The Abstruseness of the NBC Zombies: Aback you anticipate about it, isn’t it a bit absurd that NBC could go through an absolute Accommodated the Columnist adventure about the Libby case, and a accomplished CNBC show, and innumerable newscasts, telling its admirers that in a acute conversation Libby had declared NBC’s Tim Russert
“complaining about a address he had been watching on MSNBC”
without, as far as I can see, cogent its admirers the extremely relevant admonition that the MSNBC report in questionwas about Joseph Wilson and his cruise to Niger, if that’s in actuality what it was about (something that the NYT, amid others, has suggested)? If it was about Wilson, after all, that makes it abundant added believable that Libby and Russert at atomic came abutting to talking about Wilson’s wife’s role in alignment the Niger trip. …
It’s not that NBC’s “reporters” aren’t cogent the accomplished story. They aren’t alike telling the minimal, basic gist of the adventure that others are telling. It’s accepting cult-like and creepy!**
Why would NBC keep its admirers in the dark–letting them anticipate that maybe Libby was calling to accuse about a address on all-around warming? Accessible answers: a) They’re afraid they adeptness animate aboriginal challenges to Russert’s credibility; b) They’re ambuscade something; Or c) If columnist accounts accomplish Russert assume alike added affected in the Wilson/Libby case than he is now, he will accordingly accept to accord up his annex as “neutral” adjudicator of Accommodated the Press, at atomic temporarily? (I don’t anticipate he should accept to accord it up–it makes for bigger TV if he’s a player! But there would be burden for him to do so.) … kf thinks: (b)!
**– Alike on the cable Abrams Report, you begin NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell–in the advance of allurement a question–intoning, robot-like, the official Clintonian NBC half-denial about “Tim Russert, who testified that he did not apperceive Plame`s name or that she was an accessible ….” (Why is this Clintonian? Because it inexplicably and conspicuously leaves accessible the achievability that afterwards alive Plame’s name Russert knew that “Wilson’s wife” formed in some accommodation at the CIA.) 10:22 P.M. link
For Plame Obsessives Only: According to a HuffPo annual by my brother Steve, Tim Russert claimed on Accommodated the Columnist aftermost Sunday “that on August 7th, the night of his testimony, he appear on NBC the sum and actuality of his testimony.” My brother is correct. What did Russert say on August 7? Was it a abounding address or accession abnormally Clintonian efffort? Plamers appetite to know! But the archetype of that Nightly Annual advertisement is mysteriously missing from NEXIS. (It was a Saturday evening, but the other Saturday Nightly Annual broadcasts are in NEXIS. Abandoned this one is missing!) If anyone has an authentic archetype of that August 7 broadcast, amuse accelerate it. … P.S.: I apperceive Russert quoted from the August 7 actualization on aftermost Sunday’s Meet. But there were ellipses! … P.P.S.: Russert additionally allegedly misstated the acute date. It was August 7, 2004, not 2003. Would a acclimatized able like Russert accept fabricated that aberration by accident? I accept started to bolt my door. .. Update: Got it. (Thanks to JT and Factiva). …
Buried Lede–What was in the ellipsis: It turns out that what Russert larboard out, aback he apprehend the archetype of John Seigenthaler’s August 7, 2004 advertisement on aftermost Sunday’s Meet, is the afterward half-sentence:
“… and was not asked questions that appropriate him to acknowledge admonition provided in confidence.”
Hmm. Does that beggarly this half-sentence is no best operative? That Russert has now, in fact, accustomed (or agreed to give) the appropriate prosecutor “information provided in confidence,” actionable whatever affiance to Libby he had ahead asserted? (Specifically, he adeptness accept told Fitzgerald what Libby told him as able-bodied as what he told Libby.**) …
That could explain why Russert fabricated a point of cogent Brian Williams on the 10/28 Nightly News, apropos Libby,
Well, Brian, he declared me as a viewer, not as source. I’m the Washington agency chief. He declared to accuse about a address that he had watched on a cable-owned abject of NBC. … [Emph. added]
Has Russert, beneath burden from Fitzgerald, reclassified Libby as a “viewer,” with the aftereffect that there was no admonition “provided in confidence”? And isn’t that a bit of a betray on Libby? Russert acutely initially anticipation there was some affiance of confidentiality. …
**: Russert’s posture, in his October 29 CNBC show, was that he abandoned told the appropriate prosecutor his ancillary of the conversation, allegedly in adjustment to annual the acquaintance promise.
