Centerfield

Matthew,

According to the a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html">link textAP today, Robert Novak mentioned at the end of a conversation with Karl Rove that he had "heard that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." The article claims that Rove repeated, "I had heard that too."

If this is the essence of the case currently being touted against Rove, I'm not convinced that he did anything wrong. As I have stated before, and as the AP says today, it appears that the leak came from reporters--not the administration. Novak appears to have called the White House already knowing full well who Valerie Plame was. He dropped a passing comment at the end of a conversation saying "I had heard...", when Rove replied that he had heard the same thing, he suddenly finds himself a "Senior Administration Source." So, who is in the wrong here? That's still undiscovered because dear 'ole Judy won't talk. Like I have said before, it makes you wonder about her. During the writing of her article on WMD's, was Valerie Plame one of the sources she cited "within the CIA?" Once Joseph Wilson started running around town with his tinfoil hat, was she the one who mentioned to other reporters that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee? Did the reporters then trick the amdministration into saying "I know?" Those are the questions that need to be answered.

Damn it! Forgot to preview. Here's the AP link.

Did the reporters trick the administration? Oh, come on!? If that is what happened between Novak and Rove than I still have a problem... What he should have said was: "no comment."

So, Matthew, let's put you in that situation. You've had a 10 minute conversation with someone and are about to hang up, suddenly they switch gears and say, "I hope you guys aren't getting too worked up about that Wilson guy. Everyone says he's a kook, in fact, I heard that his wife works at the CIA." Of course, you'd be right on your toes. You'd quickly blurt out "No comment. I cannot comment on classified material."

I'll echo your words, Oh, come one!

If I was a senior advisor to the President of the United States, you are damn right I would! Give me a break... Are we really insinuating Rove slipped? Not only should he have said to Novak, "I can't discuss that with you," but the conversation with Cooper afterwards should have never happened, I don't care if he was trying to knock down bad information or not.

In case anybody missed it, Joe Wilson has now acknowledged: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

The CIA has many, many non-secret employees. Not every analyst who works there has to lie to their friends and family about their job. If a reporter told Rove that Plame worked for the CIA analyzing WMD threats, that by itself would give him no reason to believe that she had a confidential posting. And the fact that he was hearing it from a reporter would be proof positive that she was no longer covert in fact.

As for the White House statements about firing whoever was the leak, that's a non-issue for several reasons. First, if the White House "leaker" himself only got the information from the media to begin with, that's not a "leak" of classified or confidential information. At worst, that's passing on a rumor. Second, the context in which McClellan made those statements assumed that Plame was, in fact, a covert operative at the time. That was what all the questions were about, those were the assumptions being made. If she was not, then the premise for the statements of firing the leaker disappears.

I see a lot of dancing with that comment, Pat.

Pat's right. My point, Matthew, has been that people came into this with their mind already made up. They haven't bothered to read the facts. After all, why bother with the facts when they smell blood? So far, no one has proven that Rove knew that Plame was undercover--in fact, all of the facts that are known to date seem to indicate that she was not--and seems to have simply been agreeing that he had heard similar information.

I don't like Rove, but I'm absolutely disgusted with how the media seems to think that they are judge and jury. Just think of all of the people that they have "convicted." Richard Jewell is another name that comes to mind...and suddenly, when they are proven wrong, there is no story.

This is all about revenge, just admit it. I'd have less of a problem discussing it with people if they would admit their true motives, and sudden concern for the CIA ain't one of 'em.

Mathew,

Thanks you for posting some important questions that have not been answered adequately in these discussions (i.e. do you really need a crime or be first to leak).

While we are talking "if you were _______, what would you do", I add this question to the debate...

If you were the manager of a large company and the feds came to investigate you for some potentially serious RICO (or other) violation two years ago. At that time you promised complete cooperation because you did not feel your company overstepped the law in any way (or because your an honest guy -- not so sure how much of that there is any more though :-)). You ask your top employees what they know and they tell you nothing-they were not involved. Your top employees even deny it to the local press at the time.

When you find out now (two years later) that one of your main employees lied and did know something...(i.e. the employee was involved, even if only in a very small way), WHAT DO YOU DO?

