January 2, 2004 by s.z.

Ratcheting the Tension Up a Notch  As Atrios first noted (he can scoop everybody else because, while he SEEMS to be a mild-mannered blogger for a great metropolitan blog, he came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men), today Time magazine reported a new strategy in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation.  Reportedly, the FBI agents conducting the investigation are asking Senior Administration Officials to waive the confidentiality agreements they have with reporters, in an effort to either get the reporters to name the source of the leak; or, as in a game of Clue, allow the investigators to deduce who the leaker is by figuring out who won't sign such a waiver. CNN has now picked up the story, and also includes this insight from Time's Viveca Novak (who, despite what you might have heard, apparently isn't Robert's daughter, determined to restore the family honor by seeing that her father gets a jail term; however, she may possibly be the Bizarro World Robert, an actual reporter where he is a hack): Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak thinks it's pretty clear that Bush administration officials can't refuse to sign the document without being seen as uncooperative. She also said that gathering the releases appears to be a step toward subpoenaing reporters before a grand jury. "It's certainly a possibility because prosecutors are being very careful, I think, laying their legal groundwork here," she said. "To go to the judge and say, 'We've exhausted all other avenues for getting this information that we need and we now need the reporters to talk and the reporters are not talking. A crime has been committed here and we need them to talk.' And the judge could then hold them in contempt and put them in jail," she said. And while she said reporters are not known for responding to that kind of pressure, in the post-September 11 world with the United States on high alert for new possible terrorism, a judge may take such a request seriously. While I doubt this strategy will work, I do hope it gives a certain Senior Administration Official some bad nights as he realizes that his fate lies in the hands of Robert Novak, pawn.  I also hope the the SAO gets ulcers as he tries to estimate just how long Robert's dedication to protecting a source will last once Bob is in jail.  Heck, lets ALL spend some time imagining Robert in jail, having to rely on his good looks to attract a protector to keep the gang members from pounding him to a pulp (those liberal prison gangs can be really vicious).  Now that was fun, wasn't it? Anyway, CNN also  provide this handy list of "CIA Terms," for those playing along at home: CIA TERMS Operative: A CIA employee who gathers intelligence covertly, either in the field or from agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The CIA calls the job "clandestine services officer." Agent: Usually a foreign national contracted to gather intelligence in the field for the CIA. Analyst: A CIA employee who evaluates intelligence gathered by operatives and agents; not a covert position. And while this has nothing to do with the leak story, it gives me some enjoyment to correct CNN, so here goes: "Operative" is not a CIA term, but instead a "spy novel and/or Robert Novak" term.  The CIA actually calls the people who recruit foreign nationals to give up their country's secrets "Case Officers."   Other employees  of the "clandestine services" part of the CIA, the Directorate of Operations, would include support personnel, such as logistics officers, and budget officers.  The DO also employs people who may be involved in "clandestine services" like conducting paramilitary operations in Iraq, but who aren't Case Officers, in that they aren't out there committing espionage in foreign lands. An Agent is indeed someone, usually a foreign national, who had agreed to collect information for his CIA handler (whom he might not know works for the CIA, the U.S. Goverment, or even the USA).  Agents can be arrested or even killed if their association with the CIA is discovered -- that's why outing Plame was VERY BAD, in a moral sense, since she reportedly used to meet with agents in true name.  A stateside Analyst position in the Directorate of Intelligence is usually not covert, as stated.  But the person doing the analysis may very well be under cover, due to past or future career considerations.  The CIA Centers (such as the Nonproliferation Center, where Valerie Plame reportedly worked when outed by Novak), are staffed by many DO officers taking a mid-career tour as an analyst.  Most CIA employees are well aware of this, which is why I assume that Novak's "CIA source," (the one who told him that Plame was just an analyst and so it wouldn't matter if Novak announced her CIA employement to the world, despite what the CIA spokesman had told him) was not actually a CIA employee.  Hey, maybe Robert will squeal on him too, once he's doing time for contempt. And now you know all you need to work the Intelligence Community beat.  Well, MORE than you need to know, so I guess we'll have to kill you.  Sorry about that. 10:59:26 PM

