CIA Unmasked:

Who, besides Bob Novak, would be so evil as to reveal the name of an undercover CIA officer? How about liberal stalwart The New Republic? They didn't just blow the cover of someone they'd been told was an "analyst," living in D.C.--they blew the cover of a COS for the DO.

Again:

Gina wasn't satisfied with the first take, so after re-positioning the camera slightly -


Gina Wilkinson: Mr Saadi, could you ask them to do that one more time for me?
- (trans): This time in reverse?
- (trans): No no no.

Gina Wilkinson: Excellent.

I am not a vicious man, least of all toward women: but I am a father. After reading this through a second time, I can only say:

Let this woman hang.

UPDATE: "In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man "damned": but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable." So held Chesterton. I will hold with him, for he is braver than I am. It is hard not to think this woman cursed by all creation, but I will think so.

No Mercy:

Here, brothers and sisters, is a journalist urging children to climb on a missile in order to get a good shot of it for the TV News. There is no excuse, and no adequate punishment.

Via InstaPundit.

The Times Finally Turns Up:

Today's NY Times has a piece on the tribal nature of Iraqi families, which they say will complicate the reconstruction tremendously.

My readers, of course, dealt with this fully two weeks ago, and came to a far more positive conclusion. If you're curious, see "The Black Mail."

Link to the NYT via Arts & Letters Daily.

Wilson, II:

The social factor appears to be real in the Wilson case, reports Clifford May in the National Review. He reports from first hand experience, having been told informally himself that Wilson was an undercover officer:

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that � but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

Meanwhile, Atrios is finding that the "senior" official may have been something rather different. Damn journalistic ethics, eh, lad? He chides the press:

Look, words mean things. While "administration aide" might be technically true, it doesn't mean the same thing as "senior administration official."

"Words mean things." Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, I remember now.

Wilson:

OK, I'm going to comment on this a little bit after all.

First, here is today's story from the Washington Post. Here is the Novak column. And here is a roundup from when this story broke in July.

You can see that, even in July, people went for the jugular. 'Maybe the VP himself.' Huge 'felony'. 'Almost a confession.' And yet, the story died. Why is that?

I wrote the story off because it was based entirely on unnamed sources. Journalistic ethics haven't been especially impressive lately, but that's not what I'm talking about. Let's say Novak was fully ethical--I don't know the fellow, so it's only fair to give him the benefit of those charges we can't evaluate (it was obviously unethical by my standards to print the story outing a CIA agent--which is why we learn today that 5 of 6 journalists didn't print it). Nevertheless, let's say Novak was 100% ethical in all other points.

As a journalist, he knew that printing that story would bring questions about his sources. He also knew that, if he ever gave up his sources, he would never work again. And, further, as a journalist he is protected by the First Amendment--he can't be forced to yield his sources. So, the reader of the July piece can reasonably expect that the claims Novak makes will have to be evaluated on faith alone. You can't really judge whether you ought to take the word of an anonymous person.

Of course, Watergate was broken open by an anonymous. So, the sensible person does what we all did--we shrug, and wait to see if anything comes of it that can be evaluated.

Today, we have a new story--which is also based entirely on anonymous sources. A "Senior Administration official," two unnamed "Top White House officials," this is of no use whatever. We are left scrabbling after what "Top" and "Senior" normally mean in this context, and pulling feathers and thin reeds out of the air. Yet there is still not a name to hold onto.

But already we're having a field day of calls for impeaching Bush. "Rule of Law!" yells Atrios, citing two laws that he asserts must have been broken by the President. Well, sure--if the President is guilty, let's have the rule of law. Impeachment followed by a trial in the Senate is fine, an actual trial by jury to proceed once he's out of office.

But first let's be clear on one or two things:

1) There is no evidence at all that an actual pair of "top officials" existed as such. We don't know what Novak was calling a top official because we don't know--and will never know from Novak--who the sources were. These "top" officials could have been deputy undersecretaries for agriculture. Just because "top" normally means something in journalism doesn't mean it always means that thing. The fact that Novak expected his sources to remain secret means that we can't evaluate these sorts of charges with the surgical precision some seem to feel is possible. I've seen lists of suspects with as few as eight people on them. Get a grip.

2) There is no information at all on what GWB may or may not have done about this internally. The fact that Town Hall runs a column citing an unnamed source claiming that someone in your office committed a crime is not evidence that a crime has been committed of the sort that compels you to report it to a judge. If GWB actually knew that the charge was true--well, that's another story, of course. But if he simply had it mentioned at his news briefing, there's nothing de jure that requires him to respond to an anonymous allegation with, "Quick! Call a judge!" An informal internal inquiry--which might well have netted nothing if the two jokers had realized how much trouble they were in and clammed up--would be sufficient. Hell, doing nothing would suffice as far as the law was concerned.