(1) demote or fire employee for lying to you and impeding investigation.
(2) Ignore the deciept and wait to see if he is charged with a crime prior to acting.

I'm not the type who jumps to judgement on someone, I'd wait. If he merely confirmed that he had heard something--that appears to be widely known, that hardly appears to qualify as a leak.

Here's a quote from today's Washington Times...and then I've got to get out of here...

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

Revenge?

I am a registered Republican and voted for Bush both times.

I don't like Rove, and don't claim to... To me he is the type of hack that is ruininng, or has ruined, the Republican Party. However, I haven't come close to the level of others. For instance, I don't believe he should go to jail. My only point is that there should be a standard, and IMO, he violated it.

I don't understand the comment that I don't know the facts... I know Rove had a conversation with Cooper and mentioned that Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA, which is all I need. In my view it doesn't matter what he knew, she was an employee of the CIA. Please don't pretend to understand what my motive are, because you don't have a clue. And as far as knowing facts, all I see from you and Pat are speculations based on reports from the media you claim is out to get Rove. The article you linked to doesn't report that Rove learned Plame's identity from Novak, it reports that is what he said in his testimony to the grand jury. The source that is the center of your argument is the accused himself. I am not the one pretending to know the details of this situation.

Again, this whole situation would not have happened had Rove been more worried about doing the right thing than he was with the political implication of Wilson, who has turned out to be a liar and a fraud.

Mod,

Do you know for a fact that Karl Rove never went to the President and said, I heard she was CIA from some reporter and passed that along as a rumor to another reporter, but I don't know how the first reporter got this information? Do you know whether the President said to him "heck, Karl, that's not leaking covert information"? How did Karl Rove hinder the investigation? It is pretty clear that he told the grand jury everything he knew when he was asked. That's the exact opposite of impedeing. Miller and Cooper are the only ones known to have broken the law and impeded the investigation, frankly. Your post assumes many facts which are not in the public record at this point.

Mathew,

So are you assuming that Rove's testimony to the grand jury is perjured? Do you agree that if his testimony is accurate that it absolves him? I'm on the defense here, not the offense. My whole point is that we do NOT know all the facts. You are the one claiming to know enough facts to determine that Rove should be fired immediately. I point out that there is ample evidence to support the idea that Rove didn't do anything wrong. Yes, it might still turn out that he did. Maybe there is a smoking gun out there somewhere showing the Machiavellian Rove orchestrated this leak. But it's hardly proven at this point, and to me, the available evidence points in a different direction.

No, I am not assuming that he perjured himself, I have no idea. I am simply pointing out that one minute we are supposed to believe that the media is out to get Rove, and then in the next we are supposed to take literally those news reports that are in his favor. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I believe if what he said is true than it exonerates him legally, but then again, I never said what he did was illegal. To me, the offense is that he had a discussion with a reporter about an employee of the CIA, a discussion that was clearly politically motivated. In my view, he should be fired, regardless of the legality of his actions.

Furthermore, the only thing that I am claiming to know is that Rove had a conversation with Cooper and said that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. What I am arguing, again, is that I don't need to know about anything else. He should have known better. The conversation, on it's face, was an inappropriate one to have, considering Rove works for the White House. Let me make myself crystal clear: It isn't in what manner he discussed Plame's employment, it is that he even mentioned it or discussed it with the media at all.

Pat,

Im not assuming anything - except that Rove did not tell the President he was involved. If the President did know Rove said something because Rove told him and he though, as you state, "heck, Karl, that's not leaking covert information" then the President's responses to the media regarding the situation seem less than honost.

Its would indeed be very Clinton like-- Which seems to support Mathew's original assertion about the Bush admin not living up to his promise to "change the culture in Washington".

As to my hypothetical, Im talking about the Bush administrations internal investigation and not about crimes and the criminal investigation. I dont know enough about whether there was a crime. I do know there are some real questions about the administration's dealing with this. Why did we have to wait two years to find these facts out that everyone is arguing about. Come on....Rove knew what he did when....... and he is a top aide in the administration and best pals forever with the President.

