Maybe a date for one's mental history timeline--Plame testifying in open session right now.

BTW, if you can't get through on CSPAN it's live on AAR.

A Live Webcast is also available on the committee's web page.

More information from the site:

Witnesses:

• Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson, former employee, Central Intelligence Agency


• Dr. James Knodell, Director, Office of Security, The White House


• Mr. Bill Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration


• Mr. Mark Zaid, Attorney


• Ms. Victoria Toensing, diGenova & Toensing, LLP

Documents:

• Letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald


• Response Letter from Patrick Fitzgerald


• Topic: Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity


• June 13, 2006: Rep. Waxman Calls for Public Accounting of Rove’s Actions in CIA Leak Case


• November 09, 2005: Questions and Answers about White House Security Clearances


• July 22, 2005: Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent

Edited to add:

Plame was covert, undercover, classified.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Got a laugh from the GOP Rep Tom Davis trying to pin blame on CIA. The idea was they were not being diligent in making sure anyone that learned about Plame also knew she was covert. Apparently all printed or spoken mention had to carry a surgeon general's warning. So much for personal responsibility on the part of those with security clearance.

I'm at work, on my lunch hour.

How are things coming with the America Abroad revisions, Andrew?

Ever think of broadening the pool of prospective contributors by dropping the "America" requirement and moving larger on the "Abroad" part? Just sayin'. Not everyone is an American foreign policy wonk or fan of the academic field of International Relations.

While there certainly is a significant sub-group of users here who are interested in that, I would venture a guess that the portion of the audience here that is interested in other cultural views is much larger.

Indeed, the whole concept of "America Abroad" has often struck me as rather xenophobic and imperialist. In my opinion, American foreign policy would be best as just be a subsector of a foreign section. I know, I know, the TPM empirie is targeted at American politics, but isn't one of the main problems of American politics is that we are so self-centered?

Management here seems to be capable of realizing that with the Israel/Palestine issue, and sometimes offers views on that that don't bring American policy so much into the picture. Why is everything else relegated to the frame of American foreign policy?

No need to answer, the questions are meant to be rhetorical and "just a suggestion."

I understand Republican spinmeister Victoria Toensing is also a witness. All the BS she spread about Plame has now been discounted not only by Plame but by the new head of the CIA, Gen Hayden

P.S. I recall that the posts of Marc Chavannes and Pascal Riche were quite popular, and inspired a lot of discussion outside the same old same old American political frames, not to mention bringing in fresh members to comment.

Back at my desk after an appointment with my doctor, musing about healthcare, considering making more coffee. I had thought of making espresso, but realized that without more caffeine, I'd probably have an explosion.

One of the reasons I moved to Massachusetts was to get healthcare coverage not available, without too many exclusions, elsewhere. I'm increasingly pleased with my new primary care physician, as I'm not the easiest patient -- both from pure complexity, and also that I stay involved in the details of my care. We shared a laugh over my statistical analysis of blood sugar and insulin requirements; he said that he has to shift mental gears from the general office visit to reading journals.

Realistically, the average patient isn't going to get into the details of medical science. Some of my housemates were complaining how they had difficulty even talking with their doctors about some newer medications, where, after seeing this individual, he's authorized me to give a sheet of needed prescriptions to the nurses to call in. He said that he trusts me on the routine things, and, if I felt a change or new drug was needed, he had no question that we would discuss it. As we finished, I agreed to send him some journal articles on an off-label drug use that I thought might be useful.

Within the economics of the healthcare system, and even if a single-payor model went in place, how do we solve the problem of patient-physician communication, given the time constraints imposed on visits? I have several close friends with chronic pain conditions that I know are not being treated with the standard of care, but either they don't communicate their needs, their doctors aren't up on current treatment, or some combination of the two.

As for myself, I am in that delicate balance where I really want to make some espresso, but if I don't have more regular caffeine, I'll probably blow up the coffee/espresso machine.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Posted a pizza dough recipe to the culture table last night.

Can't wait for the Harpy Toensing, now that Plame is on the record. Her's will be the interesting dance around the line of how she "knows" (as in her hit piece), or how she now "assumes" (based on possibly perjuring herself).

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Very nice post there. I hope it goes through. I can add an easy tomato sauce for that...

I don't know why anyone would buy a jar of pre-made sauce. Blech. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

New Republican spin on Plame: It was the CIA's fault for not protecting her cover better. So say Repub Tom davis and Victoria Toensing. Look for this crapola on the Sunday mornkng news shows.

Bush gang's mantra: "Don't blame us!"

Got a laugh from the GOP Rep Tom Davis trying to pin blame on CIA. The idea was they were not being diligent in making sure anyone that learned about Plame also knew she was covert.

What we saw is the new GOP spin; first Davis, then Victoria Toensing came on later and said the same thing. Look for this BS on this Sunday's morning news shows. The CIA did it!.

The name of the previous occupant in the Office of Security---Jeff Thompson, or something like that? Knodell didn't come on till Aug. 2004, so the other one might be in that list.

