From a debate in Harper's. I can imagine the veins in his forehead popping out as he said this:
HUBBARD: Well, there’s a substantial body of economic research to suggest that the lower marginal tax rates since then have stimulated savings, investment, entrepreneurship. And to solve our entitlements problem with tax increases, it would not just be a matter of restoring 1970s tax rates. It’s not just that top rates would have to go up. I am describing a tax increase of 50 percent. And I don’t mean for the rich. I mean every tax collected in America.
KRUGMAN: Every federal tax.
HUBBARD: You could not raise that amount of money on a soak-the-rich strategy.
PETERSON: A tax increase can’t provide the bulk of the solution.
KRUGMAN: I don’t see why not. Even if we raised it all through taxes—something I wouldn’t support, by the way—the total tax take in America would go from roughly 27 percent of GDP, including state and local, up to 35 percent. In many advanced countries, the take is close to 40 percent.
His claim that he wouldn't support this by the way, stands in marked contrast to his previous statement that we should be getting 28% of GDP in federal revenues. I guess he was for it, before he was against it.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Monday, August 01, 2005
In Defense of Profiling
It drives me nuts to be at the airport and watch some little old lady being practically strip searched. There is one constant in security, you can't cover everything, you will never have enough resources. In order to defend against the threat the most efficiently you have to target your resources against the most likely targets, that is why you are likely to find greater security at the airport, then say, Bob's Bait Shop. So why is it when it comes to the people carrying out these attacks we pretend that they are all equal? We know that the overwhelming majority of the people who carry out terrorist attacks against us are Islamic males in their 20s and 30s of Middle Eastern, East African and South Asian descent. Does this mean that we should put everyone of this description in jail? Absolutely not. But if the police are searching people in the NY subway and they have a choice between searching a 50 year old black female, and a 30 year old Moroccan man, they are obviously going to accomplish a lot more searching the man. But this is something we can't say because it is insensitive. Well, I don't care, people's lives are at stake, I will say it, and so should everyone else. Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article saying this too.
The American response to tightening up after London has been reflexive and idiotic: random bag checks in the New York subways. Random meaning that the people stopped are to be chosen numerically. One in every 5 or 10 or 20.
This is an obvious absurdity and everyone knows it. It recapitulates the appalling waste of effort and resources we see at airports every day when, for reasons of political correctness, 83-year-old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie are required to remove their shoes in the search for jihadists hungering for paradise.
The only good thing to be said for this ridiculous policy is that it testifies to the tolerance and good will of Americans, so intent on assuaging the feelings of minority fellow citizens that they are willing to undergo useless indignities and tolerate massive public waste.
The American response to tightening up after London has been reflexive and idiotic: random bag checks in the New York subways. Random meaning that the people stopped are to be chosen numerically. One in every 5 or 10 or 20.
This is an obvious absurdity and everyone knows it. It recapitulates the appalling waste of effort and resources we see at airports every day when, for reasons of political correctness, 83-year-old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie are required to remove their shoes in the search for jihadists hungering for paradise.
The only good thing to be said for this ridiculous policy is that it testifies to the tolerance and good will of Americans, so intent on assuaging the feelings of minority fellow citizens that they are willing to undergo useless indignities and tolerate massive public waste.
Pragmatism vs Principle
There are two sides forming on the blogosphere as to whether our decision to stand up for human rights in Uzbekistan, at the cost of losing our base at K-2, was the proper thing. Austin Bay has a little discussion of this. Personally I think it was the right decision. Karimov is a vicious dictator who presents more of liability to us than an asset. It is unfortunate to lose the base, especially after spending so much money on it, but giving the appearance of supporting this type of a government just for political expediancy would be even worse. Yes, Karimov may have so legitimate concerns regardining Islamic fundamentalists, but his repressive policies are going to make the problem worse. By banning practically any display of Islam, he is going to drive otherwise moderate Soviet style vodka drinking Muslims towards the extremists.
Wahhabis in Seattle
I heard about this on Brian Suit's show. I used to drive past this mosque all the time when I lived in North Seattle. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this.
A microcosm of the Wahhabi War of the Worlds was seen in the Emerald City on July 23, when one of the preeminent Iraqi Shia clerics in America, Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini, Imam of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, California, stopped for afternoon prayer at the Idriss Mosque, located at 1420 NE Northgate Way in Seattle. Idris in Arabic is the name of a Prophet, but considering the behavior that occurred there recently it might better be called Iblis or the Devil's Mosque. For when Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini appeared at the sacred house to pray on American soil, he was rudely insulted and ordered to leave by two Wahhabi thugs, identified as an Algerian and Egyptian, who called him an "unbeliever" because he is a Shia Muslim!
I know Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini quite well and have defended him in the past. He is a man of religious moderation and cultivation, but he is also independent-minded and has spoken critically about the situation in Iraq and other sensitive issues. He has participated in meetings of radical Islamist groups. But he is nobody's puppet. He is not my front man or President Bush's servant or a Zionist pawn. He is a learned and sincere Shia cleric. Above all, he does not counsel separatism or violence to Muslims living in America; he supports the argument of the Iraqi Shia marja, or clerical authority, Ali Sistani, who writes that a Muslim living in the West has given, and must abide by, an oath to live in peace with non-Muslim rulers and neighbors.