3) Again from Atrios, we have an excellent overview of internal security policies that are designed to prevent intelligence leaks. The conclusions drawn are out of line, however. The simple fact is that the biggest danger to a CIA officer's cover is not from professional matters, but social matters.

There is simply no telling who knew that this woman was an undercover officer. We don't know who she told, for example--certainly her husband, maybe a friend. There are other ways that this kind of information gets around besides code-word communications. "So and so is a secret agent" is gossip of the most irresistible sort--anyone who dealt with her on an everyday basis probably knew, at least informally, that it was the case. If they knew informally, they hadn't signed the tons of nondisclosure agreements. It is still illegal, but having not signed the papers, they probably didn't think much about sharing a secret. Gossip is, I have found since moving to D.C., a Washingtonian favorite passtime.

So: these "Top" officials, even if they were in fact Top Officials, may not be associated with national security at all. That's just something to keep in mind.

Ultimately, I think all we can do is let the inquiry sort things out. I'm sure the CIA will take this quite seriously, and should have no trouble persuading the other involved agencies to do so as well. Still, I honestly don't expect major bloodshed over this. That's not to say the guilty parties aren't deserving of justice under the law. It is only to say that they may prove quite difficult to find. When you consider in the social factor, it becomes very difficult to draw lines around who might have known that she was an officer, and who might have wanted to share it.

As for that impeachment--it may have to wait a bit. I can't see anything here that would have required the president, or anyone especially close to him, to have been involved. Even if all the charges in the Post piece are perfectly true, these Top officials may prove to be far smaller fish than expected; and getting the kind of proof required by a court of law, when most of those in the know are going to invoke Journalistic immunity, may be difficult indeed.

Of course, it may prove that it really was Dick Cheney, based on information he read right out of a codeworded report. I wouldn't give odds on it if I were you.

Bloggerfun:

Blogger's having an issue today where it's transmitting blogs as-they-publish onto random (all?) addresses. If you're seeing this and you didn't expect to, hit refresh--that should fix the problem.

Of course, you're welcome to stick around, too. If you're not into Southern issues, skip down about two days, as I've been on that this weekend. The more regular issues are below.

Heroes & Volunteers:

This was not the first man from Tennessee to fight and fall for freedom. Sergeant First Class William Bennett, U.S. Special Forces, is one in a tradition of Volunteers as long as it is proud.

De oppresso liber.

CIA:

I often treat intelligence matters here, but I am not going to speak to the Wilson affair at this time. However, since others are apparently annoyed that it isn't getting more attention, I'll certainly post a couple of links for interested parties. My own thoughts largely echo those of that other Bear: namely, that it's early yet, and that the legal processes appear to be working on it.

I read about the rumors of this back when J. M. Marshall had it early. My thoughts at that time were that it was probably true, but likely some amateur functionary who didn't know it was illegal--the Bush administration has employed a number of folks who haven't worked previously in national government. That's good on the whole, as it brings a fresh perspective; but the price is that you get people who don't really understand the law or what the limits of their office are. The new claim makes it sound like it was multiple people at work, though, so it may not have been as simple as a mistake.

Of course, it's possible that it's not true; or that it's true, and that it touches the highest levels in a sorry conspiracy to destroy their political opposition. Neither extreme seems terribly likely to me, but who knows? It's early.

Ah, my people:

I feel a certain instant kinship with this fellow. Given his prolific nature, who knows but what we might even be related?

Psalms sat on Papa Pilgrim's right knee and Lamb perched on his left. Thirteen more of his children -- all of them with names from the Bible, several of them packing pistols -- crowded around. . . .

The Lord, Pilgrim said, told him that clearing a derelict mining road through the park was a loving thing to do.

"In order for me to love my children, I have to be a provider," Pilgrim said. "With great reluctance, I took the bulldozer and used the road. I had no idea what was in store."

Pilgrim's passage on the Caterpillar D4 has resulted in an edgy standoff between his well-armed family and the federal government. The National Park Service has shut down the bulldozed road to his property, dispatched armed rangers to assess park damage and is pursuing criminal and civil cases against him and members of his family.

The brouhaha over the bulldozer -- a drama still unfolding inside the largest U.S. park -- has made the Pilgrims actors in a national dispute over private access to federal land. National environmental groups are demanding that the Park Service prosecute the Pilgrims to the fullest extent of the law, while land-rights activists have embraced them as heroic victims of overzealous federal bureaucrats.