Did anybody else think Dr. Knodell was credible and very uncomfortable with the obvious WH cover-up?

My bet is on the wingers following Toensing and her "she wasn't covert under the law" and/or nobody in the WH could have possible known she was covert, meme.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Yeah, Davis was trying that garbage, that CIA didn't send someone to the WH to stand around and warn staffers about classified info.

That's wasted effort, since Armitage already indicated her name was in a State Dept memo section marked Secret, or Top Secret.

I expect things to unravel quickly.

Out in the Wild West, a feller once filled in, on a medical form, the section on father's cause of death: "while attending a large public function being held in his honor, he fell from his high platform and broke his neck." Sheriff came by and said "Pshaw. Fancy way of sayin' they took out his daddy and hung him for cattle rustlin'"

Waxman is running a proper and public hearing that is building the foundation for a figurative gallows of resignation for impeachment. Waxman is operating as part of a democracy of laws, restoring a proper role to Congress.

What kind of immaturity does it take to start chanting in that environment, handing the opposition ammunition to discredit investigations? What kind of idiots are just bright enough to find their way to a hearing room, but not understand the process they are watching -- and which they insult -- can be contributing to just what they want? Sorry, those chanters have as much grasp of law and democracy as does George W. Bush. Cheney, at least, is bright enough to know what he is violating.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I'm way past my 2nd cup of morning coffee. In fact I think I'm on my third beer and I had a gulp or two of holy water, but that's only because I had to shovel some snow in the bible belt of the great northeast.
Fortunately, I also had a chance to watch some of VWP on C-SPAN - in between the NCAA on CBS.
During hearings like this I tend to watch the background and I saw Plame's supporters/attorneys/aids nodding or shaking their heads whenever she responded to a "Congressman".
Suddenly, I noticed a woman(?) wearing a pink "Impeach Bush Now" T-shirt. She or he, because it really looked like a man in women's clothing (not that there's anything wrong with that), standing in camera range for a question or two before ducking down.
Then I walked the dog. But when I came back I caught the very end of the hearing and the chanting, which C-Span let play for a couple of seconds. .... Long enough to indicate that a message was sent.

I don't agree again. I agree with everything you say about Waxman and his hearing. I think Code Pink just being seen on television gets a message to the American public that reality is finally starting to make its way into the halls of Congress. Bless Waxman, Wilson, and Code Pink.

Tom

Give it up, Howard, can't you see that you're debating with a true believer in chanting to the converted, the same things over and over and over and over....as if mantra (or broken record) executed among fellow believers would make something happen.

I agree that ego is something to bring up here, but not in the vein of "egotistical"...more like chanting is known to assuage the distressed. It makes the chanter feel better, nothing more, maybe irritating to those that don't like white noise.

Andrew, I didn't know where else to post this but I wanted it known.

Drowned out this week by the cacophony of prosecutor-gate in Washington D.C. was the trial underway in Hazelton, PA.

To refresh your memory: This summer, Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta decided to take federal immigration policy into his own hands by passing an ordinance that required businesses and landlords to verify the nationality status of their employees and tenants, or be subject to fines and other criminal charges.

The mayor said the town needed this ordinance because it was being over run with illegal immigrant thugs.

Records do show there is a drug problem in Hazelton and illegal immigrants have been involved in crimes that include murder.

Records also show that lots of Hispanics have moved to Hazelton in the past decade.

However, there are no records that indicate how many illegal immigrants live there.

This week's trial has pitted the city against the ACLU and other civil rights groups opposing the law, which they feel is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The details of the trial have been well reported by the national and local media.

However, what has been missing from the coverage is the context in which the ordinance was written.

When the ordinance was proposed in June, Mayor Barletta was the regional campaign manager for Sen. Rick Santorum, who was trailing his opponent and eventual winner, Bob Casey, in the polls by double digits. To get back in the race, Santorum was desperately trying to make immigration an issue in a state that has seen a rise in its Hispanic population, but shares no borders with other countries.

Some excellent reporting by Nichole Dobo of the Citizens Voice in Wilkes Barre cracked the code connecting Barletta and Santorum to the immigration issue.

It can be read here.

http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16910334&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6

What Spencer Ackerman learned in Baghdad about his own form of protest is an interesting related read.

I just discovered by happenstance that he's doing some great reporting from Iraq since then, compiling it on his home page here. His writing as a reporter is fantastic, very sensitive and nuanced, like night and day from his punditry. I ended up reading it all.

You don't see an irony in ad hoc dissent inviting itself into a process where the system is working? Did you see Waxman's letter to the White House?

If the sentiment on the T-shirt were introduced on the floor of the House today, it would almost certainly fail to get acceptance of Articles of Impeachment. Reasoned free speech is being demonstrated by the process in that hearing room. That process may well establish smoking guns for impeachment, especially of Cheney.