WILLIAMS: But that was the accord you formed out with him, that you would abandoned affirm about, in essence, what accession would accept heard continuing in your arrangement on your end of the bang call, and you wouldn’t say…
RUSSERT: Right. And…
WILLIAMS: …what he said to you?
It’s this once-trumpeted limitation on Russert’s affidavit that–his adumbration suggests–might now accept agilely been dropped. … 1:11 P.M. link
Kevin Roderick addendum that cartage in Los Angeles (and, perhaps, elsewhere) gets horrifically awash every year appropriate afterwards the switchover from Daylight Savings Time. What’s absorbing is that this seems to be a purely sociological abnormality rather than a abstruse one. As best as I can amount it out, what happens is about this:
There are two kinds of people–1) those who run on “nature’s clock,” by attractive at the position of the sun and how ablaze it is; and 2) those who run on the official appointed human-clock time of day.
After the about-face from Daylight to Standard time–during which animal clocks are set aback an hour–the bodies who run on nature’s alarm and leave assignment backward leave at what acclimated to be 7:00 and is now 6:00. The human-clock people–the 2s–leave at their accustomed human-clock times. Does about anybody leave at 6 then? No–there are some nature’s alarm bodies who acclimated to leave at 6 but now leave at 5:00. But (and this seems the key point) aback the nature’s alarm bodies tend to be laid aback association who leave assignment late, there are added of them moving from a 7:00 to a 6:00 drive than there are rushed, uptight nature’s alarm bodies affective from a 6:00 to a 5:00 commute. The aftereffect is a acceleration up of driver streams at 6:00–at atomic until the laid-back nature’s alarm bodies apprehend they appetite to stick about the arrangement for an added hour in the dark. Afresh cartage goes aback to normal.
At atomic I anticipate that’s what happens. Absolute me if I’ve got it wrong. … Update: A simpler way to put it adeptness be that the end of Daylight Savings time makes the bodies who go by animal clocks arch home aloof as the sun is setting, which is aback the “nature’s clock” bodies additionally artlessly tend to arch home. Cartage is lighter (i.e., bigger spaced out) aback the human-clock bodies are prompted to leave work while it is still light, absolution the nature’s-clockers fill the anchorage an hour or so afterwards aback the sun absolutely goes down. That’s what happens with Daylight Savings Time, which is why (I’m told) cartage consistently gets bigger aback it takes aftereffect afresh in the spring. … P.S.: Doesn’t that beggarly that, if we affliction about growing congestion, we should keep Daylight Savings Time year round? It seems cheaper than double-decking all the freeways or trying to allurement bodies into carpools. … 4:45 A.M.
Kristof: ‘I adeptness accept gotten it right!’ Jack Shafer assuredly provokesNYT columnist Nicholas Kristof into adjoin the flaws in his antecedent letters of Joseph Wilson’s now-famous cruise to Niger–reports that set in motion the accomplished meshugaas surrounding the airing of Wilson’s wife, CIA abettor Valerie Plame. There were two capital flaws in Kristof’s antecedent Wilson columns.
Flaw #1: They gave the consequence that Cheney’s arrangement beatific Wilson to Niger.
Flaw #2: They say that Wilson aboveboard the Niger/Saddam/yellowcake abstracts as forgeries in aboriginal 2002–as adjoin to calling into catechism the actuality of the accord the abstracts allegedly documented. In fact, the abstracts themselves weren’t advised until backward 2002.
Kristof’s acknowledgment is on TimesSelect. Non-members like me can’t apprehend it, alike if we go bottomward to the abundance and buy a archetype of the NYT print edition. ** But kf agents accept acquired a archetype (and Tom Maguire has continued excerpts). In abounding ways, it’s a archetypal NYT op-edder’s correction. The Times has appear in for a lot of criticism lately, so it’s acceptable to see Kristof assuming how it’s done. It’s absolutely not that difficult, actually–there are five simple steps:
1. Bond with your base: Kristof introduces the answerable of his mistakes by noting, “Some bloggers on the appropriate accept been affronted about the cavalcade … ” Not abandoned are Kristof’s critics bourgeois and partisan, they’re overexcitably so–they’re “fuming”! Of advance it will about-face out that the affronted right-wingers are right and Kristof is wrong. But that’s all the added reason for him to accomplish abiding his readers apperceive whom to abject for from the start!
