One of the more interesting Iraq contracts the Center uncovered involves a tiny firm called Sullivan Haave Associates. Sullivan Haave is actually a one-man shop run by a government consultant named Terry Sullivan. Sullivan says his firm was hired as a subcontractor by Science Applications International Corp., one of the most successful and best politically connected government contractors doing work in Iraq....

Sullivan has a much more intimate relationship with the Pentagon than his competitors, however. He happens to be married to Carol Haave, who, since November 2001, has been deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations. And yes, Haave is the same person who appears in the name Sullivan Haave Associates.

Haave seemed surprised when contacted by the Center for Public Integrity at her Pentagon office about the contract.

She said she was no longer associated with the company in any way. She then said she had no knowledge of any work the company might be doing in Iraq.

There's more, including a list of contractors by contribution total which you can compare to the list of contractors by total earnings. (Surprisingly, on visual inspection, there appears to be some correlation! But remember, it's not kickback money, it's free speech.) Also, there's a history of how much government has shifted money to the private sector.

Under cost-reimbursement contracts—which one former Washington government lawyer jokingly referred to as "defraud me please" contracts—companies decide how much a service will cost to perform. These contracts are also known as "cost-plus" contracts because the contractor's profit comes from fees paid by the government beyond the cost of the service, which are calculated using one of several fee arrangements. One common arrangement is award fees, in which the contractor receives a base fee plus an additional fee based on performance. The additional fee is often calculated as a percentage—typically less than 10 percent, according to Schooner—of the service's cost. Critics say this structure gives contractors an incentive to bill the government at a premium so that they will make a correspondingly fat fee.

Good, good stuff.

The character of our military through history -- the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies -- is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength and kindness and goodwill. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I'm honored to be your Commander-in-Chief....

Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.'"

But the prophet Isaiah, nor Normandy nor Iwo Jima, were evoked in the President's press conference on Tuesday. Rather, a disarming joke ("it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way"), then a statement that may not have been lie, but neither was it the truth: "But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work."

Well, no. The speech was basically one of the most overripe displays of vainglory ever uttered by a president. As to recognizing the dangerous work ahead, there was but a single qualifier in the whole thing: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

This is exactly the pattern of the President's communication strategy since he arrived in Washington. Dwell in the nebulous by giving impressions. Use backdrops with slogans, dress the part, speak in a broken, befuddled (and seemingly authentic) voice, use the language of populism, and always say things in vague, nonspecific terms. If a thing is implied, it can be disavowed. If a message is sent through production values, not declarative sentences, it can be denied. If an impression can be created in the absence of the truth to which you might be accountable, create the impression. After all, as this episode demonstrates, it's easier to deny that apologize.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way.

Already the White House is dissembling:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

Well, maybe. On the other hand, as Jess Berney points out, very little was left up to the Navy. Digging around in the Times archives, he found this:

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

I'm not really sure if this should be a big deal--it's a petty lie about the pettiest of Presidential PR promotions. On the other hand, the man lied about the rationale for going to war. That last one isn't likely to be proven (it's probably unprovable), but the "Mission Accomplished" lie is much clearer. I wouldn't be surprised to see evidence in the next couple days that details how the White House planned and paid for the banner. Then we'll see what happens. Maybe it's not the big lies that get you.

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country."

Dean wants to be a national candidate and to rise above the usual game of divisive politics. Sharpton's antics aside, this is a huge step toward that end. If he can build support among black voters, he might even be able to make gains in South Carolina. A second or third place showing after wins in New Hampshire and Iowa would be regarded as a win for Dean. Finishing above candidates who must win South Carolina to gain traction--Joe, Edwards, Clark--would effectively knock them out of the campaign.

(The one danger with this is that other black leaders will join Sharpton and come out against Dean, turning his candidacy into a referendum on race. That would be devastating.)

MAdGE (Mothers Against Genetic Engineering in Food and the Environment) today launched a highly controversial billboard campaign in Auckland and Wellington to provoke public debate about the social and cultural ethics of genetic engineering in New Zealand.

The billboards depict a naked, genetically engineered woman with four breasts being milked by a milking machine, and GE branded on her rump.

No, you won't find the photo on this website--I like to think it's a classy outfit. Not, however, so classy I won't point you here, were you can see it.

After decades of oppression and brutality in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconstruction is difficult, and freedom still has its enemies in both of those countries. These terrorists are targeting the very success and freedom we're providing to the Iraqi people. Their desperate attacks on innocent civilians will not intimidate us, or the brave Iraqis and Afghans who are joining in their own defense and who are moving toward self-government.

Coalition forces aided by Afghan and Iraqi police and military are striking the enemy with force and precision. Our coalition is growing in members and growing in strength. Our purpose is clear and certain: Iraq and Afghanistan will be stable, independent nations and their people will live in freedom.

As to the terror strikes in Iraq, the President had very clear talking points, and he repeated them whenever someone broached the subject. Essentially, he was replaying the "terrorists bad, America good" card, trying to re-assert his pre-war cowboy clarity:

Basically, what they're trying to do is cause people to run. They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist, that's what terrorists do. They commit suicide acts against innocent people and then expect people to say, well, gosh, we better -- better not try to fight you anymore.

The rabble, however, were a bit testy. Here are a couple of amusing exchanges.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your National Security Advisor, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge? And the second question, can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it.

----

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, your policies on the Middle East seem, so far, to have produced pretty meager results as the violence between Israelis and Palestinians --

THE PRESIDENT: Major or meager?

Q Meager.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay.