Overzealous federal bureaucrats, you say? Well, let's see what the bureaucrats in question have to say for themselves:

Park Service rangers admit that they are fed up with the Pilgrims, especially with the boys who carry revolvers and rifles.

"What they tend to do is surround you," said Hunter Sharp, chief ranger in the park. "When they do that, cops get nervous. We have had it. We are not going to back off. We represent the people of the United States."

So you do, although this person of the United States would warn you to leave well-armed backcountry people alone if you know what's good for you. They certainly aren't bothering me. What were you doing bringing riflemen out onto their land anyway?

Besides, what they are doing is legal:

In a sense, Pilgrim drove the bulldozer through a bureaucratic gap opened by the Bush administration. Over objections from environmentalists, the Interior Department published a rule in January that opened federal land to motorized access in places where roads once existed.

The rule -- a reassertion of an obscure 1866 mining law known as RS-2477 -- has since inspired right-of-way claims on old roads across federal land in the red rock country of southern Utah and across the Mojave National Preserve in California.

So let's see--during the Alaska winter, a fellow with 15 children decided to make legal use of an abandoned road in order to feed his family. This is of course exactly the kind of thing the Federal government is meant to prevent.

By act of Congress, national parks in Alaska are supposed to be different from those in the Lower 48. The 1980 law that created 104 million acres of parks and refuges in the state guaranteed that in-holders, meaning people who own property in the parks, could pursue traditional livelihoods while having "reasonable and feasible" access to their land.

For most of the past 23 years, however, a group of highly vocal Alaskan in-holders has complained that the Park Service has been flouting the will of Congress and trying to squeeze them off their land. They see a conspiracy of city people from the Lower 48, environmental zealots and narrow-minded federal bureaucrats who are trying to strip Alaska of its rural culture and replace it with a depopulated wilderness.

It's certainly true that people love trees. But if a tree stands in a forest and nobody can get close enough to enjoy it, what good is a park?

There Must Be Some Mistake:

CSPAN-3 is currently holding a conference called "Southern Writers on the Confederate Flag." Yet, somehow, my invitation seems not to have arrived.

It must be here somewhere...

[rustle rustle]

Hm.

Pity it didn't come on time. This is a rather sad display of a 'panel' with a uniform opinion. Sample quote: "Even though these young men didn't like being compared to Nazis, they did learn..."

I've only actually heard two people mention the Confederate Flag, and for one of them it was a quick aside ("When you're from Alabama, you take a lot of abuse... but I would like to point out [to the audience in S. Carolina] that we took the flag down three years ago.")

There has been much said about Southern history, diversity, and the experience of being Southern. I am not sure that any of these good people have, however, given any thought at all to the flag. Certainly they have not investigated the question of why it remains an enduring symbol, beloved by so many. The closest we get here is, "'Heritage not hate' is the cry of the thoughtful flag waver. I've always thought the walls were paper thin for them. How about 'Heritage and Hate!'"

Pity, really. There is a lot that probably should be said, if there were thoughtful writers to address it. I have spoken to Southern issues on occasion, and to Southern honor at length. I am, however, a poor writer whose attention only turns now and then to my blessed homeland, being occupied with other matters most of the time. There are surely others who are better qualified to speak to this matter, who might have been invited.

Yet if there truly be none, I would stand. I've tried to explain the Confederate flag to the crowd on Atrios' blog, after all--surely the folks at this conference couldn't have been more hostile than that.

Thanks, Gweilo!

Thanks to the Gweilo Diaries, I found this story from the Economist:

They found that a large adult head size was beneficial in preventing cognitive decline, in particular memory. At the other end of the spectrum, though, the news was grim. Those with the smallest heads had up to a fivefold greater risk of cognitive decline over this time than those with the largest.

I feel far more cheerful now than a few minutes ago. I'll just go get my size 62 hat, and whistle all the way to the train station.

A Photo Essay:

Hat tip to Oscar Jr. This is Sgt. Hook giving us some photographs of Iraq that you probably haven't seen elsewhere.

Australia:

From today's Sydney Morning Herald:

In the US's seven wars of the past century (not counting numerous and sometimes bloody military actions in Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Guatemala and elsewhere) - World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war - only Australia fought in all seven wars, and every one of them was fought far from Australia's shores.

In World War I, when the population was only 5 million, 300,000 men enlisted for duty and the majority, 216,000 of them, were either killed, wounded or captured. To put this in perspective, it was the equivalent of today's US (with 290 million people) suffering 12 million military casualties.

Minus what?

A review from Hollywood.com suggests that the new movie starring pro-wrestler 'The Rock' "is reminiscent of the Indiana Jones films-minus the xenophobic, imperialist, and misogynistic elements."

