Centerfield

Who's the current director of the CIA, Mathew?

Ooo! Ooo! I know. (Hand waving in the air.)

Isn't it that cross dresser man? What's his name, Hoover?

(Sorry...my poor attempt at humor. Actually, the current director is from my old neck of the woods.)

And, yes, I know, the cross dresser was never CIA Director...

The fun trivia is "Who was the only US President to lead the CIA?"

I propose a moratorium on Wilson/Plame/Rove related topics until after Mr. Fitzgerald releases a report and/or indicts somebody. If there's a more perfect current example of a purely partisan scandal, I don't know what it is. We could all spend days castigating Rove, castigating Wilson, castigating Judith Miller. I think the GOP is going to win this one, because eventually we'll learn that Judith Miller's source is a prominent Democrat, if not Plame or Wilson themselves. On the other hand, it may be a White House figure who has tried to cover up his involvement to the special prosecutor, unlike Rove, who has cooperated fully and completely with Fitzgerald.

But who cares? I don't. If Plame was an honest-to-goodness covert operative, maybe. But she just wasn't. And she stuck her nose into a major political issue in an apparent effort to get her husband back into the great Washington game of being someone who matters.

I'm sick of hearing about it, sick of arguing about it, sick of listening to whining about it. There are a ton of issues which are far, far more important to this nation than this little witchhunt, and I think this site could move above the party bickering and talk about them, instead.

Pat,

I'm with you. That's why I brought the Johnny Depp movie into the conversation on Friday. :)

I always use my ex-wife and her brunching friends as my meter on whether a "scandal" is truly a scandal. I asked her yesterday what she thought about the whole thing, and her comment was "Karl who?"

I think the majority of the country would fall into that category.

Abel,

I'v been meaning to tell you how much I appreciated your efforts to move the topic onto less serious footing last week. Pity it didn't take. Probably partly my fault for elevating the silly Santorum issue to the main page, but I really did think it was an interesting look at how politics and the media really work.

I'm hoping to see the new Wonka movie this week.

Porter Goss... I fail to see the importance.

I'm sorry Pat, you are dancing beyond my point. I don't disagree with all of that. Mr. Fitzgerald is addressing the legality of the situation, which I am not commenting on and wouldn't pretend to be qualified to comment on. I don't care who Judith Miller's source is, nor do I care to speculate. Valerie Plame's character, or lack their of, is not the point. There was a reporter who, granted in his own words, didn't know that CIA agent was a CIA agent until Karl Rove told him she was. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not that is illegal. It is wrong. Period. And if it wasn't, the White House wouldn't have emphatically denied that he was involved at all, and the President wouldn't have said that anyone who leaks such information would be fired. I don't see the connection to your comments and my post.

You can post at this blog. If you are worried about it's content, you should do so more often.

What do you mean by discussing the issues of the day? In this day and age of right wing dominance, the issues have been presented as gay marriage, partial birth abortion (less than .05% of total abortions, by the way), and macho displays of "patriotism." This group has clouded our judgement so that we may forget that actual wages are at their lowest point in nearly 25 years, affordable health care is not even being discussed, and that we are losing our civil liberties all in the name of law enforcement! If Karl Rove was Janet Reno, right wing radio would be comparing her to Hanoi Jane!

Fine, I am taking the hint:

Not that this should determine your decision, but Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post says: Johnny sucked.

Go here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071402083.html

Well, I like your post, Mathew. I do think you present a good counterpoint to the let-the- investigation-run-its-course-and-otherwise-shut-up crowd. Certainly, there's much merit to that viewpoint, but I am glad you are bringing balance to the conversation. You're point is a good one: if it wasn't such a big deal why did the administration vehemently deny it at the time, and why has McClellan been shaking in his boots as of late?

Mathew, fascinating that you found a Willie Wonka article that actually includes a reference to Judith Miller... Well done! :)

I swear to God I didn't notice that.

Chris,

You're the official points keeper. TN managed to slip in a Hanoi Jane reference...were we giving points for that? Actually, Janet Reno and Hanoi Jane in the same sentence might be worth bonus points. When we look back at the Bill Clinton Administration and Hillary's survival of Monicagate, it in no way rivals Ted Kennedy's survival of Chappaquiddick, but it sure comes pretty damn close to showing those damn Nazi's that this ain't Hitler's playground anymore--in fact, Lee Atwater is probably looking down from the religious right's heaven, wondering where it all went wrong.

How many points did I earn?

