a magazine!" But they aren't. They can't write worth crap and that's probably why they have to take from other magazines and sites.

The blogger said they copied CJR, Slate and Salon with their blog report and he thinks it was partly to keep people scared to speak the truth online about them.

I ain't scared of them.

My folks are pretty progressive and into the Catholic Social Workers and all that. But like when I was at dinner and told them about how the silly not a magazine attacked FAIR, they were like, "What!" That's one of the sites we know about because of The Common Ills. We learned about it there and Amy Goodman had on a guy today who helped start FAIR. So go check that out. He knows where he stands on the war. Other people need to pay attention if they still can't figure it out on their own.

So Dad goes, "Mike, they won't publish Tom Hayden and they don't like FAIR so screw 'em."
And Ma goes that she has told everyone at the church about me being ripped off! I go, "Ma, we don't know I was ripped off for sure. It could be a coincidence." Ma goes, "I am your mother and I can say what I want." You don't want to tick off my mother lol.

Janeane is making these really good comments about 28 Days which is this real cool movie and how it's like about rage as a virus and how we've seen it in our country. I'm putting that in for C.I. who would like to listen, and Fridays is C.I.'s favorite, but is out fighting the good fight as my folks would say.

I was telling C.I. what I wrote and C.I. was all like, "Mike, I would've linked!" I wasn't asking for a link. And I know C.I. doesn't have time to go to sites and stuff coz of work and working to help organize and mobilize with the upcoming Court battle. C.I.'s all "Mike you've got my phone numbers and my personal e-mail so let me know what you're writing so I can link."

Ain't gonna do it, C.I.'s busy enough. Wouldn't have even called but everyone was asking me if I was banned at the wants-to-be-a-magazine. So yeah, I'm banned.

Banned and proud.

And I'm so proud of what Rebecca wrote last night. She could have kept quiet but she didn't. She said it was unacceptable. C.I. did too. It's the first post last night. You should read that.
C.I.'s talking about the community and explaining it's like a dinner table and some people have plates set for them and some don't.

I didn't realize when I'd heard about Hayden being banned that it was such a thing. I mean I thought well the jerks banned him but they'll come back when they need him. Then I go to those links and see it's like paranoid city and you're like banned for life. So I think it was more than brave for Tom Hayden to tell the truth. He had stuff going up there and all. And he knew he was speaking the truth would cost him. But the issue was important and that's really cool because a lot of people would be silent and all. They'd be like "Oh God, if I'm banned, I'll lose out."

But sometimes you just got to grow a pair and say, "Screw it."

So I used my voice and I'm real proud to be in the company of others who have. Some day, enough people will know and they won't waste their time on that reprint magazine trying to do blog reports to liven up their boring site.

Jim called me and goes, "Mikey, you blow me away!" We were laughing on the phone.

I ask Jim if we'll be doing anything on that wants to be a magazine site and Jim goes that Jess and Ava already go that they'll stand with C.I. and are pretty sure that means "We don't waste time on the jerks." He goes maybe C.I. will feel different. But Ty and Dona are ready to go.

If you read the gina & krista round-robin this morning, give up for my buds and great writers and great women cause they nailed it so perfect. i loved the drawing Isaiah did for them. It goes "We wish we were a real mag." And one of them is staring into space and going, "Hmmm, what male blogger can I rip off today?" and the two guys are off in their own worlds. The curly headed ugly one is going, "I love me some Republicans, let me plug Andrew Sullivan" and the bald one is going, "Plus Andrew Sullivan? That is abusive! Abusive! I ban you! I ban you!" It's hilarious. I got Isaiah's permission to talk about it but he goes he gave it to Gina and Krista and it's exclusive to them. See, I respect that. I don't try to rip off Gina and Krista to put something up on my site. It's called ethics.

I loved their interview with West. And like Rebecca says, if the dork with the curls had a problem with West, he should have been man enough to take it up with West. Not sick baldie on him after they go through deleting posts. That was cowardly. But they are cowardly. They called Robert McChesney paranoid. I'm not kidding about read the link.