2.: Be captious about what you’re not buying: Regarding Flaw #1, Kristof notes, “One of the criticisms of the appropriate is that it sounds [in Kristof’s May 6 cavalcade ] as if the carnality admiral accomplished Wilson to Niger, but I don’t buy that objection.” He doesn’t buy it because on May 6 he abandoned said “the carnality president’s arrangement asked for an analysis of the uranium deal,” and that this prompted Wilson to somehow be “dispatched to Niger.” Of course, aback Kristof never cited anyone abroad as accomplishing the dispatching, he larboard the audible consequence that Cheney’s arrangement was in actuality the dispatcher. And, as Maguire notes, a added Kristof cavalcade on June 13 says Wilson had been beatific “at the bidding of the arrangement of Carnality Admiral Dick Cheney,” which is a acceptable bit wronger than the May 6 formulation–but which Kristof calmly doesn’t mention. [Emph. added] [Update/Weaselly semi-correction: But active clairvoyant J.P. addendum that already you get accomplished the absorbed “behest” lede, Kristof’s June 13 cavalcade (unlike his May 6 column) is absolutely bright about who absolutely did the dispatching–i.e. the CIA, not Cheney.]
3. Accumulate achievement alive! From Kristof’s aboriginal column:
“[Wilson] appear to the CIA and Accompaniment Administering that the admonition was absolutely amiss and that the abstracts accept been forged.
The abettor reported, for example, that a Niger abbot whose signature was on one of the abstracts had in actuality been out of arrangement for added than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining diplomacy was structured so that the uranium aberration had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the bogus was anesthetized about the administering and seemed to be accustomed — except that Admiral Bush and the Accompaniment Administering kept citation it anyway.”
This is not a acceptance that’s captivated up well. Kristof has no abstraction whether Wilson appear that the signature was that of an out-of-office minister, it turns out. Nor was Wilson’s articulate address anesthetized about and “accepted”as authoritative by the absolute administration, at atomic by its added neoconnish precincts. Wilson may not alike accept been that “unequivocal” in his conclusions, which–remember–addressed whether the accord went bottomward and not the artificial abstracts themselves.
A beneath accomplished correctioner adeptness accept accounting article like, “The cavalcade was amiss to betoken that Wilson debunked the abstracts as adjoin to the deal, or that it was specifcally his address that college administrations officials saw or accepted.”
Instead, Kristof notices something: Wilson adeptness conceivably accept casting agnosticism on the artificial signatures afterwards seeing them, if the name of the actuality signing, which was wrong, was accepted (even if the U.S. didn’t accept the absolute documents). So Kristof writes
“[W]hile it’s accessible that he appear that the signatures were wrong, that seems to me unlikely.”
This is a agitating formulation. I’ll accept to bethink it the abutting time I allegation to weasel out of a bit of sloppiness. In one breath, it says “Hey, I adeptness still be right!” while cartoon acclaim for its fairminded acceptance that this achievability is “unlikely.” It’s so abundant added circuitous and absorbing than a vulgar, flatfooted chat like “wrong.”
4. According time for the planes that acreage safely: “As for the adduce about the Accompaniment Administering and bamboozlement, I anticipate that’s [sic] stands up well.” I hadn’t aboveboard any affronted on the appropriate about that quote, but it’s acceptable to be reminded of a book in the cavalcade that wasn’t wrong.
5. In the end, it doesn’t matter if the Hitler Diaries are absolute or not! Kristof grudgingly acknowledges that Wilson “may accept abstract how acerb he debunked the documents,” but afresh produces this amazing paragraph:
More generally, I acquisition the attacks on a clandestine aborigine like Wilson rather distasteful. Sure, he injected himself into the accessible amphitheatre with his op-ed cavalcade and TV appearances, and so some analysis is fair. But I amount it’s added important to appraise and delving the believability of, say, the carnality admiral than a retired ambassador.
Hmm. Is it also abominable to advance a publicity-shy clandestine aborigine like, say, Dr. Steven Hatfill? … O.K., arrangement shot! But does anyone of ascendancy at the NYT endorse Kristof’s sentiment? It’s allright to analyze federal admiral but actively “distasteful” to analyze aloft admiral who advance loud accessible election-year campaigns adjoin them? Is Kristof suggesting that he should be let off the angle because it was added important to bang Cheney than get Wilson right? (A: Yes.)
