Also Also

Novak to Reveal Plame Leak

CNN:  Robert Novak being interviewed by Ed Henry:

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.[...]

HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.

NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

Time Magazine to reveal reporter's notes:

The case stems from a July 14, 2003 column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Valeria Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Cooper, along with two other Time reporters, wrote a story on the issue three days after Novak's column was published. Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson.

The subpoena issued to Time seeks documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003 concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

There was a point when I thought this could be a scandal to start the domino effect taking down the house of cards.  I've always wanted the source revealed, but I've been very sympathetic to Matt Cooper and the integrity of his sources.  We're all tired of the anonymous official source, but in this case the source broke the law, and Cooper finds himself under court order.  A tough situation.

Kleiman has more.

-- Zap

Weblogs and Firefox Open Thread

Ron asked for an open thread on this topic.  I'm curious what's on his mind, so here it is. 

I've mentioned before that wanting to write a blog and actually writing one completely changed my thinking.  Initially, I was hoping to promote the site to a prideful level of popularity by using our "compelling" juxtapositions that both oppose the current power structure.  I'm the enemy within; Torrid is the barbarian at the gate.  I was going to spread the word.  Attention whoring was a legitimate accusation-- for less than a month. 

I've spent years commenting at other sites on a wide variety of topics, mostly sports as a matter of fact.  A change belatedly perceived in American governance in January 2003 changed that.  I became an annoying (but sincerely concerned) "politics only" topic contributor.  An outlet like this blog became necessity.  It's a necessity that drives my ongoing commentary.  Attention is usually a distant thought.  Popularity is only important to me when I think I have something unique to say, which isn't very often.  When I do, I make sure to take it a very popular site and shout about it.  We're just two more activated voices in the wilderness of a couple thousand more popular blogs.  Considering there's millions of these things, this isn't such a bad place to be, nor do I have the time or current motivation to add more to what I already do. 

I wish I did, but fantasy football season is right around the corner, and I write for a popular site (I'm hooked on the competition), as does and is Torrid, last I checked.  So, my efforts will probably be in decline between now and the NFL kickoff.  I will get to the topics I've mentioned, and consistently keep the thing fresh, but that's about it.  I also have a couple trips coming in the next two months, although Uganda has been cancelled.  I'll write about that soon too.

I thought I should share the above in case Ron has hot ideas for making a blog top the charts.  I am curious what he wanted this thread for. 

-- Zap

Orcinus Remembers

Who's weak on terror?

So when attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh and Rove accuse Democrats of being "soft on terrorism" and remark: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," it is yet another mirror-image, Bizarro World reversal of reality.

The reality: When liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attack, they wanted to prepare an effective, nimble response combining military action with intelligence-gathering and law enforcement, as well as addressing the root causes of terrorism; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and simply prepared to sell George W. Bush as a "war president."

I would add that not all conservatives or liberals fit the above insight, but considering the topic, Neiwert is certainly justified the turn of phrase.  One of the great shames of our leadership's chosen direction in response to 9-11, was the refusal to accept law enforcement as a necessary international and intranational tool.  To deny that, and then attack those who understood the necessity; to train the party mouthpiece to mock needed policy; to label it cowardice; and in light of 9-11 and where we are today, is the height of perfidy I've previously referred to as betrayal.

-- Zap

Strong Rhetoric

[unexpurgated material below, for the sensitive]

I've ripped a few Oliphant cartoons and put them into images here, and I'm starting to feel badly about it, but he keeps on hitting his mark after all these years. So, two things: here's the link to see Oliphant the way I do, from Yahoo; and then to comment. Wow. I know the fashionably liberal blog response seems to be outrage at Bush's conflation of 9/11 and Iraq. But that is such old news, and I actually think it's turning into a negative for him, or at least subject to rapidly diminishing returns. No, what really caught my attention from the speech was "It's worth it."

I'm racing my way through Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz today, so I'm keenly observant that the problem I'm having here is probably one about me--but my first thought on those words from the President was literally "you miserable fucker--what would you know about it?" What galls me is the presumption about something that is ultimately individual and personal. All of the sunny crap that we're turning the corner and things are moving well ahead--that's his call to make those statements, and if I don't believe them then I don't, but he's certainly got a big right to his opinion on the matter. But it truly shows supreme disregard to to declare for those who have really made a concrete and brutal sacrifice, that it was worth it. And to say so, knowing how tenuous even this level of instability might be? I couldn't believe the nerve.