Q Meager.

THE PRESIDENT: Meager.

Other notes
Jargon introduced: "suiciders" - suicide bombers. "Actionable intelligence" - intelligence gathered in the field upon which the military can immediately act (as opposed to the "darn good" intelligence that wasn't, and got us into this mess in the first place).

Odd repetition: "gathering threat/danger" - he used it three times, apparently unaware of the irony that the gathering threat in Iraq has been caused by his own poor policy, not the dictator he deposed when first uttering that phrase.

Best quote of the night: "Saddam Hussein is a man who hid programs and weapons for years. He's a master at hiding things. And so David Kay will continue his search. But one of the things that he first found was that there is clear violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Material breach, they call it in the diplomatic circles. Casus belli, it means a -- that would have been a cause for a war. In other words, he said, it's dangerous.

And we were right to enforce U.N. resolutions, as well. It's important for the U.N. to be a credible organization. You're not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens. Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen. And in order to keep the peace, it's important for there to be credibility in this world, credibility on the side of freedom and hope."

You heard him say it, folks "Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen."

First, a bit of technical background. Most major websites include a text file named robots.txt that tells search engines which directories not to include in search results. (Here's an example: the Democrats.org robots.txt file lists folders with content — like images — that search engines can't index.) By adding a directory to robots.txt, you ensure that nothing in that folder will ever show up in a Google search and — more important for this discussion — never be archived by sites like Google.

Sometime between April 2003 and October 2003, someone at the White House added virtually all of the directories with "Iraq" in them to its robots.txt file, meaning that search engines would no longer list those pages in results or archive them.

What's this mean? Mainly that if the White House wants to shift a few facts, it doesn't want people having access to the pre-shifted accurate record. It's scrubbing the record.

It's easy enough to understand the reasoning if you look at past White House actions. Earlier this year, the White House revised pages on its website claiming that "combat" was over in Iraq, changing them to say "major combat."

One of the reasons some alert readers noticed the change — and were able to prove it — was that Google had archived the pages before the change occurred. Now that all of the White House pages about Iraq are no longer archived by Google, such historical revisionism will be harder to catch.

This is probably legal. I'm not sure if the administration is beholden to put anything on the web, nor if it represents a record of events. But even if there is no legal issue, one can reasonably ask the question: if George is so damn proud of his record, why is he selectively changing it and trying to hide the change?

I don't know how often you all read the DNC blog, but it's becoming one I check daily (despite criticism I have of the DNC itself). It is a booster for the Democrats, but no more than many indies; moreover, content like this is indispensable.

Don Rumsfeld, writing in yesterday's Washington Post:

Terrorists have a sizable advantage. A terrorist can attack at any time, in any place, using virtually any technique. And it is not possible to defend every potential target at all times in every place against every form of attack. That being the case, the way to defeat terrorists is to take the war to them -- to go after them where they live and plan and hide, and to make clear to states that sponsor and harbor them that such actions will have consequences.

News from the front in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Suicide bombers struck the Red Cross headquarters and three police stations across Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 200 in a coordinated terror spree that stunned the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Islamic holy month of fasting, Ramadan.

Rumsfeld

That is what President Bush is doing in the global war on terrorism. When our nation was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, the president immediately recognized that what had happened was an act of war and must be treated as such; that weakness can invite aggression; and that simply standing in a defensive posture and absorbing blows is not an effective way to counter it.

Iraq, yesterday

It also appeared to be a dramatic escalation in tactics, suggesting a level of organization that U.S. officials had doubted the resistance possessed. In past weeks, bombers have carried out heavy suicide bombings but in single strikes....

Sitting next to civilian U.S. Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office, Bush said he remains "even more determined to work with the Iraqi people'' to restore peace and civility to the wartorn nation.

Rumsfeld

That is why the president is using all elements of national power: military, financial, diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence and public diplomacy. Because to live as free people in the 21st century, we cannot live behind concrete barriers and wire mesh. We cannot live in fear and remain free people. The task is to stop terrorists before they can terrorize. And even better, we must lean forward and stop them from becoming terrorists in the first place. That is a lesson we learned two decades ago in Beirut.

Iraq

The bombings came hours after clashes around Baghdad killed three U.S. soldiers overnight, and a day after insurgents hit a hotel full of U.S. occupation officials with a barrage of rockets, killing a U.S. colonel and wounding 18 other people. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in the hotel, but was unhurt.

"We feel helpless when see this,'' a distraught Iraqi doctor said at the devastated Red Cross offices. The Red Cross said 12 Iraqis were killed at its office, including two employees.

Rumsfeld

That is why our country and our 90-nation coalition is at war today. That is why we have forces risking their lives at this moment, fighting terrorist adversaries in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere across the world. It is also why it is critical that our country recognize that the war on terrorism will be long, difficult and dangerous -- and that as we deal with immediate terrorist threats, we also need to find ways to stop the next generation of terrorists from forming. For every terrorist whom coalition forces capture, kill, dissuade or deter, others are being trained. To win the war on terror, we must also win the war of ideas -- the battle for the minds of those who are being recruited by terrorist networks across the globe.

Iraq

The rocket attack Sunday struck the Al-Rasheed Hotel, where Wolfowitz was staying at the end of a three-day Iraq visit. The deputy defense secretary said afterward that attack "will not deter us from completing our mission'' in Iraq.

But the bold blow at the heart of the U.S. presence here clearly rattled U.S. confidence that it is defeating Iraq's shadowy insurgents.