A microcosm of the Wahhabi War of the Worlds was seen in the Emerald City on July 23, when one of the preeminent Iraqi Shia clerics in America, Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini, Imam of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, California, stopped for afternoon prayer at the Idriss Mosque, located at 1420 NE Northgate Way in Seattle. Idris in Arabic is the name of a Prophet, but considering the behavior that occurred there recently it might better be called Iblis or the Devil's Mosque. For when Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini appeared at the sacred house to pray on American soil, he was rudely insulted and ordered to leave by two Wahhabi thugs, identified as an Algerian and Egyptian, who called him an "unbeliever" because he is a Shia Muslim!
I know Sayed Mustafa al-Qazwini quite well and have defended him in the past. He is a man of religious moderation and cultivation, but he is also independent-minded and has spoken critically about the situation in Iraq and other sensitive issues. He has participated in meetings of radical Islamist groups. But he is nobody's puppet. He is not my front man or President Bush's servant or a Zionist pawn. He is a learned and sincere Shia cleric. Above all, he does not counsel separatism or violence to Muslims living in America; he supports the argument of the Iraqi Shia marja, or clerical authority, Ali Sistani, who writes that a Muslim living in the West has given, and must abide by, an oath to live in peace with non-Muslim rulers and neighbors.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Kicked off K2
For the last 4 years the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars renting an old Soviet air base near the towns of Karshi and Khanabad in Uzbekistan, known commonly as K2, in order to support the war in Afghanistan. Now it appears that Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan's president for life, has kicked us off, in retalion for our criticism of recent political violence carried out by his regime. All I can say is this was an idiotic tactical move. While we were still using the base Karimov had some leverage, he could essentially string us out forever, now the US has a vested interest in seeing him removed. Any bets on how long he lasts now?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
More Krugman Twisting and Distorting Facts
I am actually getting a little tired of writing about Krugman, but I can't really help it because he keeps on saying stupid and deceitful things. It doesn't take any particular skill to point this out, just a little intellectual curiousity and a basic competence with a search engine. Take a look at his most recent essay, this time on everyone's favorite subject, the French.
I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans.
If you actually read the study though, you will find he is leaving out a rather important step. It wasn't government regulations that just spontaneously caused this phenomenon, it was the government acting in response to pressure from unions, who advocated this in a failed attempt to increase employment.
In this paper, we argue that European labor market regulations, advocated by unions in declining European industries who argued "work less, work all" explain the bulk of the difference between the U.S. and Europe. These policies do not seem to have increased employment, but they may have had a more society-wide influence on leisure patterns because of a social multiplier where the returns to leisure increase as more people are taking longer vacations.
Why is this small distinction important? Well partly because he certainly doesn't want to point out the failure of union and government intervention in the economy, but also because Krugman has been pressing the "government is good" and "Republicans hate government" therefore "Republicans are bad" argument in many of his recent columns.
Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.
And here
Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success.
Krugman can't portray government acting in response to social or organizational pressure, especially in a case where its action did not achieve the desired results, it has to be shown acting out of its own wisdom to fit his worldview, otherwise he might have to admit that our present government, is just the result of the constituency, the American people, who continue to vote it in.
I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans.
If you actually read the study though, you will find he is leaving out a rather important step. It wasn't government regulations that just spontaneously caused this phenomenon, it was the government acting in response to pressure from unions, who advocated this in a failed attempt to increase employment.
In this paper, we argue that European labor market regulations, advocated by unions in declining European industries who argued "work less, work all" explain the bulk of the difference between the U.S. and Europe. These policies do not seem to have increased employment, but they may have had a more society-wide influence on leisure patterns because of a social multiplier where the returns to leisure increase as more people are taking longer vacations.
Why is this small distinction important? Well partly because he certainly doesn't want to point out the failure of union and government intervention in the economy, but also because Krugman has been pressing the "government is good" and "Republicans hate government" therefore "Republicans are bad" argument in many of his recent columns.
Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.
And here
Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success.
Krugman can't portray government acting in response to social or organizational pressure, especially in a case where its action did not achieve the desired results, it has to be shown acting out of its own wisdom to fit his worldview, otherwise he might have to admit that our present government, is just the result of the constituency, the American people, who continue to vote it in.
Judicial Arrogance
And people wonder why the courts are perceived as activist. Here in Seattle we have a case where a notorious would be bomber is convicted, given a relatively light sentence, and the judge uses the occasion, not to criticize the guilty terrorist, but attack US policy on cases where he has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour sentenced Ahmed Ressam to a 22-year prison term yesterday for attempting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the millennium's eve, and used the occasion to unleash a broadside against secret tribunals and other war on terrorism tactics that abandon "the ideals that set our nation apart."
"The tragedy of Sept. 11 shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism," said Coughenour in a voice edged with emotion. "Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. ... If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."
I would like Judge Coughenour to explain, how Miranda rights, habeas corpus, and other niceties of the judicial system are supposed to be carried out on stateless terrorist extremists captured on foreign battlefields, not in Port Angeles. Just do your job judge, leave it up to the lawmakers, and the judges ruling on the cases to decide it, if it comes to that. If you want to editorialize, quit your job and write for the Times.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour sentenced Ahmed Ressam to a 22-year prison term yesterday for attempting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the millennium's eve, and used the occasion to unleash a broadside against secret tribunals and other war on terrorism tactics that abandon "the ideals that set our nation apart."