I confess I was not mentally eloquent enough to close my bout of angry, silent self-righteousness with the image Oliphant paints, but when I saw it the fire returned. It is strong rhetoric, and it is not a petty or unserious allegation to essentially accuse the Commander in Chief of reckless disregard for his troops. But it does the office no service, to fear of the corruptive truth and leave it unsaid. There are lives and uncontrollable events of history at stake--uncontrollable because we have failed to control them--and the justification of further aimless strategic drift by saying "it's worth it," should be an affront to those who deserve the right to decide that for themselves. They may in fact disagree.

--TJ

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it

Medical Marijuana is a topic more to Torrid's taste than mine, but I have to briefly comment. 

The State's Rights Trio must have chuckled:

The Rhode Island legislature passed a bill yesterday allowing the use of medical marijuana, three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities could prosecute those who use the drug for medicinal purposes, even in states with laws allowing it.

That's an entertaining sentence.

-- Zap

How Could Iraq Happen?

Predictably, the president's speech last night has many invoking parallels to LBJ speaking about Vietnam.  Turning back the calender to 1967, this essay by James C. Thompson, Jr., then an east Asia specialist and Harvard historian, provides clues by uncovering 40 year old DNA. 

The entire article is a timely lesson in history repeating itself.  But this closing paragraph, warning future Americans, suggests Thompson was prophetic:

From How Could Vietnam Happen?

There is a final result of Vietnam policy I would cite that holds potential danger for the future of American foreign policy: the rise of a new breed of American ideologues who see Vietnam as the ultimate test of their doctrine. I have in mind those men in Washington who have given a new life to the missionary impulse in American foreign relations: who believe that this nation, in this era, has received a threefold endowment that can transform the world. As they see it, that endowment is composed of, first, our unsurpassed military might; second, our clear technological supremacy; and third, our allegedly invincible benevolence (our "altruism," our affluence, our lack of territorial aspirations). Together, it is argued, this threefold endowment provides us with the opportunity and the obligation to ease the nations of the earth toward modernization and stability: toward a fullfledged Pax Americana Technocratica. In reaching toward this goal, Vietnam is viewed as the last and crucial test. Once we have succeeded there, the road ahead is clear. In a sense, these men are our counterpart to the visionaries of Communism's radical left: they are technocracy's own Maoists. They do not govern Washington today. But their doctrine rides high.

They govern Washington today.

-- Zap

Oxblog on Democrats and Foreign Policy

In my rambling weekend post here, I asked:

Is it just me, or is the Right far more interested in foreign policy than the Left? [...]

You know the idea:  Vote democrat locally, but republican nationally.  Could foreign policy have a major psychological influence in that?  I think so.  Should the Left be a little more attentive?  Obviously, but why isn't it?

David Adesnik picks up the scent from progressive American Prospect's question about favorite books of the last 15 years.

The American Prospect recently asked more than twenty prominent liberals to name the most important liberal book written in the last fifteen years. The fact that only three of those twenty-plus commentators mentioned a book about foreign policy or national security tells you a lot about why the American public feels safer with Bush in the White House even though they disapprove of his policies.

Moreover, it's not just the fact that so few of the books are about foreign policy, but also the way in which the books approach the subject that convey the mismatch between liberal foreign policy and the concerns of the American majoirty.

For example, Harvard professor and terrorism expert Jessica Stern recommends Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry by Peter W. Singer. Stern writes that

Singer examines corporate mercenaries who kill for pro?t -- sometimes bene?ting the world through peacekeeping missions, and sometimes bene?ting only themselves.

Lots of folks I respect have praised Singer's work. But is corporate influence on national security really a defining issue for American liberalism? And if it were, would the American public see the Democratic Party as having its priorities straight?

In defense of Stern, it is worth noting that the Prospect demanded very rapid responses from those whom it polled about the most important books of the last fifteen years. Yet if the Prospect had directed its question my way, it would've taken me all of fifteen seconds to come up with my answer: "A Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power.