Mathew, that makes it even funnier! I had a feeling you didn't, though. The story we can't escape is even invading the entertainment pages! Run for your lives!!!!!

...employees of the CIA put their lives on the line everyday. White House officials should not be permitted to discuss their identity with reporters, no matter the reason.

I agree with the first part of that statement. I hear the McClean commute can be murder, the cafeteria food is of dubious quality, and sometimes the janitors fail to put out the "Wet Floor" signs after mopping. (Tongue firmly in cheek here.)

Porter Goss... I fail to see the importance.

I'm being a nit-picker by asking leading questions to make a point about sweeping statements, Mathew, since the continuing "debate" at this point seems to be based on little but a combination of nitpickery and "extremely expansive" rhetoric. So, has anyone at the White House ever mentioned to a reporter where Porter Goss works?

Point having been made, I'd just like to say that I think Depp's performance reminds me of Michael Jackson in some odd and unidentifiable but definitely creepy way. Disturbing.

“I am very nervous about the precedent that is being set.”

You seem to have a problem with your nerves, Matthew. Last week you were scared because I had a disagreement with Carla in the comment section of her blog. This to you said that I was somehow shutting down the debate. A debate I had no control over since after all it is her blog.

Either you are one of those people who fear everything or you are pulling our legs here. I suspect it is the latter but who knows. You cannot possible fear all of the things you claim to. If you do you might need to visit a shrink because you seem to have a lot of phobias.

Yeah, I thought that was a little weak-kneed as well. Let's save our nervousness for precedents that really matter, like legal precedents. The only precedent being set here is that of a reference point for future partisan bickering about which side is more evil or more criminal, from Nixon to Clinton to Rove, where does it end? And we know where it ends, it ends when the rhetoric gets overheated enough that someone feels compelled to bring up Hitler.

Alf,

What I meant specifically is that people who discourage other people from speaking when they disagree with them, which we seem to be seeing more and more in the blogosphere IMO, is a scary notion. Carla, quite frankly out smarted you, and your response was to question why she takes part here at Centerfield, which I took to mean that you would rather she didn't.

And yes, I do think there is a precedent that has been set here. I do think what we can and cannot do in the name of politics is significantly changing, and yes, that makes me nervous especially when we are talking about intelligence agencies where many employees, but not all as Tully pointed out, risk their lives.

Furthermore, since you think it is worth thread space to offer me advice on seeing a "shrink," than I have some for you... Go straight to hell.

Yeah, I thought that was a little weak-kneed as well. Let's save our nervousness for precedents that really matter, like legal precedents.

Weird, when did I become the one on this site being accused of mindless partisan bashing of the Republicans. I seem to remeber being the one accusing you of the same.

I don't think any precedents are being set (I think the whole thing is seriously a tempest in a teapot) but that's just my own mileage. But hang around long enough, Mathew, and you might manage to be accused of tooling for both sides at once! It's a signal honor, IMHO. ;-)

I swear upon the temples (and eyebrows) of my ancestors that I did NOT know that Hornaday's movie review had commentary about Johnny Depp channeling Michael Jackson with Judith Miller's haircut before I wrote my previous comment in this thread. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I thought Depp was brilliantly campy in both Ed Wood and Pirates of the Carribean. I thought all the scenery chewing in those movies played very well, and was integral to their charm.

Abel, you would have gotten double-double bonus points for the Chappaquiddick reference if you had just noted that today is the 36th anniversary of same. Rookie! :-D

Damn! How on earth did I miss that?

Since Plame was a field agent under non-official cover as recently as 1999 and still maintained contacts that helped the CIA track WMD's it's particularly reprehensible and rather treasonous to consider her, as Rove so artfully put it, fair game in the WH battle to discredit Wilson.
For that alone I'd fire Rove in a sec. Stuff like that should be totally out of bounds.

BTW I heard Wilson today in a take on all questions interview with Ed Schultz this afternoon. Unlike the WH he actually answered every one. Go here to listen.

Also interesting, according to a new ABC News Poll, only 25% of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity. That's a bit more than a tempest in a teapot. I mean if you do the math that means at least half the republicans feel that there's some stonewalling going down.

The fun trivia is "Who was the only US President to lead the CIA?"

(in Church Lady voice) "Could it be...I don't know...someone like.... GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH????"

I know...I know...it just doesn't scan as well as "SATAN?" (Though in some circles it means the same thing. ;-)

How many points do I get for that one?