"The tragedy of Sept. 11 shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism," said Coughenour in a voice edged with emotion. "Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. ... If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."
I would like Judge Coughenour to explain, how Miranda rights, habeas corpus, and other niceties of the judicial system are supposed to be carried out on stateless terrorist extremists captured on foreign battlefields, not in Port Angeles. Just do your job judge, leave it up to the lawmakers, and the judges ruling on the cases to decide it, if it comes to that. If you want to editorialize, quit your job and write for the Times.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
More on Labor Participation
I have posted on this regarding a different Krugman\DeLong post (which managed to get my post erased along with a lifetime ban from DeLong's blog) but Scrivener has a great takedown of some of K\D's recent comments on how the alleged drop in labor indicators proves the economy sucks. Scrivener compared the labor indicators, not with the peak of of the dot com boom, as liberal naysayers like to do, but with the equivalent time period of the previous economic cycle, October 1994.
The part I found most interesting was where he compared the labor participation rate, which was the crux of Krugman and DeLong's argument. Yes, it is in fact down slightly, although not as much as they would like you to think, but in which demographic was it down? Quoting from Scrivener:
labor force participation, age 20+
prior: 67.8% (unemployment rate 5.0%)
this: 67.8% (unemployment rate 4.5%)
Whoa! Surely when the bears talk of millions of people abandoning the search for work they give the impression that they are talking of adults supporting themselves and their families. But it's not so.The entire drop in the labor force participation rate has been among teenagers -- something I've never seen any bear note even once.
It is not the family breadwinners who are out of the labor force it is teenagers. So let's go to the charts and look at the trends. (click on the pictures to enlarge them)
Here is the overall participation rate, yes it is down slightly from October 1994.
But here it is for males over the age of 20.
And women over the age of 20.
So it looks like the men's rate, in keeping with a long term trend is down, while the increase in the female rate has basically leveled off, although compared to 1994 it is actually up, essentially offsetting the men's rate.
So where was the drop in participation rate? Well, as previously stated, in fact it is among teenagers:
Continuing a long term trend, the 16-19 participation rate is down significantly. Maybe they have decided to go to college or sit at home playing X-box, who knows, but they aren't out looking for jobs. You will never hear Krugman or DeLong even look into this, but it looks like the change in participation rate is caused by long term changes in demographics more than a "weak job market". There is nothing magical about a year 2000 67% participation rate, anymore than picking and choosing any other piece of data.
The part I found most interesting was where he compared the labor participation rate, which was the crux of Krugman and DeLong's argument. Yes, it is in fact down slightly, although not as much as they would like you to think, but in which demographic was it down? Quoting from Scrivener:
labor force participation, age 20+
prior: 67.8% (unemployment rate 5.0%)
this: 67.8% (unemployment rate 4.5%)
Whoa! Surely when the bears talk of millions of people abandoning the search for work they give the impression that they are talking of adults supporting themselves and their families. But it's not so.The entire drop in the labor force participation rate has been among teenagers -- something I've never seen any bear note even once.
It is not the family breadwinners who are out of the labor force it is teenagers. So let's go to the charts and look at the trends. (click on the pictures to enlarge them)
Here is the overall participation rate, yes it is down slightly from October 1994.
But here it is for males over the age of 20.
And women over the age of 20.
So it looks like the men's rate, in keeping with a long term trend is down, while the increase in the female rate has basically leveled off, although compared to 1994 it is actually up, essentially offsetting the men's rate.
So where was the drop in participation rate? Well, as previously stated, in fact it is among teenagers:
Continuing a long term trend, the 16-19 participation rate is down significantly. Maybe they have decided to go to college or sit at home playing X-box, who knows, but they aren't out looking for jobs. You will never hear Krugman or DeLong even look into this, but it looks like the change in participation rate is caused by long term changes in demographics more than a "weak job market". There is nothing magical about a year 2000 67% participation rate, anymore than picking and choosing any other piece of data.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Why not? Most of his last book was fiction.
Probably upset that he is being upstaged by Joe Wilson, the shameless self-promoter is back.
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Sony Pictures is negotiating to acquire film rights to the first novel from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who accused the Bush administration of ignoring the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.
His novel, "The Scorpion Gate," will be published in October by Putnam Adult. The studio hopes the film adaptation will be the first in a series of John Clancy-style political thrillers. The project will be produced by former studio chief John Calley.
The realistic geopolitical thriller is set five years in the future as oil-hungry forces in Washington are ready to reshape the map of the Middle East to further their own ends by launching a global nuclear war. The plot involves a fictional takeover of the House of Saud by extremists.
Who the hell is "John Clancy"?
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Sony Pictures is negotiating to acquire film rights to the first novel from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who accused the Bush administration of ignoring the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.
His novel, "The Scorpion Gate," will be published in October by Putnam Adult. The studio hopes the film adaptation will be the first in a series of John Clancy-style political thrillers. The project will be produced by former studio chief John Calley.