Irrational dissent doesn't contribute to anything except ego. I'll stand with anyone regarding a lifetime of supporting free speech, but I also recognize irresponsible speech.

And perhaps if Democrats, when faced with the Bush operatives lying about how it was condoned, reminded people how important free speech is, then a pink t-shirt wouldn't be something to fear.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Perhaps we can agree to disagree about the T-shirt. As far as I was concerned, that was a deliberate attempt to distract from the focus of the hearing.

I have a perspective. It is not a radical perspective, and it certainly does not include unofficial theatrics within a Congressional hearing. It is a perspective of someone that is interested in results rather than dramatics, and I see that hearing as focused on results. Code Pink wanted attention; there was no clear path between their actions and results. Surely you didn't expect Waxman, on seeing the T-shirts or hearing the chanting, to introduce a motion for impeachment, on the spot?

I don't know whom you mean by "we" need to be heard. While I lean strongly toward impeachment, I disavow being represented in any way by Code Pink. If we happen to agree on anything, there is no causation.

Waxman would have been quite within his authority to have had them removed, or possibly arrested, for chanting. This hearing was delving more deeply into the matter for which Scooter Libby, a senior political advisor, was convicted of multiple felonies. Anyone who doesn't understand that such a hearing doesn't go to the heart of both reasserting lower-case democratic principles, as well as quite possibly laying the groundwork for impeachment, is not acting in what I would call a mature manner.

I would, in fact, call it childish demands to "look at me, mom!" How you can say that T-shirts and chanting help the focus utterly baffles me. Did you see anyone in the official proceeding act unfocused? I didn't.

Free speech is not without responsibilities. Nonverbal communication can be protected speech, but your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins. There is no freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, if there is no fire. The right of free speech does not allow anyone to say what they will where they will. Scooter Libby did not get to claim "but I have free speech" when he revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's cover.

Courts, quite properly, maintain a sense of order in their proceedings. People can protest quite cheerfully outside the court building. The purpose of a Congressional hearing is to for Congressmen to hear testimony and ask questions. It is not an appropriate venue for boos or applause, or symbolic speech.

But, of course, only cavedwelling social conservatives would believe that Congressional hearings are focused on official business of the Congress. We must let every frustrated person vent, lest they become more frustrated.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On March 17, 2007 - 2:13am hcberkowitz said:

Perhaps we can agree to disagree about the T-shirt. As far as I was concerned, that was a deliberate attempt to distract from the focus of the hearing.

Although I agree with Code Pink's message, I side with Howard on this. I think Code added a tad of circus atmosphere to a serious, important hearing.

Relevance?

Tom

On March 17, 2007 - 9:43am terry hallinan0 said:

This observer was surprised to learn that indeed Plame had been overseas on missions for the CIA in the last five years before her career was destroyed by Bob Novak's column.

I was happy to see this right wing fallacy put to rest, at least with rational people. If I'm not mistaken Victoria Toensing based her whole claim of Plame not being covert on the assertion she wasn't overseas in the last 5 years. This according to the law Toensing claims to have helped write.

One wonders how Toensing would know of the travel history of a covert CIA agent. Or the travel history of citizen Valerie Plame for the last 5 years.

However, one must remember; You should know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it.

Fair enough. I'm at that stage of really wanting espresso, but knowing that if I don't drink more regular coffee, the espresso side of the dual coffeemaker will sneer at my caffeine deprivation and spray its products all over the kitchen.

Let me simply leave a thought, and I'll draw it from business rather than politics. Successful companies tend to go through generations of leadership. Technical innovators may manage the breakthrough that creates a new business, but they aren't necessarily the best people to do routine operations. In turn, if and when a company goes public and wants to run honestly, it needs other kinds of leaders.

While I can do quite a bit of general business, I prefer the technical side, and focus on being sure, in a startup, that the people best equipped to run the next stage come in -- and I go back to what I do best. In politics, the activists are often not the right people to grind things through the legislative and judicial process, or to motivate people not of an activist mindset.

Impeachment may or may not be the process of real change, but, if it is, it's not inherently a process where activism helps.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

To the extent that overt demonstration accurately samples the overall public sentiment (debatable) it would put spine into legislators that felt dramatic action appropriate but were unsure of the public's feelings. Fancy way of saying impeachment is scary and best not undertaken without concurrent public approval.

Note also that our legislative sessions and hearings are kind of tame compared to other countries' more exuberant expressions of the democratic ideal.

I think you're correct in pointing out that those that practice husbandry of swine may not be experts at sausage, caring a bit too much, perhaps, about their charges.

I tried to find the dough recipe. Where is it? I don't get pizza delivery here, and I like the dough I make, but I'd like to try something new.

Jan Knaus

Got it. It is just different enough from mine that I'll give it a shot, mine calls for 4 cups of flour, 1/4 C of olive oil, 2 tsps of yeast, 10 oz of warm water, (and from an Italian friend: 1 T of corn-meal.) I'll try yours though, because mine is heavier than I want it to be. Thanks

Jan Knaus