Hitch in today's Opinion Journal:

{...}In the absence of any such assertion or allegation, one must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about. I know some apparently sensible people who are prepared to believe, still, that a Machiavellian cabal in the White House wanted to punish Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife to embarrassment and even to danger. So strong is this belief that it envisages Karl Rove (say) deciding to accomplish the foul deed by tipping off Robert Novak, one of the most anti-Iraq-war and pro-CIA journalists in the capital, as if he were precisely the pliant tool one would select for the dastardly work. And then, presumably to thicken the plot, Mr. Novak calls the CIA to confirm, as it readily did, that Ms. Plame was in the agency's employ.

Meanwhile, and just to make things more amusing, George Tenet, in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence, tells Dick Cheney that he employs Mr. Wilson's wife as an analyst of the weird and wonderful world of WMD. So jealously guarded is its own exclusive right to "out" her, however, that no sooner does anyone else mention her name than the CIA refers the Wilson/Plame disclosure to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Fitzgerald, therefore, seems to have decided to act "as if." He conducts himself as if Ms. Plame's identity was not widely known, as if she were working under "non official cover" (NOC), as if national security had been compromised, and as if one or even two catch-all laws had been broken. By this merely hypothetical standard, he has performed exceedingly well, even if rather long-windedly, before pulling up his essentially empty net.

However, what if one proposes an alternative "what if" narrative? What if Mr. Wilson spoke falsely when he asserted that his wife, who was not in fact under "non-official cover," had nothing to do with his visit to Niger? What if he was wrong in stating that Iraqi envoys had never even expressed an interest in Niger's only export? (Most European intelligence services stand by their story that there was indeed such a Baathist initiative.) What if his main friends in Niger were the very people he was supposed to be investigating?

Well, in that event, and after he had awarded himself some space on an op-ed page, what was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts, and letting reporters decide for themselves? The CIA had proven itself untrustworthy or incompetent on numerous occasions before, during and after the crisis of Sept. 11, 2001. Why should it be the only agency of the government that can invoke the law, broken or (as in this case) unbroken, to protect itself from leaks while protecting its own leakers?{...}

As they say, go read the whole thing.

This whole thing is such a non-starter, it's amazing. It's typical Dee Cee, I swear. It's as if the dorks who run that town need to have a good scandale once in a while, and if they don't have the makings of a juicy one, well, they'll find one where they can. It's such a B-movie scandale, too. Valerie Plame, the starlet du jour, was not undercover for the CIA, hence no law was violated at her outing. She was a desk jockey, for crying out loud. She also recommended her husband for this gig, so if one were looking for cronyism, this is where you would find it. Never mind that her husband was an incompetent boob. And you have a special prosecutor who's been investigating this thing for two years and only came back with perjury charges on one of the main players. Fitzgerald, apparently, couldn't even get an indictment for conspiracy.

If Scooter Libby perjured himself he should, indeed, pay the price for that. Perjury is perjury is perjury. But to have perjured yourself over this? Come on. That's just stupid. Cheney's got a rep as the evil mastermind of this administration to uphold. That his Chief of Staff would blunder on something so goddamn basic isn't going to help keep the rep intact, ya dig?

Posted by: Kathy at 08:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

1 This matter on Libby is well addressed here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/cornweb

Posted by: theroxylandr at October 31, 2005 12:51 PM (h76y6)

2 Good post. I'd add something deep and meaningful, but I just wanted to leave a compliment

Posted by: Ith at October 31, 2005 01:02 PM (Fv0oe)

3 Thanks, Ith!

Posted by: Kathy at October 31, 2005 01:05 PM (kZ6IS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

God Save the King!

/sarcasm.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Shit or get off the pot.

That is all.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Hitchens on George Galloway's defenders in the mainstream media:

I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

Reading Hitchens is like smoking a Chesterfield: it always satisfies.

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a little late on this one, but I wonder if this is the result of a new form of ambulance chasing or if this is actually someone standing up for the legal rights of those accused of drunk driving?

A Florida court will hear arguments on Friday in a case where the accuracy of a breathalyser is being scrutinised because the manufacturer has refused to release the source code.

Lawyers representing more than 150 defendants who have been charged for driving under the influence of alcohol in two Florida counties will file the request.

They argue that they have a right to see the source code of the alcohol breath analyser that was used to determine their clients' guilt.

"None of the [software] programs that was used here is approved," said Robert Harrison, a lawyer representing some of the defendants.

"The question is whether the difference [between these programs] is material or not. Without seeing the source code, we do not know."

At the centre of the controversy is the Intoxilyzer 5000, a device made by CMI of Ownsboro, Kentucky.

A marketing brochure for the device claims that it has been used for more than 25 years, and touts it as the "standard for accuracy, reliability and courtroom evidence".

Information on the internet shows that the Intoxilyzer 5000 is being used worldwide, including in Norway, the US and Canada. CMI did not return repeated phone calls seeking further information.

Florida approved the Intoxilyzer 5000 in 1993, but the manufacturer has since made numerous changes which Harrison argues have not been certified. CMI had to recall its devices in at least one case due to a software error, he said.

Releasing the source code of the device could take away any doubt about its accuracy, but the manufacturer has said in the past that it refuses to do so because it considers that information a trade secret.

This refusal could have far reaching consequences, potentially giving those convicted of 'Driving Under the Influence' a reason to appeal against their rulings.