The realistic geopolitical thriller is set five years in the future as oil-hungry forces in Washington are ready to reshape the map of the Middle East to further their own ends by launching a global nuclear war. The plot involves a fictional takeover of the House of Saud by extremists.
Who the hell is "John Clancy"?
When is a subsidy not a subsidy?
Now I admit it has been a while since I took an econ course, but I seem to remember the concept of "there is no free lunch" basically stating that any product or expenditure has to come from somewhere. In his latest editorial Krugman has turned this idea on its head. Not only is a benefit without cost, but the lack of a benefit is in fact a subsidy.
Now I must confess he does start off well, pointing out the fact that there are other factors in production besides labor costs. This would explain to the "fair trade" crowd how we managed to survive against low wage competition like Japan in the 70's. Mexico in the 80's, and China now.
But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.
What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.
Whether this is true or not, I will leave for others to discuss, but it is at least logical economically. But from here he goes downhill.
But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.
You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.
To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
So Krugman insists that the government picking up the tab for health care is not a subsidy. Now this sounds like a subsidy to me, but what do I know? I am sure I could find an award winning economist who would say that the government picking up health care costs for private corporations is a subsidy though. Hmm, where could I find this? How about this May 23rd article by MIT educated award-winning economist Paul Krugman, in which he states that the government is subsidizing WalMart by paying for the health care of some of their uncovered workers.
True, there are limits on what state governments can do: they fear that if they do too much for workers, they'll drive business and jobs away. I'd argue that the fear is often exaggerated. For example, Wal-Mart may avoid states that force it to provide health insurance, but given the hidden subsidies the company receives - one way or another, taxpayers end up paying a lot for uninsured workers - this may not be such a bad thing. Still, any major strengthening of the safety net will have to come at the federal level.
So I guess when the government pays all the expenses it is not a subsidy, but when the government pay some of the expenses it is. Sounds like voodoo economics to me.
Now I must confess he does start off well, pointing out the fact that there are other factors in production besides labor costs. This would explain to the "fair trade" crowd how we managed to survive against low wage competition like Japan in the 70's. Mexico in the 80's, and China now.
But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.
What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.
Whether this is true or not, I will leave for others to discuss, but it is at least logical economically. But from here he goes downhill.
But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.
You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.
To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
So Krugman insists that the government picking up the tab for health care is not a subsidy. Now this sounds like a subsidy to me, but what do I know? I am sure I could find an award winning economist who would say that the government picking up health care costs for private corporations is a subsidy though. Hmm, where could I find this? How about this May 23rd article by MIT educated award-winning economist Paul Krugman, in which he states that the government is subsidizing WalMart by paying for the health care of some of their uncovered workers.
True, there are limits on what state governments can do: they fear that if they do too much for workers, they'll drive business and jobs away. I'd argue that the fear is often exaggerated. For example, Wal-Mart may avoid states that force it to provide health insurance, but given the hidden subsidies the company receives - one way or another, taxpayers end up paying a lot for uninsured workers - this may not be such a bad thing. Still, any major strengthening of the safety net will have to come at the federal level.
So I guess when the government pays all the expenses it is not a subsidy, but when the government pay some of the expenses it is. Sounds like voodoo economics to me.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Joe Wilson Lies (again)
In an LA Times article on covert agents Joe Wilson says that he and his wife had been dating for a while before he found out what she did for a living, thus enhancing her "spook" status.
Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the two met at a diplomatic party in 1997.
"But I didn't know what she did until we were well along in our courtship," he said, adding that her public outing continues to ripple through her private life.
"People she has known for upwards of 20 years have all sort of had to go through this period of adjusting to who is the real Valerie Wilson."
But two years ago Wilson told Maureen Dowd that she told him early on, about the time of their first kiss, because he had a security clearance.
"I saw this striking blonde," he recalled, still sounding smitten six years later. At first she said she was an energy analyst, but confided sometime around the first kiss that she was in the CIA. "I had a security clearance," grinned Wilson, then a political adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Europe.
Now I know men are pigs, and always forget those little relationship details like anniversaries and such, but wouldn't you remember when you first found out your wife was a covert CIA agent? Hell, I still remember when I first found out my wife was a Democrat.
Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the two met at a diplomatic party in 1997.
"But I didn't know what she did until we were well along in our courtship," he said, adding that her public outing continues to ripple through her private life.
"People she has known for upwards of 20 years have all sort of had to go through this period of adjusting to who is the real Valerie Wilson."
But two years ago Wilson told Maureen Dowd that she told him early on, about the time of their first kiss, because he had a security clearance.
"I saw this striking blonde," he recalled, still sounding smitten six years later. At first she said she was an energy analyst, but confided sometime around the first kiss that she was in the CIA. "I had a security clearance," grinned Wilson, then a political adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Europe.
Now I know men are pigs, and always forget those little relationship details like anniversaries and such, but wouldn't you remember when you first found out your wife was a covert CIA agent? Hell, I still remember when I first found out my wife was a Democrat.
Friday, July 22, 2005
The LA Times gets silly
Just a couple of weeks ago Krugman was fretting that we are getting too fat, now Jonathan Chait in the LA Times is concerned that the president is too preoccupied with exercise. Apparently what set off this concern is that while talking with a potential Supreme Court nominee he asked him about exercise. I guess the subject of presidential small talk is now subject to close scrutiny. Maybe he should stick to golf or how the Orioles are doing. Wait, now DC has its own team again, just think of the idle chatter!