Any Bush-is-Satan ref should be good for 5 points, but you didn't use it seriously, so...drop the last two paras for a bonus 10%.

But, ya know, "George Herbert Walker" is six letters, seven letters, and six letters. 676! So he's only, like, two houses down from The Beast, and probably gets some of his mail by mistake.

Also interesting, according to a new ABC News Poll, only 25% of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity. That's a bit more than a tempest in a teapot. I mean if you do the math that means at least half the republicans feel that there's some stonewalling going down.

Registered Republicans are only 30-35% of the eletorate. Just an FYI.

Poverty is NOT a root cause of terrorism. The poor person who straps on a bomb did not pay for that bomb. A wealthy person did. Making the poor person middle class will not stop the wealthy person from recruiting somebody to strap on the bomb. Read transcripts of Bin Ladin’s videos, he tells you why he is a terrorist; Andalusia 1492, the fall of the Caliphate 1918, Christian East Timor becoming independent from Muslim Indonesia, and a million other grievances, none of which include the fact that some Muslims are poor. He’s the guy paying for that bomb. He’s the root cause of the suicide bomber.

In fact, the whole economic angle is bogus. It comes from Marx’s argument that economic class is more important than any other factor in explaining political behavior. So you simply dismiss the importance of religion, ethnic group, culture, etc. Read Das Kapital & the Communist Manifesto—it’s in there.

Poverty is NOT a root cause of terrorism. The poor person who straps on a bomb did not pay for that bomb. A wealthy person did. Making the poor person middle class will not stop the wealthy person from recruiting somebody to strap on the bomb. Read transcripts of Bin Ladin’s videos, he tells you why he is a terrorist; Andalusia 1492, the fall of the Caliphate 1918, Christian East Timor becoming independent from Muslim Indonesia, and a million other grievances, none of which include the fact that some Muslims are poor. He’s the guy paying for that bomb. He’s the root cause of the suicide bomber.

Alf, it sounds to me like you are so committed to denying this that you want to twist the relationship between the two. It seems to me that there's solid evidence which suggests that poverty is a necessary but not sufficient condition for terrorism. Why quibble over whether it's the root cause when it's pretty clear by correlation that it plays a substantial role. Surely you wouldn't suggest that the repeating concurrence of the two is mere coincidence?

I can't speak for everyone who makes the argument, but I don't associate poverty with terrorism for the sake of obscuring the role of of a charismatic zealot who exploits the angst of an oppressed populace. But you need to acknowledge that any very poor oppressed populace provides the conditions in which a charismatic zealot like Osama Bin Laden can thrive. The fact that such a charismatic zealot might be funded by cynical wealth does not alter the fundamental dynamic.

If not Bin Laden, someone else. How often has terrorism become a popular cultural force in a culture where the people are free and thriving economically? Conversely, How often has terrorism become a popular cultural force in a culture where the people are oppressed and poor? Do the math, fer crissakes.

What Keegan said... Excellent comment.

Seems to me that while poverty can certainly be a factor, it is by no means the only possible primary factor or even a requisite one. Our home-grown terrorists have not generally come from backgrounds of poverty. The London bombers do not appear to have been impoverished. Certainly Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn came from middle-class backgrounds. (Side note--can you imagine Eric Rudolph or Terry Nichols as university professors?)

I think we need to acknowledge that there are multiple types of terrorist motivation. Oppression both political and physical, culture clash, cultural alienation--all can play a role. The roots of Middle Eastern terrorism lend themselves more to the idea of culture clash. They hate the West because the West is all that they are not, because what we are is "poisoning" their culture by being more appealing, lessening their control. To some extent a major driver of the violent response is a sexism issue. Radical Islam places women in a very subordinate position, Western culture promotes women as equal citizens. In that sense, Western culture directly challenges the controlling Alpha-male supremacy of radical Islam. It foments rebellion among their own most oppressed class--women.

I don't think it can be overstated how much that one fact reaches directly past the conscious mind of the hardcore sharia Islamist terrorist, straight to the roots of his threatened machismo, and how powerful a driver that can be in a culture where self-worth is so extensively based on that machismo.

This hooks back to poverty in that such cultures aren't generally on the top of the economic food chain in the first place. Understandable. They're significantly "locking back" half their economic and intellectual human resources.

Brian, you may not realize it but your compelling argument in some ways makes a case for democratizing the Middle East -- not necessarily by starting with Afghanistan and then Iraq, but still.