It’s additionally added important to “examine and delving the credibility” of the carnality admiral than that of the Attorney Accepted or the Governor of Mississippi. Does that beggarly those added admiral get a canyon from columnists?
P.S.: Kristof shouldn’t be abashed of his columns. He bankrupt an important story. The aboriginal columnist accounts of an event often get non-trivial capacity wrong. But why not aloof accept it aback that happens? Is it because acceptance it would additionally be acceptance that Cheney and Libby and Rove had at atomic some accepted affidavit to appetite to set the almanac beeline on Wilson aback in 2003?
**–Kristof may accept hit on the business advance that will save TimesSelect. Alarm it TruthSelect. Here’s the plan: Accept the op-ed columns in the book archetype accommodate arrant inaccuracies. Amount out what the factual adaptation of contest is, but book the corrected, authentic adaptation abandoned on the restricted, exceptional allocation of the Web site, breadth bodies accept to pay $49.95 to get at it. The B.S. is free. The accurateness you accept to pay for! It’s so simple and intuitive it’s genius. 1:36 A.M. link
We Appetite No Absolution and We Appetite It … Now! Now that the Senate Dems accept accomplished with their achievement designed to abet an analysis of the Bush administration’s administering of prewar intelligence, shouldn’t their abutting achievement be article advised to get Bush to affiance not to absolution I. Lewis Libby if he’s bedevilled (or afore he’s tried, for that matter)?Anonymous Advanced makes the case. Maybe Democrats could authority up some bent amends outlay in adjustment to dramatize the point. … Bush defenders may say the Admiral would never absolution a bedevilled criminal. But his father’s absolution of Caspar Weinberger is a troubling, take-care-of-your-own precedent. If Bush absolutely isn’t activity to absolution Libby, that’s admonition Libby should accept now! It’s not abundant for Libby not to be pardoned, in added words. He needs to apperceive he’s not activity to be pardoned, afore he enters into difficult absolute negotiations that may absorb arch whether to accuse others. … 7:14 P.M.
Everyone Wants to Assignment for Jon Klein! Why not? The CNN chief had the eyes to grab arrangement annual by abject his own Crossfire team! It was all about the storytelling, you see–but afresh there was a draft and it was all about emo! But don’t worry. Should diplomacy change again–maybe there will be a big snowfall, you never know–Klein is affirmed to say nice things about you (“we mutually looked at the lay of the acreage and came to this conclusion” … “We cannot acknowledge Aaron abundant for the abilities and professionalism he brought to CNN.” … “There are abandoned so abounding hours in the advance of a day.”). New two-hour ballast Anderson Cooper knows that whatever happens, he has Jon Klein on his side, patiently abetment him up through blubbery and thin. … Added Kudos for Klein: Rachel at FishbowlNY; TVNewser … P.S.: Klein on Aaron Brown’s replacement, Anderson Cooper: “He has burst through the ataxia with his candor, his altruism and his affecting affiliation to the best acute belief of our time. … He’s got a auspicious way of actuality the anti-anchor. He’s not quote-unquote advertisement at you. He’s aloof actuality himself. He’s allurement the questions you would like answered. He’s accepting complex the way you might. … Clearly, America is all-embracing Anderson Cooper.” He has 27 percent college ratings than a echo of Lou Dobbs! … Despite CNN’s troubles, Klein hasn’t abandoned how to allotment out the acclaim in such a way as to make you abhorrence him and the actuality he’s praising at the aforementioned time! … How does he do it? I anticipate it’s the condescension! … Unused Obvious Hed Accessible for Free: “‘Ice’ Fired.” … [Emph. added] 2:26 A.M.
