licentious radio

Monday, September 29, 2003
[8:51:28 PM]

Why are Democrats so angry?

Are Bush and other Republicans "extremists"?

These are important questions to sort out and answer concisely.

[8:47:00 PM]
So Novak says his sources didn't call him to leak the Wilson story. An anonymous administration official claimed half a dozen reporters were contacted with the story. Supposedly, we know that Andrea Mitchell is one of them.

Novak also claimed he has sources that say Wilson (Ms.) was an analyst, not an operative. If she were an analyst, it would not be a felony to announce that she was working for the CIA.

Joe Wilson, on the other hand, knows exactly what his wife's relationship with the CIA was. He can't confirm that she's an operative, but if she were an analyst, he could have said that from the beginning, and there would never have been a story.

I would guess Novak was just trying to buy time for the administration.

Democrats are right to argue that General Ashcroft cannot pass the test of the appearance of propriety in investigating this. A good guess is that the fuss that hit the fan this weekend was because the CIA got tired of waiting for the Justice Department to do something.

The easiest story, meanwhile, is that Rove was involved. Why else don't we already know who the perps are? Flunkies would have been leaked by now, don't you think?

[5:42:41 PM]
"Now, those sophisticated folks at The Wall Street Journal keep pointing out that Grasso did nothing wrong -- he merely accepted a pay package that was foisted upon him by a board of directors who happened to be hand-picked by Grasso, who were close friends of his and who kept their decisions secret." --Molly Ivins

Hooray for Molly Ivins. A hundred cheers for Molly.

[11:56:47 AM]
Another big story is that General Ashcroft's people are using so-called Patriot Act rules for domestic crime cases, not only for terrorism cases.

This is completely inappropriate. The law should be overturned in its entirety, and a small package of anti-terrorism laws should be put in place -- with stiff penalties for abuse of the law for non-terrorism cases.

Ashcroft and anyone involved in the current non-terrorism cases should be fired.

[11:11:27 AM]
Oh, dear! Those family squabbles. Apparently Dumbya was so mad at his brother Neil for visiting Thai prostitutes that he brought up the whole sex tourism thing at the UN.

Remember the saying "don't make a federal case out of it"? Well, if you're in the White House, you can make an even bigger fuss.

[11:01:19 AM]
"I will go to Korea!" --General Wesley Clark

[That's *satire*. Clark said he would go to Iraq. The quote is from Eisenhower, who defeated the Democrat, Stevenson, during the Korean War.]

[10:58:07 AM]
If the two people who "outed" the CIA operative are "insidious traitors", what do you call a "president" who protects the traitors?

Even a loose definition of "treason" would fit the intentionally vague standard of "high crimes".

MediaWhoresOnline dragged out the farcical "ethics standards" Bush put in place: "Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities." Ha ha. Maybe they mean that the "appropriate authorities" are the shredders.

Anyway, how can Bush get out of this? A large-scale, murderous attack by Bin Laden might do the trick, but otherwise, it looks like the first Bush felons are going down.

Let's see. Bush couldn't get Bin Laden, because the escape route from Tora Bora was too snowy. Bush couldn't get Mullah Omar because he let the Pakistanis evacuate the Taliban by air. Bush couldn't get the anthrax killer because he didn't use the correct return address. Bush couldn't get Saddam, because Saddam dressed up like a cab driver.

Will the Justice Department be able to get two White House employees whose names are known to the CIA and at least a half dozen reporters? It really looks like the administration shouldn't be trusted with something like this. Let's give it to someone outside of the political chain of command.

[10:09:49 AM]
Good thing I don't rely on the New York Times for news. I "read" it every day, but mostly I just look at the pictures.

See, the big news of the last few days is that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak of a CIA agent. Two top-type White House people were the perps for this felony. 'Two' makes a conspiracy, but apparently others were involved. How did they find out that the woman was working for the CIA? Was anyone else involved in deciding to leak the woman's name?

At least one other person knows, because somebody leaked the dirty business. If it wasn't just Tenet, then you could have multiple people in the White House aware that this happened, but not taking action -- covering up the felony, in other words.

But if you read the New York Times in print, you wouldn't know that the shucks are hitting the fan.

Can you imagine the New York Times print edition missing a Whitewater story? I didn't think so.