It also has caused a backlog of such cases that await the results of this case to determine whether evidence gathered by the Intoxilyzer 5000 is still admissible in court.{...}

Curious, eh?

I wish them luck. Police have been modifying breathalyzers (read jerryrigging) for years and the evidence from said modified breathalyzers has still been admitted into court. It's about time someone took issue with the breathalyzers themselves---and their source code. Even if this examination proves there is nothing wrong with the way the breathalyzers work, the overall point is important---that the defendant has the right to examine "its accuser" in court. Even if its accuser is a machine. Because it's important to remind the courts that those accused of DWI are actually, you know, protected by the Constitution, even though they'd like to think otherwise.

UPDATE: Mitch has some further thoughts along these lines. Make sure to peruse the comments section.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Way back in the day, I always got the impression that Louis Freeh hated Bubba Clinton, but that he was saving his discontent---and the juicy anecdotes that went with it---for his memoir.

Turns out I was right.

{...} In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.” {...}

The fun just never ends with Bubba, does it?

/sarcasm

{hat tip: LMC}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

For every conservative who is whining about how "betrayed" they feel that GDub "ignored the base" by nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, please know that there is a moderate conservative who is smiling wryly and is saying, "welcome to the party, pal."

Yes, they wanted your vote. Do you really think that means anything to those people? Why are you living under the delusion that you mean something to them? Do you honestly believe that they actually care about what you think and want out of your chosen representatives in Washington? When are you people going to learn that---ahem---they don't care?

In other words, join in the disillusionment, my children. And do it soon, would you? All of this caterwauling is getting extremely tiresome.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Where's Offred when you need her?

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."{...}

And no, this is not a hoax. It beggars belief, I know, but you can read the draft legislation here.

"Petition for Parentage"? "Gestational Certificate"? "Unauthorized reproduction"? Unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction"? Pardon my French but what the fucking fuck? This is the language of science fiction, my friends, not the language one would expect to find in proposed legislation in a state in the United States of America.

The more I think about this, the madder I get. How dare they? HOW DARE THEY? If this law were passed, in the state of Indiana, you wouldn't be able to have in-vitro if you were a single woman. Yet, if you were a single woman and had a one night stand and became pregnant as a result that, apparently, would be fine. But nevermind the discrimination against single parents, let's talk about what married couples would have to go through, because they would have access to fertility treatments, but they'd nonetheless have to apply for "parentage" and would then have to be screened for parental worthiness.

And all of this is only because these people's reproductive systems are faulty or are lacking one of the necessary ingredients. If you're a fertile myrtle, well, you're in the clear and no one can tell you what to do when it comes to your reproductive system. Including having an abortion! Good on you for having working plumbing!

The author of the legislation claims this about settling the legal issues of who has parental rights when extraordinary types of infertility treatment are used. That, I believe, is a blind. This is about legislating morality. The author of the legislation flat-out admitted she believes marriage is a prerequisite for parenthood. What she didn't say, however, is that she believes in that so much she would create criminal consequences for those who disagreed with her.

One can only hope that this piece of flaming excrement dies a quick and horribly painful death when Indiana's next legislative session begins.

{Hat Tip: Jeff G.}

UPDATE 10/6: It's been dropped because "The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission." One could have wished that it had been dropped because "it was a bit of draconian bullshit," but one can't have everything, can one?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't belive John Lloyd covers any new ground in this piece from this weekend's Financial Times, but it bears repeating...just because:

{...}Its basis is the belief that a state requires security and retains interests and that any effort to impose a different politics on states of whose politics one disapproves is, as Henry Kissinger put it, international relations as social work.

This belief has found increasingly powerful challengers in the past two decades. They included such diverse elements as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), especially Amnesty (based in the UK), Human Rights Watch (US) and Medecins sans Frontieres (France); the liberation theology movement within Catholicism, most powerful in South America; Soviet-era dissidence in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself; the anti-apartheid struggle incarnated in the figure of Nelson Mandela; and a strong, if disguised, trend among journalists to act as the canaries-in-the-mine for oppression.

{...}It is a sad spectacle. Liberals and leftists who spent decades demanding that something must be done to end all sorts of repressions and foreign horrors, and denouncing theirs and other governments for refusing to end them, now denounce the British and US governments for having removed one of the great monsters of the late 20th century because blood was shed (and is still being shed) in the course of it. This isnÂ’t debate about the manner of waging war: it is a smug, I-told-you-so (or I didnÂ’t tell you but I am now) blast against apparent failure - usually oblivious to the consequences of that failure, especially on the ideals and practice that liberals and leftists claim to have espoused.

That the invasion of Iraq, as well as occasioning a long-running terrorist war, should, as the American scholar Thomas Cushman recently pointed out, also have “liberated a people from an oppressive, long-standing tyranny; destroyed an outlaw state that was a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East and the larger global arena in which terrorists operated, sponsored materially and ideologically by Iraq; brought the dictator Saddam Hussein to justice for his genocides [of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, as Human Rights Watch documented] and crimes against humanity; prevented the possibility of another genocide... restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people; laid the foundation for the possibility of Iraq becoming a liberal republic”, has no place in the charge sheets that liberals and leftists bring to bear against Bush and Blair.{...}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Fausta went to see Condi speak at Princeton---and she reported on it.

Which is more than the New York Times or even the New Jersey Star Ledger could be bothered to do.

Go and read.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.