In case anybody missed it, Joe Wilson has now acknowledged: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Just FYI, Pat, I saw that interview with Wilson yesterday. I'm a little surprised to see it passed around today as evidence that even Wilson confirms his wife wasn't covert at the time of the leak.

I came away with the opposite impression -- that he was in fact suggesting that Novak's column was the event that caused her to no longer be undercover. You can read the transcript over on CNN, if you like. Here's the relevant portion:

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

I'd like to offer a simple timeline, in support of Mathew's overall point.

The anonymous source who produced the latest spate of articles in the NYT, WaPo, and AP is described as a lawyer, someone sympathetic to Rove, and someone familiar with Grand Jury testimony. It is most likely Rove's attorney, or an attorney for another witness. It could also be one of the prosecutors, but that is less likely.

According to that source, Rove's conversation with Novak took place on July 8 or 9, 2003.

In that conversation, Novak initiated the discussion of the Wilson's, and identified Wilson's wife "by name".

This conversation took place three days before Rove talked to Mattew Cooper. According to Cooper's email, Rove told him "Wilson's wife ... apparently works at the agency on wmd issues."

Novak's article then appears, identifying Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative".

Shortly afterwards, according to Chris Matthews, Rove tells him that Wilson's wife is "fair game".

If these are the facts (and certainly some of them are in doubt) then there's no excuse for Rove's behavior. He would have (a) heard her name from Novak (if not before), (b) told another reporter about it, (c) seen Novak's article that uses the suggestive term "CIA operative", and (d) still expressed to at least one member of the press that she is "fair game".

Whether she was undercover or not, Rove had reason to ask that question and to proceed with caution until he found out. It looks like he did the opposite. And that's not acceptable behavior for a top advisor to the president.

Thanks for the context, William. I confess (and I know better than to do this), that I was relying on the RedState quotation, which did not include the full context. I'm still not sure how to take that transcript, though, even with the context. If I were making the point you attribute to it, I would have said something like "my wife stopped being a clandestine officer the day..." But I didn't see it, so I'll have to rely on your interpretation of his tone and body language. Of course, if I were Blitzer, I would hope I would have caught what seemed to be an admission of something and followed up with a more particular question. Hard to think of all that on the spot, though.

Two points:
1) If there was a potentially prosecutable crime, the grand jury will address that
2) Whether Rove's behavior warrants dismissal ultimately lies with GW. If he decides no and it plays out poorly then he's chosen poorly. If he decides yes, then so be it. What disturbs me is that many of the players in this public debate already come at this second issue with biases (i.e. like GW/don't like GW; like Rove/don't like Rove) It so much feels like just another issue to argue about (like Durbins comments or the Schiavo case before Congress). Maybe we can get all Democrats to be Red Sox fans and all Republicans to be Yankees fan. Then we can have relatively meaningless aruguments about baseball instead. ;-)

Okay, golf got rained out. :( Probably got what I deserved for being a little rude earlier. Sorry, Matthew, you are right. I don't know your motives and I shouldn't have attempted to insinuate them. I'm sorry.

On another note, has anyone noticed that Johnny Depp's character in the new Willy Wonka movie looks suspiciously like Michael Jackson?

Another view on "Plamegate": "when it comes to absurd non-scandal scandals this one may beat the band".

Hat tip: Ann Althouse.

I have to admit that I have no view on the story; it just never seemed interesting enough to connect with.

c3,

That is a very fair statement... I don't have trouble admitting that I would like to see Rove gone, regardless. However, I also have no problem telling Bush what to do, if for no other reason I think he owes moderate Republicans for not dumping his ass when we had the opportunity.

Abel,

Thank you, and yes I noticed. Both Burton and Depp deny that Michael Jackson ever entered their minds; however, I think it adds to the interest of a movie that already is pretty damn interesting. Personally, I am dying to see it.

you think the willy wonka movie seems interesting? wow. yeah, like an accident is interesting.
Saw clips from that movie, and i am disturbed by the horrible job they did to a classic story. Depp uses a voice that is completely irritating and fake. Grating is the better word. way too dark. But for those odd Burton fans, they will like it.