Four books popped into my right leaning head when I considered the question.  Like Adesnik, I thought immediately of Power's Pulitizer winner along with a quick but powerful read written shortly after 9-11 by  (progressive minded) Shibley Telhami, The Stakes; and (Liebermanish neoconservative leaning) Dore Gold's, Hatred's Kingdom; also (Nobel laureate) Joseph Stigletz', The Roaring 90s.  Three of those address global unrest and terrorism, and one is an indepth analysis of globalization, the successes and failures of the Clinton years.  If forced to make a quick decision, I would have selected the same book as Adesnik, A Problem From Hell.

Adesnik adds to my curiousity about the left and global issues:

And so what about all the books not about foreign policy? The first thing I noticed was how many of them are about race, civil rights, and/or the 1960s. Walter Mondale recommends Judgment Days, which is about the relationship between LBJ and Martin Luther King Jr. The list also includes books about civil rights organizers in Mississippi, the life of W.E.B. DuBois, the legislative work of LBJ, and assorted others.

Naturally, liberals should celebrate the great triumphs of the past. But none of these subjects has much potential to serve as the foundation of a strong progressive, liberal, Democratic movement for the 21st century.

Is it priorities?  In this global information age, it's going to be hard to squeeze Americans voting for president with policy concerns inside our national borders.  They are important, and are addressed by both parties.  That's not the point.  Since 9-11 Americans are looking inside other borders, and the apparatus for addressing those concerns is the executive branch.  Oddly, to me anyway, is the major issues abroad are right in liberal's wheelhouse-- oppression, tyranny, hunger, suffrage, cultural and ethnic divisions, human rights-- yet, they barely address the topics.    I recommend a loud symphany in opposition to Khartoum. 

Adesnik noted the books chosen by progressives are about human rights, but they dwell on national history, not the international issues currently driving the GOP. 

I'm also wondering if the Right hasn't hijacked the debate.  If you oppose President Pre-emptive War, you're unAmerican, not supporting the troops, soft on terror.  Which is garbage, but it's going to take more than platitudes to expose the refuse.  It had to be disheartening to hear prominent Democrats correcting the media and backing the president.

John Stewart recently had Howard Dean on the Daily show.  Stewart posed a simple question, paraphrasing because I cannot find the transcript, "Why doesn't the loyal opposition come forward with a counter agenda.  You know?  When the republicans say this is what we're doing, why not offer what you would do instead?" 

Dean said that was a great idea and they should do that, and they are or they would, and then it was sort of uncomfortable because... well, they're not, or perhaps more accurately, they're not to any respectable degree.  Which bothers me.  They're employed full-time, empowered by their constituents to do that.  Yet, a history teacher writing part-time has plenty of time to do the lion's share of the work for them, as far as I can tell.

Maybe the answer lies in American Prospect's opening line: 

There have been lots of great progressive books in the last 15 years, so we asked lots of people we like to tell us -- quickly! -- their favorite one.

Maybe progressive foreign affairs texts are in limited supply.  Again, why?

-- Zap

Conservative Bloggers: Lift Up That Eyepatch!

Courtesy of the always-useful Memeorandum, the reaction to the speech from the heavy hitters of the rightosphere is almost universal: Why is AP reporting on the speech before it happened? At first I just thought it was LGF being snarkily bored: " Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven files a dispatch from the future." Gee, Michelle Malkin picked up on it too: "The clairvoyants at the Associated Press have already released their report on the Bush speech, written in the past tense--a speech which isn't scheduled to happen until 8pm EST tonight. Amazing!"

Captain Ed? Aye aye: "The Clairvoyant New Media — Don't mess with the AP's Jennifer Loven — she apparently is the wire service's resident fortune-teller." Powerline? Got the memo. Outside the Beltway? Inside the loop. Ed Driscoll? Reminds us of the coinage "Laphamism." Glenn Reynolds? "Powerline spotted a Laphamism!"

Some went back to give their own thoughts on the speech later. I can't verify what they said, because I didn't watch it. Why? Because the White House gave it the extended King Kong trailer treatment all afternoon. McClellan gave away the highlights while pretending to not want to, and as several bloggers above noted, passed out excerpted copies of the speech for the media to...what? Ruminate over with stroked beard? File away in case Fort Bragg is swallowed by a tsunami and it becomes "the speech Bush would have delivered if?" No, my guess is they wanted the media to PRINT it. Which makes the roll-eyed derision inexplicable to me--if you're going to complain about the game being given away before the tipoff, why blame the media? They wouldn't have had anything to write if the White House hadn't given them the speech.