A Voice of Sanity (and Good Writing) in a Passe' Blogosphere Jim at Rittenhouse Review has volunteered to take up the Amber-sitting challenge for today, and so examined her claim that we all pick on her because we're anti-Semites, in that she is all for "self-interest, materialism, and capitalism," just like the Jews are.  Yup.  That's what she claims.   (Hey, maybe she and Joel Mowbray would be a good match!)  [For the record, the reason that Amber is an Ayn Randian Princess is because she believes that someday, in a world full of liberal jerky men, her oversized 8-year-old Roarkian prince will come (complete with that dog trained to do tricks); and his presence alone will engulf her with objectivism pleasure.  We wish them both much happiness.] Anyway, after dealing with Amber, Jim smartly smacks a Philadelphia Weekly column which declared that blogs are "out." (My favorite line from Jim's very funny and astute commentary: "According to the little piece, which carries no byline other than 'Hip-o-Meter,' which I hope and pray is not a real person’s real name..."  LOL!) And he also discusses how a personal ad points out society's (or at least one guy's) newest category of "undatables": the "unemployeds." (I wonder if people like Neil Bush, who get lots of money for "consulting" but aren't actually employed by anybody, are included in this group of pariahs.  But then, I guess Neil doesn't actually date, since women just knock on his hotel door and have their way with him.  So never mind.) Anyway, go read the Rittenhouse Review.  It will make you feel better about being a human being. 9:05:57 PM

But What About Amber? So, all the men are off having LIVES over the holidays, and nobody is paying any attention to Amber Pawlik.  And that's just not right.  You can't raise a girl's expectations that way and then never call her.  You guys are in a relationship with her now, and you have to either uphold your end of it, or break things off cleanly.   Here, I'll let you know what she's been up to while you've been ignoring her, but then the ball is in your court: 1.  Amber has noticed all of you manly men (Rittenhouse Review and Pandagon get recent mentions).  She likes her her new nickname ("Ayn Randian Princess").  She even signed her full name in such a way that you guys could Google her and find her at Chapination, where she hangs out these days (apparently it's a shared blog for the Men's Wear Weekly columnists).  But since I am the one who actually thought of the nickname, all that flirting will do her little good.  2.  On Christmas, Amber complimented a guy on an article he wrote which claims that older women are bitter, and therefore unmarriageable.  Amber adds: From a female perspective, I say to other women: take this as proof. Other men aren't going to find you marriageable if you spend all your time in your twenties, ahem, "damaging your goods." (Sorry, but that is the cold hard truth of what you are doing). Every time I've brought this topic up, people seem to get really really ah ... how do you say "upset" in a nice way? with me. This includes Objectivists and others. Blah. But Amber is young, and therefore apparently unaware of the fact that no matter how pristinely a woman maintains her goods, she still is going to age.  From a female perspective, I say she'd better marry somebody TODAY, before the bitterness starts setting in.  So, which of you men are going to step up to the plate?  Jesse?  Jim? 3.  On December 30th, Amber reported that she was almost turned away at the border because the Canadian authorities were concerned about her well-being when she said she was going to visit an ex-boyfriend.  (Actually, they were probably just worried about what she might do to their country.)  This leads Amber to conclude that: Canada is the most f*cked up feminist country ever. So, see, Canadians, she is thinking of you guys too! 4.  The divorced fellows at Men's Wear Weekly still don't like the idea of Amber lecturing them about marriage -- I don't know if that accounts for the fact that she hasn't had any pieces appear there for the past couple of weeks or not.  She does, however, have a new one at FaithFreedom.org.  It's entitled "Feminists Pave the Way for Women to be Raped."  This is my favorite part from it: Every conservative man I know who hears of these gangs raping women vow they would take the situation into their own hands if the law didn’t bring justice to the rape victims.  Despite feminist activism for several years about the oppression of women in the Middle East – under the likes of the Taliben and Sadddam Hussein – they were utterly impotent in their ability to help Middle Eastern women.  It was conservatives, the Bush administration, with quick, effective military action that liberated these people, including women, from these oppressive regimes.  I am reminded of the two different first wives relationship to women in the Middle East:  Laura Bush preached to Middle Eastern leaders that they need to educate their girls as well as their boys; Hillary Clinton’s only bragging right is she tried on a burqa. Of course, if Laura was a REAL man she would have been there with the troops, liberating those women from rapists by taking the law into her own hands.  While Laura did give this radio address, I'm aware of Hillary actually traveling to Middle Eastern countries and talking to the leaders and the women ("There she was in Tunisia, lashing out at Islamic radicals in other countries who oppress women--Wash Post April 1999.  "Clinton also met with a small group of Afghan women as she continued to stress the need to include women in the nation-building process --CNN Nov 2003)  I don't think Laura has done as much.  In fact, I don't think GEORGE has done as much.   But nonetheless, you liberal guys need to get off your duffs and do something for those white Australian women who were raped by swarthy Muslim men; for Nicole Simpson, a white woman dead at the hands of a black man; and for all the Muslim women whose Burqas were appropriated by Hillary Clinton, who has some Semitic blood in her veins.  Oh, and do something for Amber.  I CAN'T keep doing it--I'm old, bitter, and unmarriageable. 5:41:25 AM