Back on the issue:
why is it unethical to speak to the press?
To compare this to Clinton, without any specifics is irresponsible. (which Clinton ethical issue?)
How does this violate the administrations own policy? what policy?

Most importantly. we do not know what happened! Everything is assuming right now.
But hey, why wait for facts, it is easier to just attack people you dont like.

Rove said "i heard that too". rove should have said no comment? huh. Where is the ethical breach? where??
yeah somebody tells me they heard the same rumor in DC, among the political INSIDERS. That would make me run with it as fact. LMAO. come on, give me a break. to compare this to Clinton. wow. your personal dislike of Rove is overpowering your reason

From everything i have heard she was not covert and her name not a secret.

My only objection to the new tim Burton is exactly the same as his remake of Planet of the Apes, really (or the butchery of The Italian Job): I just don't see the point. The Gene Wilder movie is almost perfect in every way that matters. Are some of the visuals a touch clunky and dated? Sure, but that doesn't detract in any meaningful way. So my objection is largely that unless you can improve on the original (or at least do something different and exciting), what's the point of remaking it - and in reality, they can't improve on the original, so they really shouldn't have made it. Just as Burton's PotA detracts from that movies legacy, so must the C&tCF remake.

Simon, the difference with Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is that it is not intended as a remake of the earlier movie. It is instead intended as a different take on the book itself. I hope to see it this weekend so I can have a more educated opinion. When I first heard about the movie, my initial reaction was the same as yours. But when I started reading more about it and seeing some of the previews, my opinion started to change.

And you didn't even mention the very worst remake ever, the 1998 shot-for-shot reshoot of Pyscho with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.

Right, the "original" movie was really a re-make, because it was a book first, by Roald Dahl. The review I've read suggested that the new film was closer in spirit to Dahl, though I have no idea if that's so. This reviewer seemed to think the Wilder one was pretty awful in parts.

Actually, Dahl wanted Spike Milligan to play Wonka; the casting of Gene Wilder upset Dahl pretty badly. Since Dahl is dead now, I have no idea how'd he react to the casting of Johnny Depp, short of using a Ouija board. ;-)

As far as the remake is concerned, I haven't seen it yet, but it does sound closer to the original book. For one thing, they use the original squirrels in Veruca Salt's demise, instead of using geese the way they did in the 70's film. (Limits of tecnology and all that) And they give Charlie a two parent household, not just a widowed mother. They even make the elevator glass, not the fanicful metal creation of the '70s.

Of course, they have blue Ooompa-Loompas (hey, like me!), not orange ones or white ones, but since the Oompa Loompas in the first edition were black, this is a perfectly understandable substitution.

Speaking of remakes, has anyone else noticed that the new high-tech movie "The Island" is actually a remake of that '70s scifi stink "Parts: The Clonus Horror"? It was so laughably awful that Mystery Science Theater 3000 did a memorable send up of it. Now it;s back, with a bigger budget and better casting. :-)

Most importantly. we do not know what happened! Everything is assuming right now.

Absolutely correct.

Rove said "i heard that too"... From everything i have heard she was not covert and her name not a secret.

But remember what you said, we don't know what happened.

to compare this to Clinton. wow. your personal dislike of Rove is overpowering your reason

To me, this situation each day looks more and more like Monicagate. They both involve people who are partisan lightning rods. The offenses involved were technicalities - molehills turned into mountains. They're both political witch hunts, having very little to do with justice or the truth.

The differences are that Clinton obviously broke a law, whereas it is doubtful that Rove did. On the other hand, I would say that the charges against Rove are way more serious than the charges against Clinton in that they directly implicate the compromising of our national security.

At this point I am content in leaving the matter to Fitzgerald to sort out - when he releases his findings, then we may actually have something of substance to debate over.

i get it. the rumors and accusations are so serious, therefore it is comparable to Monicagate?? HUH.
first. Sorry, but under no circumstance does a Presidential advisor impact the country in the same way a sitting President does. sorry, But Clinton involved serious issues, regarding the seperation of powers and Presidential prosecution. ( i know those on the left have told themselves over and over, it was nothing but sex. That they actually ignore the truth and reality.)

sorry. but the desire to even remotely compare Rove to Clinton is just partisan, and silly.
I guess any situation where anybody in the white house lies, regardless of their position, is equal?? typical moral equivalence.