Mr. Zavala said the contractor that he and Eunice, his wife, worked for paid them $400 a week each for working 56 hours. That would come to $6.25 an hour if time and a half overtime is included for all hours worked in excess of 40.

Abusing its employees is nothing new for Wal-Mart. I don't think many Americans were surprised by these new allegations. But the effect of this worker abuse is particularly obvious now--as supermarkets in California cite Wal-Mart's prices as a main reason they can't "afford" to pay for worker health care.

I tell you what, it's time for consumers--who are themselves workers--to strike back at these companies. Here's my pledge: until Wal-Mart unionizes, I'm not setting foot in the place.

"This will be an ongoing policy in this administration to bill for any kind of overtime costs associated with political fund-raising events that are not open to the general public, that are clearly not part of an official's official duties....

Like most cities across the nation we are facing budget shortfalls that threaten our ability to deliver effective municipal services to the community. In order to minimize cutbacks in essential services, it is incumbent on us to reduce or eliminate some of the largest discretionary demands on our budget."

It isn't the first time the city has billed politicians for fundraising. Last year it billed Republican Senator Gordon Smith when the President came to raise money for his campaign. The city also billed his opponent, Bill Bradbury, when Clinton and Daschle came to fundraise for his campaign (Bradbury paid, Smith did not).

Are other cities doing this, too? Interesting issue.

We present an algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections, based on the previous experience of the major party candidates for President and Vice President. The algorithm correctly determines the winner of each of the 54 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000. Our algorithm predicts that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney will win the 2004 election unless:

1) the Democratic nominee for President is Howard B. Dean,

2) the Democratic nominee for President is Wesley K. Clark and the Democratic nominee for Vice President has been Vice President for at least two years, a governor for at least five years, or a U.S. Representative for at least five years,

3) the Democratic nominee for President is Richard A. Gephardt and the Democratic nominee for Vice President is a banker, a college or university chancellor or president, or the child of a U.S. Senator, or

4) the Democratic nominee for Vice President is Albert A. Gore, Jr. or John D. Rockefeller, IV, and the Democratic nominee for President has not been divorced, has not been a special prosecutor, and is a Protestant, Deist, or Catholic.

Although any of the currently declared Democratic candidates for President could, in theory, win in 2004 if they carefully choose their vice presidential candidates, in practice it would be difficult for many of them to find candidates for Vice President with the right combination of governmental and non-governmental experience.

Oh come on, they're probably more reliable than George Will. (Thanks to JGS.)

"[W]here the government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

People for the American Way describe her as "right of Scalia and Thomas." All of this has the usual level of shock and awe (for any of us who still have nerves to be shocked), but her nomination is especially timely given the whole Boykin affair: she thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Particularly, she thinks First Amendment "establishment clause" ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") doesn't apply, and one of her personal campaigns is to open state houses to Christianity. In 1999, she gave a speech titled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square." From the LA Times article:

The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy," Brown said in her Pepperdine speech. "The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming'' that the 14th Amendment failed to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Of course, Orrin Hatch immediately started singing that old familiar tune: "There is a real difference between giving speeches and doing what is right on the bench. You have followed the law, and that's the important thing." In other words: please don't judge this political appointment on politics.

But that's exactly what Democrats should start doing. It seems that with each new nominee, Bush becomes more agressive with his pro-Christian agenda. Already the GOP is dominated fundamentalist and conservative Christians who see the First Amendment as an impediment toward establishing their faith as a state religion. The judiciary, as interpreters of the Constitution, stand between them and this goal. The founders saw fit to make process of judicial appointment a political one--and Democrats should no longer be cowed by the full reality of where this political process is leading.

Oh, and by the way, Janice Rogers Brown is black. Because I'm cynical, I expect Republicans to play the race card. Which is, of course, enormously cynical and itself racist (the only reason to oppose a black woman is because she's black). But I'll save that tirade for when the card is actually played.

People close to the president say that his conversion to evangelical Methodism, after a life of aimless carousing, markedly informs his policies, both foreign and domestic. In the soon-to-be-published The Faith of George W. Bush (Tarcher/Penguin), a sympathetic account of this religious journey, author Stephen Mansfield writes (in the advance proofs) that in the election year 2000, Bush told Texas preacher James Robison, one of his spiritual mentors: "I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Mansfield also reports: "Aides found him face down on the floor in prayer in the Oval Office. It became known that he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq, a partial fast seldom reported of an American president. And he framed America's challenges in nearly biblical language. Saddam Hussein is an evildoer. He has to go." The author concludes: " . . . the Bush administration does deeply reflect its leader, and this means that policy, even in military matters, will be processed in terms of the personal, in terms of the moral, and in terms of a sense of divine purpose that propels the present to meet the challenges of its time."

| link |

Also, interesting commentary on the author of that forthcoming book in the comments thread.

George W. Bush
Total: $50 million
Less than $200: 12%
More than $2000: 69%

Howard Dean
Total: $14.8 million
Less than $200: 61%
More than $2000: 6%

John Kerry
Total:$4 million
Less than $200: 19%
More than $2000: 36%

Dick Gephardt
Total: $3.8 million
Less than $200: 15%
More than $2000: 39%

Joe Lieberman
Total $3.6 million
Less than $200: 11%
More than $2000: 36%

Wesley Clark
Total $3.5 million
Less than $200: 38%
More than $2000: 26%

John Edwards
Total $2.1 million
Less than $200: 17%
More than $2000: 38%

Dennis Kucinich
Total $1.7 million
Less than $200: 68%
More than $2000: 5%

Carol Mosely Braun
Total $125,000
Less than $200: 31%
More than $2000: 14%

Al Sharpton
Total $121,000
Less than $200: 7%
More than $2000: 59%

"[Impeachment's] certainly not for something that is in the president's prerogative, such as waging war, for example."