Or Maybe He Learned That Osama is Hiding in the Wilsons' Basement So, Ashcroft has recused himself from the "Senior Administration Official" leak case, and a special prosecutor has been named to head the investigation.  While some might think this means that some Senior Administration Official is going to have to answer for his or her deeds, others take the more sanguine view that nobody did anything wrong, but if anybody did, it was the Wilsons.  That guy whom Atrios has resolved not to read anymore (oh, you know the lawyer I mean -- his name is Glen, and he has a blog called something like InstaPuffery) has finally faced up to the fact that the case hasn't just gone away because somebody said it should.  He eagerly offers up one Eric Rasmusen 's opinions of what the Ashcroft recusal may mean: 1. The leaker has been discovered, but either the leak was not a crime or is too trivial to warrant prosecution. Well, that wouldn't  go over very well with the CIA (and they not only have lots of secrets in their vaults, but also  mechanical fish which can kill you in your bathtub if you cross them), so if that is going to be the DOJ position, then Ashcroft was indeed smart to get out while he could.  2. The investigation has uncovered misbehavior, but by people in the CIA-- perhaps Plame herself-- who are opposed to the Bush Administration. Hey, this is the best possible solution to the "how do you solve a problem like the leaker?" case -- you get the DOJ to say that PLAME is the guilty party for being a CIA employee who married somebody opposed to the Bush administration.  It's so evil, it just might work!  Eric thinks that if the DOJ investigation had uncovered Plame's dastardly plot to entrap the White House this way, then Ascroft might have recused himself so that the Democrats couldn't say that he had anything to do with steering the investigation -- even though Ashcroft has had months to steer things, if he was so inclined.  But Eric has more to say about why Ashcroft's stepping aside might mean that Wilson and Plame are the bad guys; not, you know, somebody at the White House:  It is clear there was misbehavior in the CIA in selecting Wilson to go to Niger, since it was clear he would use the opportunity to embarass the Administration without collecting any real information. Someone ought to be fired for that. It may be that an actual crime has been committed, too--- say, misuse of government money for political purposes by civil servants, or violation of a confidentiality agreement (by Wilson), or violation of a nepotism rule (by Plame), or something we don't know about. Um, no.  Just no.   But here are some reasons why: 1.  How could there possibly be misbehavior is selecting a former ambassador to undertake an intelligence mission for which he was seemingly very well suited (using his former diplomatic contacts to gather information in a part of the world with which he was very familiar? BTW, it is not yet illegal for Democrats to work for the government.  Sure, this could change at any moment, but at the time that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger, it was, in fact, AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate against somebody BECAUSE of their party affiliation. 2.  It was "clear" that Wilson would "embarrass the Administration"? Is Eric suggesting that the CIA knew that the White House would use discredited information in a presidential address (in fact, claiming this discredited information was a reason for invading Iraq), and that Wilson would contradict this claim, thus embarrassing the White House by telling the truth?  If so, he has a REALLY high opinion of the CIA's ability to predict the future (and a really low opinion of the White House.) 3.  The fact that Wilson didn't collect any "real information" about Saddam's attempts to buy uranium from Niger might possibly be because there wasn't any information to collect, n'est-ce pas?  Or does Eric feel that Wilson should have fabricated some (like the Iraqis who sold the idea to the Administration in the first place)? 4.  Yes, someone SHOULD be fired because Wilson embarrassed the President by showing that he was playing fast and loose with the facts.  Now, who should it be. . . ? 5.  If government money was "misused" in sending Wilson to attempt to verify, ONE MORE TIME, a report which the CIA had already told the Vice President's office was not only clearly bogus, but really most sincerely bogus, then maybe Cheney should indeed be given a pink slip. 6.  Wilson isn't new to the world of government secrets, and he isn't stupid.  If he signed a nondisclosure agreement about the mission, then he wouldn't have (IMHO) written an opinion piece about that mission for the NY Times and signed his name to it.  We'll see, of course, but since Wilson said that the mission wasn't secret (and nobody has contradicted him), then I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he was under no obligation not to talk about it. 7.   NOBODY (not even that idiot Novak) is claiming that Plame hired her husband to go on this mission for the CIA (Novak hints that it was either the head of the Nonproliferation Center, or somebody in the DDI's office).  So how could she have violated nepotism rules? 8.  Could Plame or Wilson have committed other crimes which the DOJ has uncovered, which we don't know about?  Sure, anything is possible.  But it seems a lot more likely that the investigation has found that a SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL leaked classified information to a reporter, which is, you know, a crime.  And that Ashcroft recused himself when it became obvious that there was evidence pointing to a culprit, and that it was, you know, somebody from the same Bush Administration which had given Ashcroft his job, and that this might constitute a conflict of interest. I don't know anything about Eric's background, but Glenn is a lawyer, so I'm amazed that some of these points didn't occur to him.  Unless, of course,  somebody had told him this case had been officially declared bogus, and he BELIEVED it.  But he'd have to be a real maroon to have bought THAT! Again, we'll see how it all plays out, but I am offering really long odds that Plame or Wilson are found guilty of ANYTHING except being patriotic, loyal Americans who are victims of a heartless and incompetent Senior Administration Official (or Officials).