They have a whole history. Like with Intervention. I had no idea. I thought they were a dumb site. I didn't know the half of it.

I'm going on and on cause I'm waiting for Anthony to come on and want to write something about that cause I really do want to capture a sense of it for C.I. Other than Democracy Now!, the only thing C.I. got to listen to this week was Randi's first day back. C.I. said Randi was so funny and I wish I was able to listen cause the jokes sounded really funny when C.I. was telling them. But if it's a work and school day, all I can catch is Democracy Now! during the day.

I was on campus today and go to The Daily Howler directly cause C.I. gave the heads up that post would be late at The Common Ills. And I'm looking at my watch and looking at the page and thinking, "Where is The Daily Howler?"

Then I started thinking about the stuff C.I.'s been saying and all at The Common Ills. And about the part that was up The Howler yesterday. About how people were mad at him for writing what he wrote and all. And I got to say I felt real bad and kind of guilty. I didn't e-mail him when he was writing about Joe Wilson but I was thinking, "What is this shit?"

And then I thought about all the stuff C.I.'s been writing and how that guy needs to speak in his own voice because that's the only way he's going to be real and true and all that stuff. I didn't e-mail the guy about it and I didn't write about it here but I'll say I'm sorry up here because I did just want him to write what I already thought. He needs to say what he believes. And if people disagree, they need to say so. But they can talk about it without being mean about it because when I didn't see the Howler, I was thinking, "Man it must have really hurt." Cause it must have been like do you like me for my writing (the way C.I. does) or do you just come here because you think you're going to get talking points?"

If someone's speaking their truth, you're not going to be nodding everytime they speak. I mean, like if I got "My favorite candy bar is Snickers with almonds" there are people who're going to be like, "I love Milky Way!" or "I was with you until you said almonds!" So is it about enjoying the way the person is writing and talking or just about hearing what confirms what you already believe?

I just looked and I don't even have him on my blog roll. I'll add him and some other stuff tonight. He was talking today or yesterday about how it was the usual this time of year angry e-mails to him and all. So he knew this would come down from telling his truth. And when it took so long for the post to go up, I was even thinking, "Man, is he packing it in?"

Cause like C.I. wrote, he's not getting paid to do The Daily Howler. He does it because he cares and all. So it must hurt even more when it's all like, "Shut up! I don't want to hear it!" I can understand disagreeing with him cause I did. But if that happens again, I'll probably put something up here going "I disagree with him on this" and remember that he's telling the truth and it's okay to disagree.

Anthony better come on soon cause I got to split in a hour. My girlfriend's at work and we're going to hang out for a bit. I asked her if I could write about her and she goes "Are you going to talk about us having sex?" And I go I wasn't planning on it. Just like her name and stuff. Her name's Nina and she's 19 and that's all that's going up now cause she said I could put that but nothing else. I'll say she's pretty cool.

Okay, I did some links to the blog roll I've been meaning to do but not all. Now I got to go because Nina will be off soon. I guess I'll miss Anthony. We'll go out with something from Democracy Now!


White House Worried About Possible Indictments
The Washington Post is reporting that White House officials are privately saying that they are concerned that the investigation into the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year. This comes as Democrats escalate their calls for the man known as "Bush's brain" to be stripped of his security clearance and fired. There are also calls for Congressional hearings. One of those leading the charge in the House is California Democrat Henry Waxman.
Henry Waxmann (D, California):"This is a serious matter because it affects the national security of this nation. It's an even more serious matter because if our national security has been jeopardized, it's been jeopardized for political purposes."

Pissed off tonight, warning you ahead of time

Sorry for the delay if anyone's been waiting.

Rebecca was really upset. It was time for dinner and I went to explain to Ma what was going on.
She said, "Talk to your friends, Mike, you don't owe me an explanation. You can eat later." But I wanted her to know what was going on.