Scott, are you under the mistaken impression that I'm against fostering democracy?

Tully, and Scott, my thesis has been somewhat modified or clarified in the suicide bombing thread below. I think it accounts for most of the exceptions Tully notes:

My clarified thesis is that a substantial oppressed and impoverished population is a necessary initial condition for the growth of terrorism to the point that it becomes a serious threat to the public. And maybe necessary is after all too strong a word, so let's say that I overstated my case. I was wrong, If so though, I think it's like winning the argument that wood is not a necessary condition for a campfire.

Anyway, I think Cengel and others here and elsewhere, in asking pointed questions about my thesis, have drawn attention to that which I see as the most troubling danger in terrorism. I've pointed out that poverty and oppression provide optimal seed conditions for initial growth. But this does not imply that over time, these initial conditions must endure. They need only endure long enough to grow a critical mass of relatively unquestioning faith. Such a movement evolves.

Scott, are you under the mistaken impression that I'm against fostering democracy?

No. Actually I'm not sure where you stand on Iraq, either pre-3/20/03 or in the present.

Without jumping into that mess, I would note that one could honestly disagree with the specific while still supporting the general there, Scott.

Bryan, I would look to the cultural romanticising of violence and an exaggeration of the adolescent male alienation common to all cultures as prime drivers. There is a notable shortage of middle-aged and elderly terrorist bombers.

I think poverty is both another symptom of the major cultural factors that produce terrorist movements, and at times a contributing cause. Like dry wood, as compared to wet. One must have hate, and an "Other" to focus the hate on.

A lot to chew on in the other thread. I hadn't really dug through it before.

Without jumping into that mess, I would note that one could honestly disagree with the specific while still supporting the general there, Scott.

Without question.

I'm a bit confused about how this thread shifted to terrorism from Rove. Anyhoo, as a side remark that is on-topic, don't people at least concede that some weaslyness has occurred in that the Bush adminstration is now resorting to Clintonian expressions and has now just "moved the goal posts." You can argue that the original weaslyness was justified and common among politicians, but at the very least, they've been caught red-weasled. They denied involvement and promised the firing of any leakers and now they've blatantly back-tracked on that. Speaking of which what do people think the weasel factor of this adminstration is? (By weaseling, I mean lying, distorting, spinning etc.) If you remove the sex-scandals from the Clinton adminstration which is more weasly? All I know is that every time I had some background on a subject and then listened to either the president or his spokespersons, they were almost invariably lying to various degrees which has led me to conclude that Bush is a weasel. However, Tully has assured me that all politicians are weasels to an extent. So what weasel factor do people give to Dubya in comparison to past presidents?

Personally, I don't think Bush himself is a clinton-caliber weasel because he's just not as smart, not as practiced a lawyer at heart. But Bush has undeniably surrounded himself with a topnotch council of weasels. The men? Bush less of a weasel. The admins? Both top notch.

Scott in a nushell, my position on Iraq is that prior to the invasion i opposed it because I doubted the threat, felt we could be patient for at least a bit longer, and because I didn't think Iraq was a good place to try to install a democracy. Too big, too fractious, too much of a powder keg. After we invaded, I agreed with "we break it, we bought it." It'd be terrible if we fail, and I am far from willing to give up yet. But my support continues to be contingent upon the sense that success is still possible. If the vast majority of Iraqis withdraw their pragmatic tolerance and oppose our continued presence in large numbers, we should start planning to bail. We owe them our best good faith effort to try to democratize, but we should be ready to recognize what failure looks like. Lots of people have gone ahead and declared this, but I don't see it.

My position is nearly identical to yours, Brian.

Threadmorph! Threadmorph can be OK, as long as you're discussing substantive things.

I consider the Clinton admin somewhat higher on the weasel scale. My reasoning is simple, and thus: They talked a lot more, thus their lips were moving a lot more, thus they were lying more. The Bushies are notably close-mouthed in comparison. Even when they do talk, they don't really say very much.

They denied involvement and promised the firing of any leakers and now they've blatantly back-tracked on that.

SINCE we're speaking of weaselisms, the fire-the-leaker-regardless-of-criminality "quote" has been so completely and relentlessly misrepresented that it deserves some addressing. The very basis for it requires some severe out-of-context reporting and significant weasel-parsing of same. Downright Clintonian on the part of the press and the left, you might say. Is "is" is?