Just one thought on this, isn't it nice to have a president, that when you hear heavy breathing coming out of the oval office, you know it is from him doing push-ups?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on this moonbat and the article.
Just one thought on this, isn't it nice to have a president, that when you hear heavy breathing coming out of the oval office, you know it is from him doing push-ups?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on this moonbat and the article.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
The Wisdom of the Wealth
I have just finished reading the Adam Smith classic An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations all 1207 pages of it in my edition. Well, OK, I skipped a rather long aside on the history of the price of silver, as it did not seem very relevant. Now my wife is completely convinced of my nerd qualities, after admonishing me for lying in bed reading a 200 year old economics treatise with the help of my book light. Guilty as charged I guess. Reviewing such a classic, like it was the new Harry Potter novel or something seems rather pointless, but I thought I would post a few quotes which seemed rather prescient or interesting.
The folly of buying lottery tickets.
In the state lotteries the tickets are really not worth the price which is paid by the original subscribers, and yet commonly sell in the market for twenty, thirty, and sometimes forty per cent. advance. The vain hope of gaining some of the great prizes is the sole cause of this demand. The soberest people scarce look upon it as a folly to pay a small sum for the chance of gaining ten or twenty thousand pounds; though they know that even that small sum is perhaps twenty or thirty per cent. more than the chance is worth.
Why lawyers are paid so much. An attorney friend of mine really liked this one.
The counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, beginsto make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution,not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that ofmore than twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimesappear, their real retribution is never equal to this.*18 Compute inany particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and whatis likely to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in anycommon trade, such as that of shoemakers or weavers, and you will findthat the former sum will generally exceed the latter. But make thesame computation with regard to all the counsellors and students oflaw, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that theirannual gains bear but a very small proportion to their annual expence,even though you rate the former as high, and the latter as low, as canwell be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far frombeing a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many otherliberal and honourable professions, is,*19 in point of pecuniary gain,evidently under-recompenced.
The benefits of free trade This one is often quoted, I am hardly being original
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.
Accountability on the maintenence of roads. The "no new gas tax" people should sympathize with this one.
At many turnpikes, it has been said, the money levied is more than double of what is necessary for executing, in the completest manner, the work which is often executed in very slovenly manner, and sometimes not executed at all. The system of repairing the high roads by tolls of this kind, it must be observed, is not of very long standing. We should not wonder, therefore, if it has not yet been brought to that degree of perfection of which it seems capable.
Rules for proper taxation. Congress should read this part.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary.
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.
The most ironic section is the last chapter on public debt, in which Smith suggests that a land tax should be levied on the American colonies to help retire the debt of the British Empire. The Americans are portrayed pretty much as freeloaders (yeah, we won, get over it). The debt was over 120 million pounds, while the entire tax system was bringing in less than 10 million a year (and people complain about our debt) so this probably was a major issue. Given that this book was published in the fateful year of 1776 though, I don't think his idea got too far.
The folly of buying lottery tickets.
In the state lotteries the tickets are really not worth the price which is paid by the original subscribers, and yet commonly sell in the market for twenty, thirty, and sometimes forty per cent. advance. The vain hope of gaining some of the great prizes is the sole cause of this demand. The soberest people scarce look upon it as a folly to pay a small sum for the chance of gaining ten or twenty thousand pounds; though they know that even that small sum is perhaps twenty or thirty per cent. more than the chance is worth.
Why lawyers are paid so much. An attorney friend of mine really liked this one.
The counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, beginsto make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution,not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that ofmore than twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimesappear, their real retribution is never equal to this.*18 Compute inany particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and whatis likely to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in anycommon trade, such as that of shoemakers or weavers, and you will findthat the former sum will generally exceed the latter. But make thesame computation with regard to all the counsellors and students oflaw, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that theirannual gains bear but a very small proportion to their annual expence,even though you rate the former as high, and the latter as low, as canwell be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far frombeing a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many otherliberal and honourable professions, is,*19 in point of pecuniary gain,evidently under-recompenced.
The benefits of free trade This one is often quoted, I am hardly being original
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.
Accountability on the maintenence of roads. The "no new gas tax" people should sympathize with this one.
At many turnpikes, it has been said, the money levied is more than double of what is necessary for executing, in the completest manner, the work which is often executed in very slovenly manner, and sometimes not executed at all. The system of repairing the high roads by tolls of this kind, it must be observed, is not of very long standing. We should not wonder, therefore, if it has not yet been brought to that degree of perfection of which it seems capable.
Rules for proper taxation. Congress should read this part.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary.
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.
The most ironic section is the last chapter on public debt, in which Smith suggests that a land tax should be levied on the American colonies to help retire the debt of the British Empire. The Americans are portrayed pretty much as freeloaders (yeah, we won, get over it). The debt was over 120 million pounds, while the entire tax system was bringing in less than 10 million a year (and people complain about our debt) so this probably was a major issue. Given that this book was published in the fateful year of 1776 though, I don't think his idea got too far.
Stupidest Letter O' the Day
Also from the Times:
While representing the mining industry, Roberts opposed clean-air rules.