When she found out, she was almost as mad as Rebecca. My parents already think the site ripped me off. If they did, I did do it better. If they didn't, it's awful funny that a new blogger happens to try to ape me. But like I told Ma, "If they ripped me off, it's because I was funny. They weren't. They tried to get all wordy and ended up blowing the joke."

So I stayed on the phone with Rebecca. And I'd do that for her anytime. I'm glad she cares so much about people who like her work. See, this guy got attacked for plugging her site and three others. And accused of all this nonsense.

It's an asshole that did it. We don't link to the asshole here and we never would because he's a real dope who wastes everyone's time with nonsense. He was one of the people I had in mind when I started blogging and said there were some people I would never link to. That was before I may have been ripped off. My bud Tone sees it and goes, "Mike, you were ripped." He's telling my ma and my dad and pretty soon my whole family's upset. I told him it could be just something that happened and I might not have been ripped off but that it didn't matter because it was really embarrassing the way they tried to do the joke.


That was before this jerk does this bullying and forces this guy to scrape and bow or else it will be curtains for Rebecca and the 3 others that the guy was saying wrote good stuff.

That's shameful and embarrassing. When I got off the phone, we all read Rebecca's post, Ma, Dad and my sister.

You need to read it too. Krista called me because she and Gina are discussing it in their newsletter tomorrow and they wanted a quote from me. I said, "Hey if they ripped me off, if, they weren't even smart enough to make it funny. That tells you all you need know about the assholes."

I'm going to be adding to my blog roll this weekend because there are a lot of people doing good work, real work. And we need to know about them. But I'm not adding bullshitters.

Are they against the war today? They never seem to make up their mind, do they? Should we pull out today? Or do we need to "fix" it? They're so wishy washy and anything that's good up there came from someone who's already good. We'll link to Guerilla News Network this weekend and Jude and BuzzFlash and some other people who know how to keep it real. But the crowd who can't seem to figure out from one day to the next what to do won't get a link.

They were already disgusting. You don't have to take my word for it, go here and read Tom Hayden.

Oh! Did I just blow my link at being linked by the mighty and powerful?

Like I give a shit. People are dying and they can't figure out where they stand. But they got time to bully people. They got lots and lots of time for that.

I'll note one item from Democracy Now! and there was a ton of stuff worth noting. They're the best. I'm just in a bad mood because of the crap other people who could be doing real work don't do. And won't do. Because they can't figure out from one day to the next "How do we frame it! How do we frame it! What do we stand for! What do we stand for!" They'd already made themselves a joke in my book. When they bullied that guy (read Rebecca's thing) they made themselves stupid. What they did was cowardly and embarrassing. I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves but like Dad said, "They don't have any shame."

When they turned their back on Tom Hayden, they lost this Irish Catholic household. So, as I once told the paper of recklessness, kiss my Irish ass.

Here's the thing from Democracy Now! make sure you're watching or listening or reading because you get truth there.

GOP Releases 'Talking Points' to Attack Joe Wilson
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman has been circulating pages of so-called talking points on the scandal that focus on attempting to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of the outed CIA operative. The talking points instruct GOP operatives to attack Wilson's credibility and his fact-finding mission to Niger, in which Wilson found that there was no evidence Iraq had attempted to import uranium from the African nation. Wilson has long charged that his wife was outed in retaliation for his debunking of one of the administration's key justifications for the invasion of Iraq.

We won't waste time on the cowards tomorrow. I've said all I need to say on that. And I won't lose any sleep that I won't be mentioned there. I think the company you keep says a lot about you and I don't keep company with "stay the course!" jerks who should get their own asses over there if they're so damn sure we need an international committment to more troops. Want more troops, you cowards, sign up. Till them quit smoking everyone's ass.

Posting postponed

Everybody I'm posting tonight but it will be later. I'm on the phone with Rebecca and she's pissed as hell.