On September 29 in a weekly press conference, under extreme press badgering on the subject, Scott McClellan (who is, I note, not Bush) said essentially that if a staffer were found guilty of a criminal act, they would at minimum lose their job. I suggest reading the entire thing to get the flavor of the press conference. You can't help but pity McClellan, and commend his patience. I'd have been looking for a baseball bat, or at least a tear gas grenade or two.

That's "the pledge" so often referred to, coming second-hand from McClellan. And it's pretty obvious--if someone on staff committed a criminal act, they're history and the DOJ or whomever can have 'em and string 'em up. Anything less would be stupidity.

On September 30, 2003 Bush said "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." An affirmative re-affirmation of the actual "pledge."

Then, in a June 10, 2004 press conference, a reporter asked Bush about the case, then interrupted the answer to append more verbiage to it.

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

That's the overly-touted fire-the-leaker-regardless-of-criminality "quote" in context. Please note that the reporter's interruption misrepresented the original statement from the White House, and redirected the subject in mid-answer. It turned one question into two and left the answers muddled and ambiguous. To be sure, Georgie is not that quick on his feet.

It was classic "gotcha" press badgering, and the quote is NOT what it's made out to be, but a conflated cross-representation of the answers. At a press conference yesterday, Bush reiterated that any member of the admin found to have violated the law would be fired, and that it was up to the SP to find the facts.

So when you talk about Bush's "pledge" to fire anyone who "leaked" anything at all, regardless of how minor or non-criminal, be aware that the basis for the claimed "pledge" is more than a wee bit suspect.

So you mean in this case, it was actually the press that was being a weasel? It's interesting that no one on cable news pointed that out. Pretty much everyone seemed to view it as a bigtime changing of rules, even purportedly non-partisan analysts. Even the righties just looked embarrassed and tried to change the topic. When everyone's a weasel who do you trust?

What about McClellan's denial of any involvement by Rove? Doesn't that count as an instance of weaslehood?

If you read through the September 29 transcripts, you'll find some massive usage of the phrase "not that I am aware of." Press secretaries are usually the last to know. I don't envy them the job. They are not normally "in the loop."

The point with the "pledge" quote is that the "pledge" part of it came from the reporter, NOT Bush, and that Bush is sufficiently slow on his feet not to know when to deliniate his answers instead of just sticking to his pre-program. He interjected one word ("Yes.") in an ambiguous fashion, and that's where the "pledge quote" comes from. A trial attorney, for example, would have stopped in midstream and then answered the questions in order, and clearly. Bush was trying to skip through the conference and get onto the G8 material, Iraq, and Reagan's upcoming funeral, and didn't backtrack and clarify.

But it's obvious from the transcript that his pre-programmed answer was "Talk to Fitzgerald--it's his call. We're not going to pre-judge anyone in advance of the SP's findings." Namely, the White House will act based on the results of the SP's report, not on press chatter or partisan rumblings. Standard. If you let the press chatter dictate your actions, you're no longer in charge. Deal with it when it becomes something official, if and when. You don't punt on second down.

As to whom to trust, as my late father used to say "Watch what they do, not what they say." Actions speak much louder than words.

I see I have a bad link there, backtracking through Salon. The June 10, 2004 press conference is here.

Points comments. While Hanoi Jane and Janet Reno don't rise to the level of Adolf Hitler their juxtaposition is very creative and worthy of a point.
Now Abel I was ready to give 5 points for creativity but the Hitler reference seemed forced so that's the equivalent to the excessive celebration penalty in the NFL. I'm sorry to say you only get three points. You could however have been creative and used a phrase such as "feminazi" in rebutting TN and that might have redeemed you. Oh Well.

As an aside I've found the one website that summarizes the discussion so far

I posted my reply in the wrong thread. Sorry about that.

Like we've never heard that one before, Alf!

Just kidding. Done it myself, all too many times. Too many open windows going.

People Search Background Check Net Detective Background Check

Any Bush-is-Satan ref should be good for 5 points, but you didn't use it seriously, so...drop the last two paras for a bonus 10%.

LOL! You are indeed a generous scorer, Sensei.

But, ya know, "George Herbert Walker" is six letters, seven letters, and six letters. 676! So he's only, like, two houses down from The Beast, and probably gets some of his mail by mistake.

LOL! I think "676" lives in Houston, which is probably too rainy for the Beast, though the heat's about the same. ;-)

But I like your arithmancy analysis, Tully, That would explain why the RRs disliked Hillary when she was Hillary Clinton, but they hated her when she became Hillary Rodham Clinton. ;-)