Realize, however, that this is not a coincidence. The right performs well in the media game because they act as smooth sheets of metal. The light bounces off them seamlessly, right to the next reflector. It almost never hits an abrasion or a scratch that distorts the signal. When the left does it, Howard Dean launches a lightning bolt, and Joe Biden steps aside. "Whew! Did you see that thing almost hit me? Good thing I dodged it, eh?"

--TJ

Just answering the question

Via Mark Kleiman:

Karl Rove is no fool.

The belief that we should respect our own laws, international treaties, and fundamental human rights, even when dealing with those accused of terrorism, is very much a minority view, and every time liberals speak out against torture they cost themselves votes. [...]

Query for those opponents of torture who still support the GOP: Which side do you want to be on?

Answer:  I want the GOP to get it right.  I want the current power structure to go from lameduck to extinct, and I want honest, freedom and liberty loving, Bill of Rights triumphing conservatism to trump neoconservatism within the party. 

It's not lost on me that had a similar scandal broke under Clinton's rule, the whole ugly nightmare would have probably driven him from office.  It would have been used as an example of the moral decay of liberalism, the unAmerican and evil mindset of our Leftist president.  Comments like Durbin's would be standard fare until the combined congressional and media storm blew the wall of secrecy down and gave us complete details to the extent of our transgressions.  And that I would have applauded.

McCain gave a speech in AZ during election season.  In the following Q and A, he was asked about the unfortunate condition of his party by a party member.  He responded by sincerely asking disgruntled Republicans to stick it out.  He promised the party would be changed for the better.  I've given the GOP one year from November to "show me the decency."  So far I'm nonplussed; bad is getting worse, and more are being led to defend torture, or more accurately, more are being misled to the nature of the situation. 

So, which side do I want to be on?  I want to be on the side of American virtue and ideals.  I want to be on the side of a mandate of Americans, and I want that mandate to be opposed to torture.  If that side proves to be an unfortunate fantasy, then I will humbly vote against torture again and always. 

Thanks for asking.

-- Zap

Bush Tax Policy Like Robinhood

Much, perhaps too much, is made of the President's tax policy favoring the rich and ignoring the poor.

Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

One of the biggest obstacles facing President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is the fact that America has become divided between a growing class of people who pay no income taxes and a shrinking class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the burden.

Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers. Tax Foundation economists estimate that for tax year 2004, a record 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return (one-third of the 131 million returns filed last year) had no tax liability after they took advantage of their credits and deductions. Millions more paid next to nothing.  (emph. added)

Sounds like administration propaganda, but it's coming from the "non-partisan" Tax Foundation, who I'm happy to report has a blog.  I put non-partisan in quotes because the Tax Foundation promotes the following:

Simplicity: The tax system should be as simple as possible, and taxes should be easy to understand and comply with.

Transparency: Taxes should be as visible as possible to taxpayers, and should make clear who and what is being taxed.

Stability: Tax law should not change continually, and changes in tax law should not be retroactive.

Neutrality: Taxes should aim to raise revenue with a minimum of economic distortion, and should not attempt to micromanage the economy.

Growth-promotion: Taxes should consume as small a portion of national income as possible, and should not interfere with economic growth, trade or capital flows.

Which I agree with completely, but certainly some on the Left would consider these positions oversimplified or irresponsible.  There does seem to be more to the numbers than the Tax Foundation discusses.  If one third of Americans filing returns have no tax liability, millions more pay next to nothing, and millions of the third are receiving rebates, it's difficult to make a case that current tax policy is hard on the poor.  What's alarming is that a third of Americans are living below any tax burden.  Combine that with the myriad corporate tax havens, the loopholes for the extremely rich, and you arrive at a disproportional tax burden on the middle class, not the poor. 

A lot of Americans think they got a tax cut, and they didn't because their local property tax went up, their excise tax went up, their sales tax went up, and their prices went up and everything else, because we failed to invest in some of these other things we ought to be doing. ... We are squeezing the middle class, we are losing the middle class, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing wider and wider, not closing as it used to be.  (John Kerry)

The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes. (Aristotle)

Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future. (Ayn Rand)

One third do not pay taxes.

-- Zap