She needs someone to talk to and C.I.'s been in meetings all afternoon and she can't get ahold of The Third Estate Sunday Review gang. Betty's probably picking up her kids right about now and Rebecca doesn't want to yell at her on the phone. I go, "I'm flattered but what about Kat?"
Concert of course. So I told her let me put the phone down and type something up so nobody thinks I've forgotten them.

I will be posting but it will be later.

War, babies and legal analysis

What's the cost of war? That's the question I wanted to open with this evening. For a moment, let's ask about it from another view. If you're are Iraqi and you're getting all this "liberation" the Bully Boy brings, what is the cost of war?

From Democracy Now!:

Report: 128,000 Iraqis Have Died Since U.S. Invasion
A new study from an Iraqi humanitarian organization is estimating that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invaded in March 2003. The group -- Iraqiyun -- estimates that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged twelve and under. Meanwhile the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies has also attempted to estimate the number of Iraqis killed. The organization recently estimated that 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the war began.

Liberation?

So yesterday I was going to blog again but I get out of the shower and Ma says "your girlfriend called." My girlfriend? We started seeing each other last week but I didn't know we were already a "we" and figured maybe Ma was upgrading the relationship. But looks like we are a "we."

And that brings us to the e-mail question for today which comes from Rudy because she's got questions regarding her boyfriend. Rudy wonders if she should have a baby. She's not pregnant currently. She's not married. She hasn't discussed having a baby with the guy she's involved with. So why is she wondering this?

Her boyfriend just signed up. Out of high school and having trouble in the Bully Boy economy, he's ripe for the picking. So before he heads to basic, Rudy's wondering if she should get pregnant because "he might die over there."

I'm not really sure of a nice way to put this so I'll just lay out. He's made no proposal. You haven't discussed this with him. But you're going through early planning stages right now?
I'm sorry, Rudy, but I think you're wrong.

Let's say that something awful happens to him over there or that he doesn't come back. When are you planning to tell him about the baby? You say you think it would be a nice surprise and you'd wait until you were "four or five months pregnant" to tell him. You think it would cheer him up.

There are a lot of nice surprises. Going off your birth control to get pregnant without telling your partner doesn't usually top the list.

You write that if he dies you'd like to have a piece of him. He ain't a rock.

And I'm not sure what kind of life you're seeing for a child if he did die?

If the child is supposed to be a piece of him, does that mean the child's going to have to live up to your image of him? And if you want the child in case something happens to your boyfriend, aren't you saying that if he dies it would be nice to have a child by him to have a piece of him?
So it would be nice for you but what about the kid who never knows a daddy?

You wanted my advice and here it is. You either talk to him about what you're thinking about or you stay on your birth control.

Maybe he'll want a kid? Maybe the thought of a child is something he thinks he can focus on when things get rough over there? You say you've been dating for 18 months so this might be something you have in common.

But to attempt to get pregnant without telling him and to let him think that you are still using birth control is wrong. This is a decision that you should talk to him about.

What if you go through with your plan, get pregnant and write him in four months to tell him? What if he hits the roof? What if that's so much pressure on him on top of what's already going on that he can't handle it?

I get that you're going to miss him. And it's true that a lot of women will end up pregnant. But they're, hopefully, not pretending to be using birth control when they're really not.

I asked my oldest sister about this because I think it's an awful idea and I wanted to get a woman's opinion to make sure it wasn't just something I was missing cause I'm a guy.

She said the plan is insane.

If you're wanting a child that's fine. But if the guy you want to be the father thinks you're still on birth control and you're not, you need to let him know what you're wanting.

He might think it's great. He might want it too. But you need to tell him because there are so many things that could go wrong.

I also think that at 17, you're too young to get pregnant by choice. You say you'll be 18 when a kid would be born. I'm not sure what's so magical about 18 and I was 18 just last year.

But turning 18 isn't going to bring you a job. You don't blow out the candles and see a job standing before you. Baby's require a lot of time and they need doctors and diapers and feeding and a bunch of other stuff that doesn't come cheap.