Xenophobic? My interest in learning multiple languages and studying Eastern history was spawned in part from watching those movies as a kid. Indiana Jones was xenophilic, if anyone was. The comic scenes in which he eats things like chilled monkey brains with aplomb were meant to emphasize that fact--the hero is not put off by differing customs. He speaks the language, he eats the food, he befriends the locals and attempts to understand them.

Imperialist? What can this possibly mean? Indiana Jones didn't seem to have a political agenda at all. He was an archaeologist who robbed tombs to fill a friendly museum and his pockets. He had no political affiliations, or really any notable political feelings, except that he hated Nazis.

Misogynist? The female lead of Raiders of the Lost Ark is introduced in a drinking contest, wherein she knocks down enough hard liquor to put a giant to sleep. Later, when Indiana Jones refuses to rescue her in order to keep the Ark expedition quiet, she nearly manages to escape by getting her captor drunk and pulling a knife on him. This is a misogynist's portrayal of women?

We've got to hold people to the correct use of language. Not one of these insults applies in fact, but the author applies them all brazenly and without apology or explanation.

Aaron the Slayer:

Aaron the Liberal Slayer has added me to his "Hail! Hail! Rant and Roll!" blogroll. In keeping with Grim's Hall's policy of reciprocal hospitality, his hall is now on our list.

No Evidence:

I keep being told by a certain young lady who knows who she is that there is no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked. Here's a small rebuttal to that position from TCS.

A Model:

This is the proper model for how we should protect our children from terrorists:

Bill Murphy said the Sept. 17 attack happened after he surprised a grizzly cub and its mother on a trail about 50 miles northeast of Anchorage where he was hunting for moose and sheep.
�I didn�t even have time to jump,� Murphy said.
Murphy grabbed his rifle but before he could raise it, the mother bear pinned him face-down.
It then clamped her jaws around his right shoulder and started shaking him like a rag. He said he felt teeth pressing against his skin, then a pop as they sliced through.
At some point, the bear let go, then stood over Murphy, panting and drooling onto his head. All he could think about was a bear attack over the summer near the Russian River where a man was bitten on the face and blinded.
�I just lay perfectly still and said, �God, don�t bite my head,�� Murphy said.
Finally, the bear moved away. Murphy said he got up, planning to shoot the bear, but it had broken his rifle.

Let us all be as our brother, our sister, the Great Bear.

Terrorists Aim at Schools:

Today's New York Post has an article on the threat al Qaeda poses to American schoolchildren. Pay close attention to this: there is no reason these attacks would have to happen in New York. They are more likely to happen elsewhere:

The NYPD has created a special unit to thwart terrorists who are tempted to target city schools, it was revealed yesterday.
Law-enforcement officials insisted they have gotten no specific threat against any school, and maintained that setting up the unit is part of an overall strategy to prevent another terror attack.

"Better safe than sorry," said one police source.

Earlier this year, The Post reported that al Qaeda thugs practiced storming a school, shooting children and taking hostages. The videotaped exercise took place in an abandoned school in Afghanistan.

As I recall, the videotaped exercise ends with shooting the hostages once television cameras are there to see it done, followed by a suicide-charge against police lines. It's worth remembering that these people were training to kill our kids, before the US Special Forces showed up at their campsites.

That may not be enough to stop them. The fact is that a large number of states--it may even be all of them, now--have passed special legislation making it a crime to carry weapons of any sort on school property, even if you are not a student but a teacher or staff member, and even if you are licensed to carry elsewhere. The effect of these laws has been to create "Terrorist Safe-Zones" where no one will have any tools with which to resist.

We need to rethink that. We don't want our kids carrying guns and knives to school, fine. We ought to want, though, those teachers who are willing and able to protect our children to have the training and tools with which to do it.

I have heard that in Israel, no field trip can be undertaken without at least one armed adult. It would be wise to have a few trained and armed adults in our schools, too. We ought to remember that evil men have chosen our children as targets. Up the militia.

Mongols in Baghdad:

I've been waiting for this story for quite a while. Ever since I heard that Outer Mongolia was sending Mongolian soldiers to Iraq, I've been waiting to see what kind of press they'd get.

The Iraqi and Arab press doesn't seem to have noticed them, which isn't surprising since only about 200 men are involved. Nevertheless, I was expecting something negative--I'm given to understand that the memory of the Mongol invasion is still very much alive in Mesopotamia.

Though the coverage seems to be coming from the New York Times, the story is still worth noting. It is a mark of the strangeness of the age we live in, when Mongols led by Americans join together to rebuild Iraq.