She is obviously no authority on the Consititution, however.

"Today's budget numbers reinforce the indications we have seen for some months now: that the economy is well on the path to recovery,'' Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

Yes, in bizarro world, you can call catastrophes success. This is, in fact, essentially the MO of the Bush playbook. Recall back when he debated Gore? The only way he could have lost the debate was to openly drool and confuse Texas and Mexico. In the first debate, he declared that the US ought to let the Russians take the lead in Kosovo. Result? Victory.

He took office in the midst of a recession and speedily worsened it. Surpluses became deficits, employment became unemployment, deflation loomed. Result? Victory--imagine how much worse it would have been worse without the tax cuts! New York was bombed, and he went on a personal crusade to "smoke out" Osama bin Laden. After invading Afghanistan, Osama mocked him. Result? Victory--the Taliban is vanquished. Then Iraq, the new big bad on the block. We commit tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to invade and discover that Iraq's threat was roughly as serious as Nepal's. Result? Victory--the Iraqi people have been liberated from a brutal dictator.

I knew the second I heard the news about the lower-than-expected catastrophic deficits that the Bushies would declare victory. But fortunately, not everyone was taken in this time. Despite the spin, the headlines aren't, as they would have been three years ago, "Economy Rebounding Despite Deficits." Instead, they mostly seem to be of the "Federal Deficit at Record High" variety.

Even more encouraging, the Democrats seem to have found their spine. Kent Conrad of North Dakota noted dryly, "I'm somewhat amused to see them say they thought that was good news." They're even starting to understand how it works in bizarro world: SC Senator Hollings thinks the OMB has been playing with the numbers just so the White House can claim a victory when record deficits arrive. Now they've got their thinking caps on.

Still, I greet this fascinating news with ambivalence. Five days in my no-cynicism zone was mighty refreshing. I wish somehow it wasn't the same old crap--no matter how fascinating--the second I get back. Ah well.

"That's interesting, folks, because if you look at his actual statement - not what the liberal media say he said, but what he really said - you get a different take on it. First, he says he's got back problems. So he's blaming it on that. Then he says he had surgery, but the surgery wasn't successful. So he's blaming it on the doctors. Then he says the pain medication was addictive. So he's blaming it on the pharmaceutical companies. Folks, he blames it on everybody but himself! But as long as he puts in that obligatory line about taking responsibility, that's what the liberal media are going to grab: Clinton takes full responsibility!"

Go read the full article--it's amazing. Then via Atrios, we have quotes from Rush on three occasions when he went after drug users. I'll excerpt from two here:

1. (1993) What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility.

2. (1996) In fact, I'm reminded--I had this story about three weeks ag--maybe it was before Christmas, maybe it was as far back as November--but there were a couple of drug convictions out in--I think it was a Colorado court. And these guys had--had done some really bad stuff, and there were mandated federal sentences for the crimes they had committed. And the judge apologized to the criminals while sentencing them because he thought it was too severe. He apologized and the com--the community was outraged. So we've gone from a judge sentencing a mother who makes her child beg six months in jail, to judges apologizing for getting dope dealers and crack dealers and drug salesmen off the streets with too severe a sentence.

All right, done with the noodles, done with this post.

Incidence of medical care benefits: 1980 - 97%; 1997 - 76%
Incidence of paid vactions: 1979 - 100%; 1997 - 95%
Incidence of paid sick leave: 1980 - 62%; 1997 - 56%
Incidence of defined benefit pension: 1980 - 84%; 1997 - 50%
Average number of paid holidays: 1980 - 10.1%; 1997 - 9.3%
Incidence of paid holidays: 1980 - 99%; 1997 - 89%

All right then, what about wages? The Census Bureau shows that wages have been kept down for lower-income earners relative to middle and upper. I attempted to insert a handy table here, but my brain is too wee for such antics (or at least the technical part of it). So bear with the following stats. Based on wages calculated in 2001 dollars, we can see how much growth each percentile of the income distribution experienced over a 32-year period.

The bottom 20th Percent
(Year, top income in the bracket, percent growth over last interval)
1967 - 13,474
1977 - 14,986, 11%
1987 - 16,094, 7%
1999 - 18,161, 13%
total growth between '67-'99: 35%

Median income (50th percentile)
1967 - 32,081, 9%
1977 - 34,989, 11%
1987 - 38,835, 11%
1999 - 43,107, 34%
total growth between '67-'99: 34%

80th percentile
1967 - 53,181
1977 - 62,130, 17%
1987 - 72,069, 16%
1999 - 83,830, 16%
total growth between '67-'99: 58%

95th percentile
1967 - 85,334
1977 - 100,441, 18%
1987 - 120,597, 20%
1999 - 149,992, 24%
total growth between '67-'99: 76%

I don't have time to look into hours worked, hours worked per household, and household incomes, but I bet we'd find that these indices also show it's harder and harder for families to get by. If anyone else wants to dig around for those data, I'll be happy to add them here.

The administration, which has taken a hard stand against the state laws, argued that public heath -- not the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors or patients -- was at stake.

This is scary stuff folks. Everyone in the country should feel a cold shiver after reading this news--irrespective of political stripe.