What national security? again, the POSSIBILITY that it may concern national security- is enough?? HUH. There was a possibility Monicagate concerned national security - it POSSIBLY opened a sitting Pres. to bribery; and he POSSIBLY could become beholden to interests from his legal bills.
wow. i know the left is desperate when the POSSIBILITY matters. LOL.

this is not about mere technicalities. If Rove committed a crime, he committed a CRIME! Clinton committed purjury to a federal grand jury. Yeah, mere technicalities..LOL.

since they are partisan lightning rods, that makes their situations equal? are you serious? I will let you think about that comment more. Really think about how illogical and partisan that comment is.

It is very clear, that this is about personal dislike for Rove.
(so called moderate-centrist republicans - Dems who pretend to be Rep. are all getting excited about their favorite topic. Destroying the Rep party.)

the willy wonka movie. I cannot take that voice Depp uses. I cannot believe they did not come up with a better voice. It is grating!!

i get it. the rumors and accusations are so serious, therefore it is comparable to Monicagate?? HUH.

That's one way in which they are comparable. Another way, which you would realize if you read my post, is that partisan rancor is the primary fuel behind both fires. Yet another way, which I didn't mention, is that both scandals involve the preeminent and most successful political minds of their respective eras.

(i know those on the left have told themselves over and over, it was nothing but sex. That they actually ignore the truth and reality.)

Once again, you might want to actually read my post. I never suggeted the Clinton scandal was about "nothing but sex." He clearly committed perjury and obstruction of justice. I understand your anger at those who would ignore these facts, but I'm not one of them.

sorry. but the desire to even remotely compare Rove to Clinton is just partisan, and silly.

By any objective measure, it is you who are in a partisan rage. I merely suggested similiarites between the Clinton and Rove affairs and you jump on me as partisan and leftist.

Sorry, but under no circumstance does a Presidential advisor impact the country in the same way a sitting President does. ... I guess any situation where anybody in the white house lies, regardless of their position, is equal?? typical moral equivalence.

I'm not aware that Rove is even accused of lying.

In any case, to me, the gravity and seriousness of a lie depends on a number of factors, not just the position of the person making the statement.

For example, if a deputy chief of staff lies about, say, the covert sale of arms to a rogue state, that to me is more grave and "impacts the country" more than a sitting President lying about, say, decades-old business dealings. That is not "moral equivalence", it is common sense (to those who are not blinded by partisanship).

What national security? again, the POSSIBILITY that it may concern national security- is enough?? HUH. There was a possibility Monicagate concerned national security - it POSSIBLY opened a sitting Pres. to bribery; and he POSSIBLY could become beholden to interests from his legal bills.

Fine, please allow me to rephrase in a way you might understand: Rove's alleged crime was FAR more likely to compromise national security interests than were Clinton's crimes.

this is not about mere technicalities. If Rove committed a crime, he committed a CRIME! Clinton committed purjury to a federal grand jury. Yeah, mere technicalities..LOL.

OK, "technicalities" was perhaps the wrong word to use. The point is that the intense focus placed on both of these scandals is primarily based on personal hatred and partisan vitriol, not the pursuit of truth or justice.

since they are partisan lightning rods, that makes their situations equal? are you serious? I will let you think about that comment more. Really think about how illogical and partisan that comment is.

No, I'm not gonna think about that comment because it's not what I said. You can go back and look at what I actually wrote - which is that, in many ways, the Clinton and Rove scandals resemble each other, not that they are "equal" or "equivalent".

Yawn. Yes, yes, Rove must be tied to the stake, the kindling piled, the pitch poured, and the torch tossed. Screw the truth! Screw perspective! After all, he's Evil!

I find it highly amusing that some of those who objected to my "wait for the facts and argue only from confirmed non-anonymous sources" approach are making the same argument now that the leak mill is rolling the other direction. Never let it be said that bias is restricted to the media, eh? In the New Blog Olympics, straw-grasping will be a prime event.