There are guys over there that can't get their passes home that they have earned. And Rumsfeld's saying we might be over there 12 years. So you need to ask yourself why it's okay for you to make these plans and not tell your boyfriend?

You also need to think about how your mother will react. You say she'll gripe but when the baby's born, she'll be fine. You mention that your older sister moved back home and goes to school part time and works part time and that your mother always helps out with your sister's baby. I'm not sure how fine she's going to be with this. Especially when she's the one that got you to start taking birth control pills because your sister ended up pregnant.

She might see it as you ignored her. She might think you had the perfect lesson in your own family but refused to see it.

You should also talk to your sister because if you think she's happy all the time, I think you're missing something. Being a parent doesn't seem happy all the time to me. And if she's a single parent, I'm sure the demands on her are even greater.

I'm sure she loves her child. But I'm also pretty sure that if you had a sister-to-sister talk with her about what you're planning, she would say, "Don't do it."

That's three people that you haven't talked to: your boyfriend, your mother and your sister.
Seems to me like if you thought one or more of them would agree with your plan, you would have already spoken to them instead of asking me.

Now, yesterday I wanted to note this incredible post by C.I. I'll provide a link here and note that the important questions were asked this morning as well. C.I.'s point is why can't the New York Times tell us what the law says? Forget if it was broken or not which the grand jury will decide, why can't the paper tell us what the law actually says and means?

While the press can't give you that information, Attorney X tries to give some

Legal analysis by visiting attorney

This came in to the e-mail account today in response to an earlier post. The person is an attorney (that's been verified). The person asks to remain nameless. Attorney X notes a great interest in "the information" getting out than in credit, even offers that I could pass it off as my own. (Kind offer, but when I say "I don't know" -- as I did re: Vicky ToeJam's claims in a Wash Post op-ed and claims Richard W. Stevensom appears to have repeated in "At White House, a Day of Silence on Rove's Role in C.I.A. Leak" -- I mean "I don't know." No need to pretend otherwise on my part.)

If Attorney X decides to take credit via real name, we'll note the real name here. But the friend I called last night was very clear about not wanting to be named and so I can certainly understand Attorney X's desire to be unnamed. (Again, Attorney X's status as an attorney is verified.)

I have read your analysis of the New York Times article about Karl Rove.

I have read other articles and postings about this matter.

All trouble me, because they do not correctly describe the state of affairs.

Further, I think that the state of affairs can be simply and correctly stated.

Finally, I feel that doing so would contributing greatly to an understanding of what Mr. Fitzgerald is doing, and probably what Mr. Rove has done, and will be doing.

Take your analysis, for instance. It is very exacting and rigorous, it seems to me.

Very good, in other words. The problem from which it suffers is your ignorance. Not stupidity, ignorance. Just as there are many things I do not know about, there are some things you do not know about. Your analysis necessarily comes to a halt when you reach one of your points of ignorance. As you seem to recognize fully.

The good news is, the very few things about which you are ignorant in this case are very simple to understand, and they are things which I do understand.

I propose in this e-mail to set out those things, to source them to you solidly, and to offer my thoughts about what they mean. If you choose, please investigate offerings, consider them, and use them as you see fit.
First, the U. S. Code. You have linked to a University of Missouri Web site, I believe. I don't know about the authority, completeness, currency, and so forth of that Web site for such material. Probably the most authoritative source for such material, online, and maybe anywhere, is the official Government Printing Office Web site -

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode

Google "united states code" and you can confirm that.

Personally, I like the Cornell site -

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

[. . .]

For your purposes, the GPO site is probably the best - you're right unless the official lawkeeper is wrong.
You're more than able to figure out how to use the site. Go over there, if you choose to pursue this, and look up 50 U. S. C. 421. Note several points.

1. In the first two subsections, at the very least, the law requires an element of intent. And the intentional act required is intentional disclosure. The act does not require knowledge on the part of the disclosing party that the person being identified is a covert agent. Just the intentional disclosure of information. The point of this intent requirement is simple. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I, too, am permitted by law, to know it. You tell me, and someone overhears you, unbeknownst to us. Say someone taps our telephone conversation. You have disclosed the information to someone not entitled to have it, but not intentionally. You have not violated the law.