"Every aspect of our culture, whether it be art or music, to law and politics, owes something to the influence of Italian Americans. You can take special pride in the deep tradition of service to this country. People of Italian descent oftentimes hear the call to serve something greater than themselves. Twenty-four Italian Americans have won the Congressional Medal of Honor, that's high service to something greater than yourself."

That, of course, is our President, celebrating Columbus. (I don't think there's any truth to that rumor he thought Columbus was English because his first name is "Christopher," either....) The comic relief part of the speech, really--right before he went on a cyncial ode to soldiers to try to aggrandize his own vanity in sacrificing hundreds of American lives and billions of dollars to sack a country no more threatening than Iowa.

Yes, George, you are indeed the equal of FDR!

They think that Clark has the best chance of defeating George Bush and that nothing else matters. Their assessment is based on what seems to me a simple-minded view that you can place all the candidates on a political spectrum, then pick the one who's as far toward the other side as your side can bear, and call it pragmatism.

How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism.

"Most of the American people are just tuning into this race, incidentally, as they are catching on to George W. Bush. My campaign team tells me that I'll be considered the front-runner after people start voting. The point here is that this is an undecided race."

Extra credit: write an essay describing whether the statement is true or false.

First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" — which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.

Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the C.I.A.'s career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited.

So that's the back story. Kristof then offers some thoughts one the political games playing out as a result of leaking the information.

Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to investigate the White House. Hillary Rodham Clinton knows better than anyone how destructive and distracting a special counsel investigation can be, interfering with the basic task of governing, and it's sad to see her display the same pusillanimous partisanship that Republicans showed just a few years ago.

If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it, Republicans have inexcusably tried to whitewash it. The leak risked the security of all operatives who had used Brewster-Jennings as cover, as well as of all assets ever seen with Mrs. Wilson. Unwitting sources will now realize that they were supplying the C.I.A. with information, and even real agents may fear exposure and vanish.

And finally, for good measure, he comments on Novak.

We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it.

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh announced during his radio show Friday that he is addicted to painkillers and is checking into a rehab center to "break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me."

"... Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me," he added.

...Law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed to The Associated Press that Limbaugh was being investigated by the Palm Beach County, Fla., state attorney's office.

"At the present time, the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete," Limbaugh said.

For this story to break on Satire Friday again shows its obsolescence. The mind boggles at the irony of such a story. Who wants to go first? Not me--it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

And seriously, addiction is brutal and unfunny, no matter how much of a career the addict has made advocating "personal responsibility." If anything positive comes out of this--and I certainly hope it will--maybe it will be that Rush will become an advocate for helping rather than punitive solutions.

All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.

On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Krugman will get into trouble for this article because he lays claim to the truth, when in fact he's asserting opinion. In the quote above, for example, he offers as fact that the President is "the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history." Is that an objective fact? Is it empirically evident? Obviously not. But for those who will excoriate Krugman, let me offer this suggestion: read it not as a statement of objective fact, but rather the clearest example available of why liberals are so infuriated by Bush. All my lefty buddies will nod ferociously when they read this article. "Yep," they'll say, "that's exactly right."

There's a reason Krugman's articles are so resonant to the left right now.

In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.

Bush got all kinds of traction for his "moral clarity." Moral clarity, in these po-mo times, is strictly the purview of the conservatives. Liberals have eschewed it. "Moral clarity" is to them narrow-mindedness. But in the face of a Bush administration that wields its clarity as a club and distinguishes between friend and foe by their ability to toe the clear line, liberals have been rocked back on their heels. Add to that the fact that Bush's "clarity" so often appears as Rove's cynical political machinations, and we've been left gasping. Krugman has been the rare voice who spoke truth to these politics. Not big T truth--which is how conservatives interpret his articles--but the observational truth that Bush is a deceiver, that his moral clarity is whatever benefits him and his buddies. Today's article should be read as one of Krugman's clearest expressions yet of this argument, not as his claim to some big T truth.

He talked about the U.S. plans to privatize Iraq's utilities and public services and sell them off to foreign companies and all the other war profiteering that's going on. The U.S. is mismanaging Iraq in the worst way. Instead of staying there to keep on devastating and plundering that country, we need to withdraw and let the U.N. take over and protect Iraq's resources so that they can be used by Iraqis. Kucinich also talked about ending the spell of fear that we are being kept in and said that by working together and speaking up we can start to turn things around and repair the damage we've done.

You won't hear much about the profiteering angle from other candidates. It's a real issue. He is dismissed for wanting to pull the troops back, but even this view isn't radical: why shouldn't the UN be running the show? It's a legitimate question. Finally, what about this issue of the President's fear mongering? Is this the way we want to live? Is this the way we have to live? Again, a legitimate question.

Then there was this:

After this, Kucinich passed by me and greeted me with "As-salaam alaykum" (the Muslim greeting; my form of dress marks me as a visible Muslim) and a nod, both of which I returned, then he continued on his way.

Do you think other candidates would have known to offer that greeting? Is it important to have a President who knows such a greeting? Maybe not. But for me, these are the things that mark him as the best candidate. He may not win, but that's a different question. An interesting article; I think you'd enjoy it.

At the Democracy Rising Rally
"'Aren’t you guys in enemy territory?' I asked the Dean volunteers. 'I love Dennis Kucinich. I think he’s done a great job in the Congress,” admitted one of the folks sporting a Dean for America button. 'I love everything he says. But I don’t think he stands any chance of winning the nomination. And I think Howard Dean does stand a real chance of taking back the Democratic Party.'"

It's a bit rawer, and doesn't always flatter the candidate. But in a way, that has the effect of giving confidence. I know Kucinich isn't perfect; it's reassuring to see that it's all fairly small time.