Oh my God! A lawyer who represents the views of his clients! This could change the legal profession as we know it. The next thing you know they will be defending guilty people or something...
While representing the mining industry, Roberts opposed clean-air rules.
Oh my God! A lawyer who represents the views of his clients! This could change the legal profession as we know it. The next thing you know they will be defending guilty people or something...
Best Letter to the Editor O' the Day
From the Seattle Times:
In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton faced an opportunity to nominate a replacement for retiring "conservative" Supreme Court Justice Byron White. There were no calls from the wacky left that Clinton was obligated to replace White with a conservative to satisfy some recently contrived status-quo requirement on the court. Clinton replaced White with an activist ACLU lawyer, well-known for her leftist positions, by the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So for all you liberals out there trying to invent some non-existent excuse to attack Bush's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: Get over it.
In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton faced an opportunity to nominate a replacement for retiring "conservative" Supreme Court Justice Byron White. There were no calls from the wacky left that Clinton was obligated to replace White with a conservative to satisfy some recently contrived status-quo requirement on the court. Clinton replaced White with an activist ACLU lawyer, well-known for her leftist positions, by the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So for all you liberals out there trying to invent some non-existent excuse to attack Bush's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: Get over it.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
It's All Relative
An addendum to my previous post on the Joel Connelly editorial in which, among other things, he claims:
Wilson is a political independent: He gave to both the Bush and Gore campaigns in 2000 and is an admirer of George Bush Sr.
Implying somehow that if you donate money to more than one party, or admire a figure from another party that somehow makes you independent. This got me thinking about another prominent figure who has donated money to more than one campaign, former Enron executive Ken Lay, who donated significant sums of money to both George W. Bush and Ann Richards in 1994. Based on this logic then I should be able to find a Joel Connelly editorial praising the independence of Ken Lay, who unlike Joe Wilson has never made any overt political moves.
No such luck. Just rants about how Bush and Ken Lay are in bed together. How can that be? Lay gave money to more than one campaign!
That's relativity.
Wilson is a political independent: He gave to both the Bush and Gore campaigns in 2000 and is an admirer of George Bush Sr.
Implying somehow that if you donate money to more than one party, or admire a figure from another party that somehow makes you independent. This got me thinking about another prominent figure who has donated money to more than one campaign, former Enron executive Ken Lay, who donated significant sums of money to both George W. Bush and Ann Richards in 1994. Based on this logic then I should be able to find a Joel Connelly editorial praising the independence of Ken Lay, who unlike Joe Wilson has never made any overt political moves.
No such luck. Just rants about how Bush and Ken Lay are in bed together. How can that be? Lay gave money to more than one campaign!
That's relativity.
Monday, July 18, 2005
More Factually Challenged Local Columnists
I usually avoid reading the PI. Every time I do I am reminded of a skit from the old local TV show "Almost Live", where in their Thanksgiving edition the Seattle Times was thankful that "its only competition was the Seattle P.I.". However, since I have been following the whole Wilson/Plame thing carefully, this editorial by Joel Connelly caught my eye, if only for the blatant disregard for reality. It definitely calls for a Fisking.
Two years ago, Ambassador Joe Wilson chose a forum in Seattle to suggest that presidential strategist Karl Rove was the leaker who had "outed" Wilson's wife as a CIA agent in retaliation for the ambassador's criticism of White House Iraq policy.
First paragraph and already the Democrat talking points begin. The information that Rove mentioned "Wilson's wife" came up only because the reporter, who called about a welfare reform story brought up the Wilson issue. Rove merely responded that Wilson was untrustworthy and lied about the fact that he was given his assignment by the Vice President's office and not his wife, which in fact was true. Rove was not calling up reporters trying to get them to retaliate against Wilson, he merely stated a completely true fact in response to a question. Also it was not a "leak" he found out from the press in the first place!
Starting with The New York Times, news organizations disclosed on Friday that Rove was a source -- although likely a secondary source -- for rightist pundit Robert Novak. Novak revealed in a 2003 column that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is an undercover CIA agent.
Bzzzzz Thanks for playing. Novak did not reveal that "Plame is an undercover CIA agent" merely that she was a "CIA operative". Neither Novak nor Rove knew that she was undercover, if in fact she was at all. It would actually be illogical for them to assume that she was covert, if she were a covert spook in deep cover somewhere, then how could she be hanging around Langley recommending her husband for trips to Africa? The first reporter to suggest that Plame was a "covert agent" was actually "leftist pundit" David Corn in the Nation.
Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the claim that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in the African country.
The claim proved bogus. It didn't stop President Bush from asserting, in his 2003 State-of-the-Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
On July 6, 2003, Wilson published an opinion column, "What I didn't find in Africa" in The New York Times.
Hardly, it should have been titled "What I lied about in Africa". In the bipartisan Senate committee investigating Iraqi intelligence, they reported that Wilson actually came back and told them that the former PM of Niger thought that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Furthermore, the committee found Wilson's testimony at odds with both his previous reports and the reports of the CIA and had the following to say.
