StudioGlyphic

Boston.com: Who let Saudis flee after 9/11?

School apologizes for Nazi flag flap

Some people are so stupid.

Dean Leading Party in ‘Money Primary’

Gephardt said on his Web site that he had the stamina to prevail in the presidential race. “Republicans fear the tortoise!” his campaign said.

“Support Dick Gephardt. Donate Now! Slow and steady wins the race.”

That’s kinda sad.

DEAN’S E-REFORM

Indeed, the Dean campaign will likely mark the end of the big money era in our politics, when campaigns were dominated by ultra-wealthy donors or special interests contributing massive amounts of money.

Dean is proving that, through the Internet, he can mobilize large numbers of relatively small contributors, whose combined giving can overwhelm that of wealthy special-interest donors. In so doing, he’s also ending the oligarchy of monied power in the Democratic Party typified by Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman whose sole qualification is his ability to raise big bucks.

He just doesn’t get it. You’re still going to have big-money campaigns. George Bush is running a big money campaign and is expected to haul in close to $50 million this quarter. You’re still going to have fundraising by face-to-face contact, direct mail, and telephone. Not everyone likes to use the Internet, and some people want to be able to see a candidate before supporting him. The Internet is not replacing anything. Combinations of all these communication tools and fundraising techniques will continue to be used for the next 10 years, at least.

What makes the Dean campaign different is that people are attracted to Dean and his message. And yes, they’ve been stirred up by their opposition to the radical Republicans in charge. But the Internet stuff is a symptom and not the cause of that grassroots support. It’s like saying that Dean is successful because he speaks to crowds of thousands of people, and that in the future, all candidates can become successful by speaking to crowds of thousands. Nice try, Dick.

Washington Post:
Justice Launches Investigation Into Leak

Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information. Officials said it may have been the first such report ever filed on the unauthorized disclosure of an operative’s name. Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. “The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson’s story that wasn’t known and cast doubt on his whole mission,” the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. “They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson’s story.”

Washington Post:
Rarely Invoked Statute Could Play a Role

The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that “the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States.”

The measure says people who engage in a “pattern of activities” intended to identify covert agents and who have “reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States” can be prosecuted. Smith said that language was aimed at the publishers of the Covert Action Information Bulletin and others who made it a practice to identify undercover CIA agents.

New York Times:
Justice Dept. Starts Inquiry on Leak of C.I.A. Officer’s Identity

LA Times:
Leak Accusation Stirs White House

It is a classic Washington whodunit, with speculation swirling around the Beltway on Monday over the identities of the “two senior administration officials” who passed the CIA officer’s name to conservative columnist Robert Novak.

“It’s not how anybody leaks,” the strategist said. “You know us. We’re pros. If you want to leak, you call one reporter.”

Slate:
The Plame Game
By Jack Shafer

Given that the White House knows who the leakers are, I would surmise that the administration will staunch the damage—and still the scandal—by strongly encouraging the leakers to offer themselves up for sacrifice out of duty to President Bush. If I were Bush, I’d avoid anything that could be construed as a coverup and start rehearsing my address to the nation about how a tiny precancerous lesion has been removed from the face of the presidency.

The hidden bad news is that none of [the journalists] reported that the Plame information was being leaked by sources who wished to embarrass her and Wilson—which they could have legitimately done without burning their sources by name. In other words, they all protected the White House from its blunder.

Jeanne and John: What will Shaheen bring Kerry?

Despite her skills, Shaheen’s impact on Kerry’s campaign could be negative in New Hampshire. Shaheen is an establishment Democrat, so she is not likely to bring along large numbers of the young, angry Democrats who are drawn to Dean. During her Senate campaign last fall she vocally supported President Bush’s tax cuts and his leadership in the war on terror. The last thing Kerry needs in New Hampshire is to turn off liberal voters by making himself look more moderate. By adding Shaheen to his team he risks doing just that.

Check it out. If for nothing else than the graphic accompanying the story.

What’s more, there’s mention of independent counsels and this quote from the other George Bush in ‘99 that those who expose the names of intelligence sources are “the most insidious of traitors.”

It’s always nice to start a new week with a shitstorm.

Monday’s Post: Bush Aides Say They’ll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak

Sunday’s Post: Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry

It’s not just the Post, either. The New York Times, ABCNews.com, CNN.com, Yahoo! News are leading with this story on their home pages.

The Union Leader reports on the 140 Texans who flew to New Hampshire for the weekend for some door-to-door canvassing:

[I]n the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, the Dean faithful know it’s time to spread the gospel of the former Vermont governor and bust him loose from the pack of 10 currently seeking the party’s nomination by making sure voters know who their candidate is and what he stands for.

“We’re offering this as penance for George Bush. It’s our apology,” says Jeremy Spring of Austin, explaining why he and several of his 20-something friends chose to devote their weekend to Dean.

CNN.com - Wesley Clark’s unlikely ally - Sep. 22, 2003:

“This war hurts and scares and pains me more than anything except combat,” he admits. Speaking almost sadly, [Rep. Charlie Rangel] tells of half a dozen nearly identical personal exchanges with President George W. Bush. Each time the president, with obvious sincerity, asks the same question: “Do you know, Charlie, why we’re hated so much?” After Rangel confesses, “I really don’t know, Mr. President,” Mr. Bush answers his own question: “Because they’re evil, Charlie. Because they’re evil.”