"Downstairs from the hall, Maryland campaign coordinator Yu-Lan Tu zipped back and forth in anticipation of the congressman’s arrival. Black Entertainment Television had requested an interview with the candidate and she was going to great lengths to find a proper venue in the church. First she tried making a classroom look “presidential” with the addition of a small lamp, some faux flowers and a vase full of flags from foreign countries. She tried desperately to find an American flag to use as a backdrop but it wasn’t meant to be. Crew and correspondent were finally moved upstairs to a board room. Also a debacle was Kucinich’s arrival. The campaign staffers on site, in addition to security, were expecting the congressman to come in through a back door of the church. Despite numerous phone calls, everyone got caught off guard when the congressman merely made his way through the front door with everyone else."

Kucinich has a number of sources of info (I'm receiving several emails a day from the campaign), but this is my primary source for DK news. Bookmark it and follow along.

President Bush complained this week that it is hard to tell progress is being made in Iraq "when you listen to the filter" of the news media.

Bush's aides hope to elude that filter through a series of presidential interviews with local and regional news organizations, trips by Cabinet members to Iraq and hard-hitting speeches by Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Each of Bush's weekly radio addresses in October will be devoted to the subject, aides said.

And of course, yesterday Bill O'Reilly melted down (yet again) on NPR's "Fresh Air." (Poor guy--I'm reminded of Homer Simpson in one episode admitting he was a rage-aholic, "Ohhh, I'm addicted to rage-ahol!") Since the interview, he's been holding forth on the event like the victim of a hit-and-run. From his vanity site: "Was the National Public Radio interview fair and balanced? Was Bill treated differently than other guests? Listen for yourself and then YOU decide."

Both these incidents highlight the increasingly sharp break with reality conservatives have. It's become totally surreal. The thing is, the Bushies and O'Reilly (and just about every other conservative) seem to have completely missed the irony. They've gotten so deeply into spinning reality that they've forgotten it's not reality. Every time some harsh truth saunters onto the set like a stray gaffer, they look completely baffled. It's not even mendacity when you believe it yourself, I suppose.

But man, is it bizarre.

In addition to Mr. Segal, other former aides to Mr. Clinton have emerged in recent weeks as prominent figures within the Clark campaign. They include Ron Klain, a policy adviser; Mark Fabiani, a communications adviser; and Mickey Kantor and Bruce Lindsey, who are also regarded as part of General Clark's inner circle of counselors.

As Dems look back through the mists of time to those glory days of the last century, they evoke a gauzy, soft-light vision of Bill Clinton. I think half of the excitement in the Clark campaign comes because of his close connections to Bill. About Clinton's presidency, people remember his intelligence and skill handling the Republicans. Looking at a ferocious '04 campaign, they want the biggest guns they can find, and Clark's tanks seem to have 'em.

But Clinton is exactly where we don't want to go (I say, at the risk of getting de-linked from the enormously pro-Clinton DNC). He was stellar at getting himself elected, but his policies and effect on the rest of the party were a decidedly mixed bag. He was a polarizing figure for two reasons, his personality and moderatism--but Dems will only cop to the first. Too often, they they describe the neo-con revolt simply as a prudish reaction to Bill's infidelities. But it's far more than that.

Republicans had since Reagan made their policy positions of fiscal and personal responsibility part of a "Republican morality." It was moral to take responsibility for yourself (read: not receive government supportive services), and moral to get out of the way of the market, for it was not clouded by the suspect motives of politburo beaurocracies of the federal government. Then in came Bill, granting the argument that personal and fiscal responsibility were good for the country--but transfering the morality to Democrats. It was too much to bear that he was a libertine and a philanderer--it was like pissing on the flag.

But far worse than what it did to Republicans, this brand of politics completely unhinged the Democrats. I'll admit it: I really didn't like Clinton's policies. His fidelity to the free-market became the guiding force in his administration--core Democratic values of social and economic justice and environmental protection took a back seat. As a result, default settings on the liberal-conservative continuum took a shift right. So when George Bush came into office, previously unthinkable positions like privatizing Social Security were now on the table. The neo-cons were a step right of Clinton--but they're on the radical right in comparison with any previous Democrat in the 20th Century.

So here comes Wesley Clark, festooned with Clintonite staff. He's a former Republican with no appreciable platform arriving at the exact moment when Dems are least discriminating of their candidate--as long as the tank guns are big, let's roll! I'm bothered by it. Four more years of Bush will be abysmal, obviously. But I don't relish four more years of Clinton, either.

---------------------------------

[On a related note, check out who this article quotes regarding Clark's woes: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. Ring a bell? No? You might know him by a different name.]

[Update: Speaking of Kos and Clark, the former has more on the latter. ]

1) Dean (1, 1)
2) Clark (3, 3)
2) Edwards (4, 2)
4) Gephardt (2, 5)
5) Kucinich (6, 4)
6) Kerry (5, 6)
7) Braun (7, 7)
8) Lieberman (8, 8)
9) Sharpton (9, 9)

Obviously, not a single reader will agree with these rankings. Yet I've already established that I'm a nut, so I'm not going to start apologizing now. I will, however, offer rationales on the obviously bizarre choices.

Dean
All right, not so crazy, but some eyebrows may rise at the placement of Dean above Clark in the general election. Clark looks great now, but I think his political inexperience is a greater liability than people realize. Dean, on the other hand, is working through his rough spots now. He has a huge base, and no matter how often Rove goads the press into calling him "angry" and "liberal," he's neither. Rather, his straight talk will appeal after a term of lies.