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
Additionally the British government did a review of the intelligence the famous 16 words were based on, called the Butler report, and found it credible. In addition to that (Wilson lies so many times I am running out of segues) the committee also found that Wilson lied about his wife helping him get the job, and the forged documents that he never actually saw, which he euphemistically said he "misspoke about". Yeah, Wilson sounds really vindicated.
What were the consequences for Plame?
"Well, clearly she cannot do things she was able to do before," Wilson said.
What, like pose for pictures in Vanity Fair? What is with that? Did she want to make sure all her double top secret undercover contacts who might have forgotten her name now know what she looks like?!
Wilson is a political independent: He gave to both the Bush and Gore campaigns in 2000 and is an admirer of George Bush Sr.
This is a ridiculous howler. Connelly can only hope that we are too distracted to miss his ridiculous lie. For all of those who can remember way back to last year, Wilson was a John Kerry advisor, who had his "Restore Honesty" website paid for by the Kerry campaign. He only quit the position when his presence became too embarrassing.
UPDATE: To my surprise I actually received a response, the following erudite analysis:
Standard issue right-wing blather from the sort of people who enjoy smearing the reputation of someone who really did stand up to Saddam. jc
I don't quite get the "really did stand up to Saddam" part. The last I checked Bush really stood up to Saddam, and the liberals aren't too happy about that...
It appears I am not the only one.
Two years ago, Ambassador Joe Wilson chose a forum in Seattle to suggest that presidential strategist Karl Rove was the leaker who had "outed" Wilson's wife as a CIA agent in retaliation for the ambassador's criticism of White House Iraq policy.
First paragraph and already the Democrat talking points begin. The information that Rove mentioned "Wilson's wife" came up only because the reporter, who called about a welfare reform story brought up the Wilson issue. Rove merely responded that Wilson was untrustworthy and lied about the fact that he was given his assignment by the Vice President's office and not his wife, which in fact was true. Rove was not calling up reporters trying to get them to retaliate against Wilson, he merely stated a completely true fact in response to a question. Also it was not a "leak" he found out from the press in the first place!
Starting with The New York Times, news organizations disclosed on Friday that Rove was a source -- although likely a secondary source -- for rightist pundit Robert Novak. Novak revealed in a 2003 column that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is an undercover CIA agent.
Bzzzzz Thanks for playing. Novak did not reveal that "Plame is an undercover CIA agent" merely that she was a "CIA operative". Neither Novak nor Rove knew that she was undercover, if in fact she was at all. It would actually be illogical for them to assume that she was covert, if she were a covert spook in deep cover somewhere, then how could she be hanging around Langley recommending her husband for trips to Africa? The first reporter to suggest that Plame was a "covert agent" was actually "leftist pundit" David Corn in the Nation.
Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the claim that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in the African country.
The claim proved bogus. It didn't stop President Bush from asserting, in his 2003 State-of-the-Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
On July 6, 2003, Wilson published an opinion column, "What I didn't find in Africa" in The New York Times.
Hardly, it should have been titled "What I lied about in Africa". In the bipartisan Senate committee investigating Iraqi intelligence, they reported that Wilson actually came back and told them that the former PM of Niger thought that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Furthermore, the committee found Wilson's testimony at odds with both his previous reports and the reports of the CIA and had the following to say.
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
Additionally the British government did a review of the intelligence the famous 16 words were based on, called the Butler report, and found it credible. In addition to that (Wilson lies so many times I am running out of segues) the committee also found that Wilson lied about his wife helping him get the job, and the forged documents that he never actually saw, which he euphemistically said he "misspoke about". Yeah, Wilson sounds really vindicated.
What were the consequences for Plame?
"Well, clearly she cannot do things she was able to do before," Wilson said.
What, like pose for pictures in Vanity Fair? What is with that? Did she want to make sure all her double top secret undercover contacts who might have forgotten her name now know what she looks like?!
Wilson is a political independent: He gave to both the Bush and Gore campaigns in 2000 and is an admirer of George Bush Sr.
This is a ridiculous howler. Connelly can only hope that we are too distracted to miss his ridiculous lie. For all of those who can remember way back to last year, Wilson was a John Kerry advisor, who had his "Restore Honesty" website paid for by the Kerry campaign. He only quit the position when his presence became too embarrassing.
UPDATE: To my surprise I actually received a response, the following erudite analysis:
Standard issue right-wing blather from the sort of people who enjoy smearing the reputation of someone who really did stand up to Saddam. jc
I don't quite get the "really did stand up to Saddam" part. The last I checked Bush really stood up to Saddam, and the liberals aren't too happy about that...
It appears I am not the only one.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
John Tierney is my new hero
This is great. Even has Monty Python references, from the greatest historical movie ever made.
Mr. Wilson presented himself as a courageous truth-teller who was being attacked by lying partisans, but he himself became a Democratic partisan (working with the John Kerry presidential campaign) who had a problem with facts. He denied that his wife had anything to do with his assignment in Niger, but Senate investigators found a memo in which she recommended him.
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.
So what exactly is this scandal about? Why are the villagers still screaming to burn the witch? Well, there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.
For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.
It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:
What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?
Nadagate.
Mr. Wilson presented himself as a courageous truth-teller who was being attacked by lying partisans, but he himself became a Democratic partisan (working with the John Kerry presidential campaign) who had a problem with facts. He denied that his wife had anything to do with his assignment in Niger, but Senate investigators found a memo in which she recommended him.