If anyone simply must obsess over this non-story, I suggest wondering who Judith Miller's source was. Who is she sitting in jail to protect? Who will that information embarrass the most? I submit that it probably won't be the White House.

Yeah, I found myelf wondering the same thing about Miller. And I'm largely willing to sit this one out.

Tractarian, I thought you did a great job up above. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about Rove and Clinton, and i think it's a great point about there being a distinction between comparing things to call attention to an unpleasant pattern they both share, and implying moral eqivalency. It happens often enough that i think it probably becomes incumbent upon the comparer to call attention to what you are and aren't rying to point out. I always try to do this, but many partisans are unswayed by such caveats.

Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice, and he deserves to be punished for that. Nomargument here. Rove? It's still not clear exactly what he did, and whether any of it was illegal, or just morally and politically questionable. So I, like you, am content to wait and see the outcome of an investigation which will hopefully include the most complete telling of the story. Even if not, it will probably be a good place to start.

And I agree with your non-partisan calling of attention to the unpleasant pattern. that's the pattern where an unrelenting partisan witch hunt drives a dubious controversy which can become open-ended. In other words, partisans are out to get the hated figure, and may be willing to do so by any means necessary. Such efforts deserve to be short-circuited.

The thing that bothers me about all the controversy that eventually consumed Clinton is that the investigation into Whitewater became so open-ended and lengthy that eventually a skeleton was found. Eventually, Clinton ended up lying about an embarassing affair, for reasons that we can only speculate about. I question whether the outcome was worth the drawn-out investigation. The country paid a very high price. The way I look at it, the worst that would have happened had this not all come to light is that we may have never known the complete extent of Clinton's infidelities and narcissistic character flaws. The perjury he committed is of course not deniable or forgiveable. But it troubles me that the eventual crime was actually a function of the investigation itself. If there had been no investigation, presumedly there'd have been no perjury or obstruction.

And I'm not defending Clinton. My point is that such practices are bad for the country. In a sense, the partisans (along with willing media accomplices) are guilty of some form of obstruction by hijacking the nation's attention. It's a problem.

The way I look at it, the worst that would have happened had this not all come to light is that we may have never known the complete extent of Clinton's infidelities and narcissistic character flaws.

I think we all kind of sorta knew already, we just didn't need to know the titillating details. It served no purpose whatsoever IMHO.

This may come as a news flash to many, but Clinton wasn't the first President to enjoy a little action on the side. Even more shocking, he's not the first politician! Imagine!

His behavior was actually rather mild when compared to JFK's, or even Warren G Harding's, but in keeping with today's Jerry Springer culture, we just can't help but hang our laundry out for all to see.

I agree with your non-partisan calling of attention to the unpleasant pattern. that's the pattern where an unrelenting partisan witch hunt drives a dubious controversy which can become open-ended. In other words, partisans are out to get the hated figure, and may be willing to do so by any means necessary.

The current form of this paranoid/compulsive/obsessive pyschological malady (which goes far beyond hatred and deep into active reality-aversion territory) is called Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. While obvious from early on, it was first named and partially described by Charles Krauthammer. And you betcha, it's quite similar to the earlier (and also obvious) Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or CDS.

Once infected with chronic BDS (or CDS) the patient will exhibit an increasing (and potentially irreversible) inability to seperate objective truth from cherished political propaganda, regardless of any dispository evidence. The mind slams shut, and the obsessive idée fixe overrides the cerebellum. Any views that support the BDS or CDS will "freeze" at the level of maximum support for the delusion, in a fashion similar to that seen in manic obsession or paranoid schizophrenia.

As these two syndromes are so remarkably similar, differing only in the focus of the obsession, I would propose that they deserve to be described as just one prime illness, with current and future variants labelled by the extremity where the primary infection is noted. My repeated examination of the body politic has convinced me that the primary site of initial infection is almost always found in one of the outer extremities of the body politic, or "wings," even though the disease itself can affect the entire organism. We may therefore refer to this infection as "Political Obsessive Derangement Syndrome," or PODS, and describe the initial and continuing infection nexuses as "Wing PODS."

Multiple variant PODS can be found in a single organism, but I maintain that they are manifestations of the primary infection.