Clark
Clark's weak on positions, and this will be exposed as time goes on. He came in to the primaries late enough that he avoided a lot of early scrutiny, but that means he doesn't have a huge, well-organized base, either. I think the weaknesses that look like tiny fissures now will start to gape by January. Expect him only to fade.

Edwards
I haven't talked at all about Edwards, and neither has anyone else. Yet he's quietly put together a very credible campaign. His positions are his strength, and his gentle demeanor will win him converts as the field narrows. I can see Edwards flaming out, but I can also see him going all the way. (Experience, of course, is his weakness--but Clark's candidacy may obscure this. May.)

Gephardt
Gephardt's huge political machine will help him in the primaries. Armchair pundits forget that what wins elections (and primaries) isn't magazine covers or buzz, but good old-fashioned hard work. Gephardt has an impressive base, and this will benefit him in the primaries. He's been a weak leader, though, and his wishy-washy positions would hurt his credibility against Bush. I'm scared of a Gephardt candidacy in the general election.

Kucinich
I'm aware that Kucinich is marginal now, but he, more than any candidate, can claim to be the anti-Bush, positive progressive solution. Many of the candidates have very similar platforms with just shades of distinction. Kucinich offers an alternative. If he can get traction with the "throw the bums out" crowd (Dean's base) and convince enough progressives that he can win, he's a credible candidate. He inspires people, which is something many of these candidates fail to do. That's a big plus.

Kerry
Kerry should be doing better, but he's not. He has failed to ignite interest in his campaign, and barring a miracle, I don't see him turning his USS Yorktown around in time.

Lieberman
Lieberman has all the name recognition, but absolutely no base. Worse, he has inspired active opposition among many Democrats--a unique trick among the candidates. Lieberman, along with Braun and Sharpton, will soon join Graham. He's done.

"No government can stand by and let that continue to happen," Mr Lieberman said on a television discussion programme yesterday. "Unfortunately, the Syrians have continued to refuse American demands that they break up terrorist bases and headquarters in their country.

"And what the Israelis appear to have done in attacking Syria is not unlike what we did after September 11 in attacking training camps of al-Qaida in Afghanistan."

So after playing the Israel card against Howard Dean, Lieberman now implicitly backs the President's pre-emption doctrine.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Oh my, lump in the bed
How I've missed you

Roses are redder
Bluer am I
Seeing you kissed by that charming French guy

The dogs and the cat, they missed you too
Barney's still mad you dropped him, he ate your shoe
The distance, my dear, has been such a barrier
Next time you want an adventure, just land on a carrier

Okay, poetry isn't exactly the right word. (Oh, and by the way, that phrase "my lump in the bed" refers to Laura. It's hard to imagine a context in which that's good.)

Though he made no assertion that Hussein had actual weapons of mass destruction, Bush read a passage from the report indicating the Iraqi leader was determined to get them. "Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and was elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom," he said, quoting Kay's findings. "That is what the report said."

...Yesterday, Kay estimated it would have taken Iraq five to seven years to reconstitute its nuclear program. During the campaign to win support for invading Iraq, officials such as Vice President Cheney had described Iraq's nuclear program as already reconstituted. But Iraq had started to rebuild only its staff of nuclear scientists, and had undertaken limited nuclear-related experiments.

What's particularly offensive is that Bush rolls out the "spin" (or, less charitably, attempts to mislead) even while CNN is reporting that the Kay Report casts serious doubts on Bush's claims. The only thing the President can assume is that we're too stupid to notice the discrepancy.

(It makes pretty good satire, of course. The thing is, it's not satire--it's our foreign and domestic policy.)

41% think the Iraq invasion was worth it;

40% are confident in Bush's economic decisions;

41% say Bush shares their priorities;

43% have a favorable opinion of Bush;

37% think the country's headed in the right direction (56% describe it as being on the "wrong track"); and

29% think the administration has a clear policy for Iraq.

These are, of course, really bad numbers for Bush. (There are some positive numbers, too, but even there, the President is on the downward side of the slope.)

But nevermind that--you knew Bush was tanking. How about the PIPA poll Kevin Drum points us to (could be me, but it keeps crashing my computer, so I won't link to it) that says Fox watchers are poorly informed?

The extent of Americans' misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.

Based on three dimensions tested (whether WMD were actually found, whether there's a link between Al Qaida and Iraq, and how much the rest of the world likes the US), a whopping 80% of FoxNews watchers had one or more misperceptions. The lowest? NPR listeners, with only 23%. Interestingly consumers of all TV news sources had more misperptions (55%-80%) than those who got their news from print media (47%).

(And what do you bet blog readers are the best-informed of all?)

The CBS News site was apparently hijacked by a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich on Friday morning.

During the hacking, the black background--including text and videos--of CBSNews.com was replaced with a blue screen that cited a CBS News poll indicating that 77 percent of all Democrats remain unfamiliar with Kucinich's candidacy. The page read: "Since we cannot expect the media to provide this information I decided to help them out." It also asked site visitors to watch an informational video highlighting the congressman's policies.

All right, I admit it--I'm not actually that torn. Go Dennis!

KAY CONFIRMS DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ, SAYS BUSH

Mr. David Kay reported to the nation. I want to thank him for his good work. He is a thoughtful man. He and his team have worked under very difficult circumstances. They have done a lot of work in three months, and he reported on an interim basis.

