Still, one Republican with close ties to the administration said the White House was monitoring five Republicans in Congress, all of whom have an independent streak on foreign policy and intelligence matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John W. Warner of Virginia, and Representative Porter J. Goss of Florida.

They could break ranks and tip the scale in favor of an independent investigation.

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.

The cache turned up 23 Russian-made surface to air missiles, 1,000 pounds of plastic explosives, four rocket propelled grenade launchers and 115 rockets, a mortar and 40 mortar rounds, 1,300 blasting caps and 423 hand grenades

Conventional weapons.

U.S. troops uncover one of their biggest weapons caches in Saddam’s hometown

“I believe there’s some payback” in the current media debate, says Miner. “A little bit of kicking the White House in the shins, getting back at Bush who helped pull the rug out from under him” last year.

Is it because he was asked to resign by the White House? Or because the reporters of these big media companies reported on his goof? Whatever the cause, the effect is preventing Big Media from gaining more market share.

If any Hollywood figure is in the J. Lo category, it’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since announcing for California governor with his pal Jay Leno, the Terminator has attracted a huge wave of media attention and a torrent of front-page stories (not to mention coveted chats with Oprah Winfrey and Howard Stern).

What’s more, Carroll says Schwarzenegger called him last month to say “he’d been reading the paper closely, that it had been fair and he appreciated it.” The call came a day after the Times ran a piece about his father’s Nazi past inside the paper but gave Page 1 play to financier Warren Buffett joining Schwarzenegger’s team.

Why is the money important? Money gets attention. The media have been falling all over Clark for the last several days, but when the end of the quarter comes and the Dean campaign is able to announce its 3rd quarter totals, the media will be falling all over Dean’s fundraising prowess. They spent July talking about 2nd quarter fundraising. They spent August talking about how left, center, or electable he was. They spent the last month talking about how Kerry, Gephardt, or whoever could beat Dean. It’s time to get them talking about Dean beating Bush.

These continued news reports will serve the all-important purpose of getting Dean’s name into more households and setting him up as Bush’s challenger. The name recognition really needs to go up. Polls still show a vast majority of Democrats unable to name any candidates. With Bush’s approval ratings showing a steady, but slow decline, Dean can make the case for a Dean Presidency.

For these last ten days of September, the campaign has two goals: raise $5 million, and get 450,000 supporters. $4.6 million and 37,000 people to go. This “September to Remember” will culminate with a kick-ass end of quarter event at Union Station in Downtown LA. You can bet good money that the energy is going to be out of control when the final figures come in.

And for those of you who were wondering, John Kerry’s got almost $100,000 in his hammer drive, but it’s taken him a few days to do it.

From the January 18, 2001 issue of the Onion:

The Onion | Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’

Bush swore to do “everything in [his] power” to undo the damage wrought by Clinton’s two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

Now if only they could have let us know about the terrorist attacks.

Kerry’s had his competing “hammer” up for 3-4 days, and has raised about $80,000.

The folks here at StudioGlyphic talk a lot about the amount of money that’s being raised, and I’m sure our readers get a little sick of it. But we also point out the number of contributions and the average contribution because we think it’s important. Most political campaigns raise money by holding special luncheons or dinners with donors who can contribute $2000 or $1000 a head. Bush has his Rangers and Pioneers–mostly wealthy people who tap their wealthy friends to contribute the maximum amount of $2000.

The Dean campaign is different. These are ordinary people taking money out of their wallets to give to a cause they believe in. They believe in the message, or they think he’s the one who can take on BushCo, or both. This is not empty rhetoric. Take a look yourself:

The Center for Responsive Politics broke down the annual fundraising amounts (as of 2nd quarter) to show which candidates were getting the big bucks. Here are the top four fundraisers:

Bush, George W – 12,297 (76%)
Edwards, John – 3,825 (67%)
Kerry, John – 3,480 (56%)
Dean, Howard – 798 (16%)

The first number is the number of contributors who contributed $2000+. The second number is the percentage of the funds raised that these contributions represent. Three-quarters, two-thirds, and a little over half of the money Dean’s competitors have raised comes from these $2,000+ contributions. Only one-sixth of the money Dean’s raised is in the form of $2,000+ contributions.

Insofar as fundraising represents viability as well as the means to reach voters via advertising and on-the-ground campaigning, we interpret these numbers as a sign of Dean’s grassroots appeal. There’s another side to this as well. With 84% of the money coming from contributions under $2,000, there’s room to tap into this donor pool again and again.

–Thomas Friedman, Our War With France

Once again, the discussion is being framed as Islam vs. the West, with the US standing in for the West. To hear Friedman tell it, we are making the last stand against the tide of Saracen domination.