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.
So what exactly is this scandal about? Why are the villagers still screaming to burn the witch? Well, there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.
For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.
It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:
What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?
Nadagate.
Friday, July 15, 2005
The World's Worst Kept Secret
OK, so the Demos are screaming for Karl Rove's head for revealing that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, a "secret" that he didn't get from some clandestine report, but from a journalist. Now it appears that it wasn't even really a secret. Plame may have been covert at one time, but not recently, not within the 5 years required to be considered under the intelligence identities statute.
Now a former CIA agent goes on record saying that she was not "covert".
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Joe Wilson himself even says in his book that they had not been stationed overseas for 6 years.
On CNN Wilson admits she was not a covert agent when this happened "WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."
Wilson tells Maureen Dowd that she revealed her status with the CIA to him "about the time of their first kiss". (Even James Bond could make it through sex without giving away his undercover status)
Nearly 2 years ago Clifford May pointed out that it was common knowledge in the press community that she worked for the CIA.
So the question is, who didn't know? May also has a good article in today's NRO speculating (but logical speculation) that it was Wilson who himself outted his wife. Neither Rove nor Novak said, or apparently even knew that Plame worked in a covert capacity (if in fact she did). It was David Corn, writing in the Nation who first speculated on that, and only after talking with Wilson.
One more thing on this. If someone claimed that your wife was a covert agent, wouldn't the first thing you do is deny it. "What Valerie a spook? No way! She is just a marketing manager for an import export business. Don't be ridiculous!" Both Wilson and the CIA take the opposite approach. "They outted her as a covert agent. I can't believe that they pointed out the fact that Valerie Plame is a covert agent working in deep cover intercepting transactions of WMD all over the world using cover stories and bogus front companies. This could compromise every source that she worked with. Once again, her name is Plame P-L-A-M-E. For interviews you can contact my agent at..."
Just seems a little odd, that's all.
Now a former CIA agent goes on record saying that she was not "covert".
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Joe Wilson himself even says in his book that they had not been stationed overseas for 6 years.
On CNN Wilson admits she was not a covert agent when this happened "WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."
Wilson tells Maureen Dowd that she revealed her status with the CIA to him "about the time of their first kiss". (Even James Bond could make it through sex without giving away his undercover status)
Nearly 2 years ago Clifford May pointed out that it was common knowledge in the press community that she worked for the CIA.
So the question is, who didn't know? May also has a good article in today's NRO speculating (but logical speculation) that it was Wilson who himself outted his wife. Neither Rove nor Novak said, or apparently even knew that Plame worked in a covert capacity (if in fact she did). It was David Corn, writing in the Nation who first speculated on that, and only after talking with Wilson.
One more thing on this. If someone claimed that your wife was a covert agent, wouldn't the first thing you do is deny it. "What Valerie a spook? No way! She is just a marketing manager for an import export business. Don't be ridiculous!" Both Wilson and the CIA take the opposite approach. "They outted her as a covert agent. I can't believe that they pointed out the fact that Valerie Plame is a covert agent working in deep cover intercepting transactions of WMD all over the world using cover stories and bogus front companies. This could compromise every source that she worked with. Once again, her name is Plame P-L-A-M-E. For interviews you can contact my agent at..."
Just seems a little odd, that's all.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Krugman in Wonderland
Sentence first--verdict afterwards!
The good professor continues his rants, this time against Karl Rove (who else?). In 500 words he manages to set new highs (lows?) for viciousness, misrepresentations of fact, and just plain hypocrisy.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.
Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," is equally false. What many of them actually saw was a domestic political opportunity - and none more so than Mr. Rove.
Of course far be it to actually provide an example of such heinous "exploitation", but in Krugman's world when you can't argue the facts just disparage the motives of the person. For example why trouble with arguing the merits of social security reform when you can just claim that people who are trying to reform it are just pretending so they can secretly plot to destroy it.
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant.
Uh, excuse me? Have you read any of your editorials lately?
The good professor continues his rants, this time against Karl Rove (who else?). In 500 words he manages to set new highs (lows?) for viciousness, misrepresentations of fact, and just plain hypocrisy.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.
Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," is equally false. What many of them actually saw was a domestic political opportunity - and none more so than Mr. Rove.
Of course far be it to actually provide an example of such heinous "exploitation", but in Krugman's world when you can't argue the facts just disparage the motives of the person. For example why trouble with arguing the merits of social security reform when you can just claim that people who are trying to reform it are just pretending so they can secretly plot to destroy it.
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant.
Uh, excuse me? Have you read any of your editorials lately?
Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.
Uh, excuse me? Have you read THIS editorial lately?
And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.
Now I am sure that more is still waiting to come out on this story, but the latest news is that Rove did not "leak" the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from some secret document, he merely heard it from a journalist and repeated it to another reporter. So now Krugman is accusing him of treason for the capital crime of repeating a story from one journalist to another! A crime that Krugman has been committing twice a week for the last 5 years. Gee, you wouldn't want to wait until all the facts were out before smearing a political opponent, would you?
Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?
I just want to know how did the journalism of the "newspaper of record" get to this point? How did an MIT educated award-winning economist get to this point? What has happened to America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)