The report states that Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum, sophisticated concealment efforts, and advanced design work on prohibited longer range missiles. The report summarized the regime's efforts in this way, and I quote from the report:

"Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and was elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

That is what the report said. Specifically, Dr. Kay's team discovered what the report calls, and I quote, "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

In addition to these extensive concealment efforts, Dr. Kay found systematic destruction of evidence of these illegal activities. This interim progress report is not final. Extensive work remains to be done on his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. But these findings already make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community, that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world.

Later, during questioning, the President elaborated:

Q: Mr. President, are you still confident that you'll -- that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq? And how long do you think that that search will go on? Is that an open-ended search until something is found?

THE PRESIDENT: His interim report said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program spanned more than two decades. That's what he said. See, he's over there under difficult circumstances and reports back. He says that the WMD program involved thousands of people, billions of dollars and was elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In other words, he's saying Saddam Hussein was a threat, a serious danger.

Q: There's a poll out in which a lot of people today are wondering whether the war was really worth the cost.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't make decisions based upon polls. I make decisions based upon what I think is important for the security of the American people. And I'm not going to forget the lessons of 9/11, September 2001. I'm not going to forget what Mr. Kerick described, the bombing that killed innocent life. This administration will deal with gathering dangers where we find them. The interim report of Mr. Kay showed that Saddam defied 1441 and was a danger. We gave him ample time to deal with his weapons of mass destruction -- he refused. So he's no longer in power and the world is better off for it.

I can't think of any people who think that the world would be a safe place with Saddam Hussein in power. Sometimes the American people like the decisions I make, sometimes they don't. But they need to know I'll make tough decisions based upon what I think is right, given the intelligence that I know, in order to do my job, which is secure this country, and to bring peace.

Q: But isn't the issue that you overstated the threat in the view of critics --

THE PRESIDENT: Bernie, you're a good man.

[FORMER NY POLICE COMMISSIONER] BERNARD KERICK: Thank you, Mr. President.

I mean, does this guy have a future or what? Let's give him a big, big round of applause, folks.

Sure, the information he published in his July column about Wilson demonstrates that two senior administration officials may have broken the law. But that's been known for more than two months, and until Sunday, most of the carping was confined to the left-leaning portions of the blogosphere and to liberal publications such as The Nation.

Though somehow I doubt the word "upgraded" will be the first one that springs to his mind.

"What we have here is a little social concern in the N.F.L. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well - black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

--Rush Limbaugh on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown

This story is getting such intense coverage that I don't need to say much about it. Leaving aside the issue of whether Limbaugh's comment was racist or not, it goes to show the effects of the conservative echo chamber. Limbaugh prides himself on his "controversial" commentary--but it's controversial to exactly no one, because the only people who listen to him are self-described "dittoheads." In the real world, journalists are exposed to people of diverse views; it occurs to them how their speech might be interpreted by different groups. Rush is so used to the response of the dittoheads that he imagined his commentary would be interpreted as sticking it to the liberal media. What didn't occur to him was that his language assumed a negative: it's true he didn't say black players and coaches aren't as good as whites, he just said the liberal media props them up. But why would it prop them up if they didn't need propping?

What's shocking to football fans is that he would assume this negative. In the era of Mike Vick, Tony Dungy, Ty Willingham et. al., it's astonishing that anyone still holds this view. In the echo chamber, one is never compelled by the opposition to examine one's own assumptions. When Limbaugh tried to finger the "liberal media," we all saw Limbaugh's assumptions for what they were. Unfortunately, he refused the opportunity to examine his assumptions. "All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be the cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community."

Well, Rush, that'll fly with the white male core who share your view and comprise your audience--which I guess is fine. Once again, they're gonna be the only ones listening.

"To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret."

On the way, he's releasing ink and trying to cloud the waters (pardon the bad, mangled metaphor). Thus, the whole thing is a "massive political assualt" on President Bush by Wilson and "the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York." Meanwhile, it really wasn't secret. "It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." And finally, Novak dissembles on the "operative" v. "analyst" question: "However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations." (Never mind that it was Novak who used the word "operative," not Wilson, who's made the leak "his life's work.")

I quoted from the NewsHour last night--but only half. The other part of that discussion involved Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Anticipating this defense, he paints a different version of Novak's handling of the story.

If you are going to get involved in something like this where you're bumping up against breaking the law, as a journalist you have a civil disobedience test you have to meet. What's the public good of this story? What's the -- balanced against what's the danger to the people involved publishing the story. The third part of the test is, is it necessary in telling the story to do this or is there another way to do it, do you need to divulge this person's name, in other words, to convey the information you think is of the public interest.

This doesn't meet any one of those three tests. It's not of overriding public interest. Novak may be really just an instrument of Republican revenge here. Whatever the public good is of the story is far overwhelmed by the danger to this woman and her network of operatives. And it's gratuitous. You could have told the story without her name.

So where does that leave Novak? In my mind, he acted unethically but not illegally. By his own admission, he wasn't the only one who knew about the story. Yet he was the only one to report it. Novak is simulateously posing as an insider and an innocent--he want access to confidential information, but he doesn't want to be held accountable for knowing what it is. All of that strikes me as a pretty serious breach of ethics.

But is it illegal? Based on the information available, administration officials were doing there best to leak the info. Presumably, the story was getting out. Novak claims he wasn't a tool of the government, but that may be his best argument. It seems clear that a crime was committed--Plame was an undercover CIA operative, and Novak "outed" her. Crime. So the question is who's culpable. The crime here was the administration's--they wanted to get back at Wilson. This didn't come from Novak's brain--it came from someone's inside the White House.