2. The information disclosed must identify a covert agent. Not necessarily by name. Or Social Security number. Or DNA. Any method of identification is sufficient. There is no restriction on the type of identification. Suppose you know the identity of a covert agent, as permitted by law, and I am an assassin sent to murder a foreign agent. But I do not know who it is. My government has paid you to tell me. We meet in a restaurant, where the foreign agent is eating, also. You nod your head toward her, and maybe say, "Her, in the blue dress, over there." You have violated the law.

The notion, as floated by Rove's lawyer, that the identification must be by name, is without support in the law. If the drafters of the law had wanted to limit the law in that way, they would have done so, and would have made it essentially useless in doing so.

3. The statute has a knowing element, in addition to the intent element. The thing which must be known is not the fact that the person identified is a covert agent, but that the information disclosed identifies the person. Again, the type of identification is not restricted.

4. The statute also requires that the discloser know that the United States is trying to keep the intelligence connection between the person and the United States non-public.

5. Those first two subsections have additional elements - for instance, that the discloser have authorized access to classified information.

Now, go to 50 U. S. C. 426. There's your definition of "covert agent," in subsection (4). Not to mention "classified information," in subsection

(1).As you can see, there are three definitions of a "covert agent," (A), (B), and (C).

(C) does not apply. Nor does (B) (ii). So we are left with (A) and (B) (i).
Note, first, the disjunctive, not conjunctive connectors. Satisfying either element makes one a "covert agent;" both elements need not be satisfied.

(B) (1) seems not to apply, because it requires current foreign residence. It is nonetheless instructive, because it establishes the contrast between residence and service, which is the standard in sub-subsection (A).

Now, let's look at subsection (A).The first requirement, in the opening paragraph, seems to be satisfied - Plame was a present officer or employee of an intelligence agency.

The second requirement, that her identity as such be classified information, cannot known to us for a certainty. I would be shocked, though, if some order or regulation or statute did not make her identity such. That is why Wilson threw such a fit when his wife's identity was betrayed - it was supposed to be a secret. You can bet that if he were wrong, and her identity was supposed to be public, Rove's defenders would have made that point long ago. They wouldn't rely on less good defenses when they had a rock solid one. That is why Toensing's questioning of Plame's secret status rings hollow - it isn't a matter of where Plame's desk was, it's a matter of whether there is the requisite order, statute, or regulation in existence. An "expert" on the law would know that. My conclusion has to be that she's blowing smoke for Rove on this.

The third requirement is service - as opposed to residence - outside the country in the last five years. What kind of service? Any kind. There is no restriction. Wilson's trip to Africa was service outside the country, for instance. Conceivably, if the CIA had sent Plame to Toronto on a plane to pick up papers and come back one day, she would have served outside the country. Did this happen? We can't be sure, but is hard to believe that a secret CIA agent working on WMD didn't take at least one trip outside the country for them in the five whole years, especially if just before that period, she had been stationed outside the country, and the way the whole WMD was being cranked up by the Administration in the preceding two or so years.

In the end, though, you make the ultimate point - Fitzgerald and the lawyers working in his office are no one's fools, and if they are pursuing this like they are, they must feel pretty good about the basic things, like foreign service and statutes, orders, and regulations. Those are easily easily established or disproven by documentation. That is true even if they are also pursuing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, which it appears they are.

Also, judging by the slim, and faulty, reeds the "experts" are grasping for, I have to believe that something real hot is under all that smoke.

[. . .]

My main purpose is certainly not identification, though, it is publication of accurate information.

I hope this helps.

It does help. And thank you for walking me through it. Again, if Attorney X should desire credit for this, it will be noted here. I have to wonder who, if anyone, Richard W. Stevenson verified Toejam's claims on the law with.