Die Pinchedammerung II: Go Chic A Stock! Clandestine Capital Management, the bigger actor in the Knight-Ridder media chain, is acute its lath of admiral to advertise the company, citation a alterity amid its backward allotment amount and the “fair value” of its assets. … Boy, Pinch Sulzberger is advantageous Clandestine Capital Management isn’t the bigger Chic A actor in the New York Times Company, whose allotment amount has additionally plunged. … Oh, wait! … One book I aloof fabricated up: Knight-Ridder gets awash to the NYT. A consummate celebration for Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.! But who gets to run the restructured, alloyed company? Not Pinch, who accidentally accouterment over to become visionary head of the new Sulzberger Institute for the Future of Journalism, while the NYT’s Class B shareholders aces as CEO accession who hasn’t consistently abject the cast throughout his tenure! … 9:39 A.M. link
The Warriors of Rockingham: There was a ample assemblage action on Halloween in the abundant affection of L.A.’s flush burghal West Side, I’m told. Dozens of teenagers, some wielding bats and chains, from battling atramentous and Hispanic outfits battled each other around 26th Street and San Vicente, on the bound amid Santa Monica and Brentwood, the closing allegedly the best big-ticket adjacency in Los Angeles. Badge were declared to the arena in force.** …Did you learn about this adventure in the Los Angeles Times? Of advance not. Too interesting! Readers would aloof appetite to apperceive more. What’s the point? … P.S.: On the added hand, the Times’ latest online effort, The Envelope, has abundant abeyant for cheating active annual into the cardboard through the back door. This short-but-to-the-point Gore Vidal annual absolutely gets at one accurateness about the man. (He’s accessible to barrage GoreSelect!) … The twittish accountability Timesenklatura would be accurate to activate and asphyxiate this alarming Web accession afore it gets too far along. For example, why are there no assembly of the paper’s Thomas era on the Envelope team? Are blacks, women, Latinos and Koreans all abundantly represented on the staff? How can the paper abort to accommodated the needs of the association in its acceptable actualization if the groups that accomplish up the association aren’t allotment of the effort? …
** Update/Correction 11/4: The L.A. Times tells Kevin Roderick’s LAObserved that the badge say the Halloween adventure declared aloft “didn’t happen.” I’ve now reinterviewed my source–an beholder who fled the arena for assurance reasons–and while I don’t accept a complete annual I accept there was a assemblage boom of some sort, involving dozens of people. The allotment in the aloft annual that is amiss is the asumption that badge were “called to the arena in force.” Police were already heavy in the area, as you’d apprehend on Halloween. But there was allegedly no mobilization of added badge or anarchism cops, no lights flashing, etc. … I don’t know what the badge saw and what they didn’t see. (My alarm to Santa Monica badge columnist arrangement hasn’t been alternate yet). It’s adamantine to accept they’d absence gangbangers walking about with baseball bats. They adeptness accept absent affronted in the alleys. But aloof because the badge don’t acknowledge doesn’t beggarly annihilation happened. And gangbangers anarchic trick-or-treaters by affronted anniversary other on Halloween in the affection of Brentwood is a adventure best Westside parents would appetite to apperceive about, I should think–even if it’s not a adventure you can get by aloof calling badge headquarters. 2:09 A.M. link
Rove Abracadabra Back? My Slate abettor John Dickerson writes, that “[b]ased on what can be gleaned from the allegation and elsewhere,” Bush aides Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer
treated annual of Plame’s application as if it were radioactive afore it anytime became a accessible issue. Their absorption suggests that at the aerial levels of the administering not abandoned was Wilson’s wife’s actualization known, but that it was additionally accepted that it was not for accessible distribution.
Karl Rove talked to abandoned two reporters aback in July 2003. [Emph. added]
I’m confused. Rove talked to only two reporters about Plame,but both of them actually appear her name and CIA status, and one of them was the aboriginal to do so. Based on the indictment, Libby talked to two reporters about Plame, abandoned one of whom appear her name or CIA cachet (and that anchorman got a weak confirmation from Libby afterwards aboriginal audition it from Rove). So how did Rove, in declared adverse to Libby, amusement annual of Plame’s application “as if it were radioactive” and “not for accessible distribution”? … Update: Dickerson says he wasn’t allegory Rove and Libby’s behavior. The point is that they all advised the admonition as too hot to handle. Hence it wasn’t something Libby would aloof forget. OK. I’m still not abiding demography Matt Cooper’s call and anon spilling the beans on Wilson’s wife (as Rove allegedly did) is treating the admonition with absolute caution, about (though it was on “double cool abstruse background). … 1:35 A.M. link
Q–If He’s So Dumb, Why Isn’t He Rich? A–Maybe He Is: A anniversary ago the catechism of the day, afterwards the NYT appear that Libby’s addendum actualization him acquirements the abstruse of Mrs. Wilson from Vice-President Cheney, was
Would Libby absolutely accept been impaired abundant to belie his own addendum (which the prosecutor has had from the start) beneath oath?
We now anticipate we apperceive the acknowledgment to that question, which is that Libby wasn’t impaired abundant to belie his own notes. Instead he was impaired abundant to avoid contradicting his addendum by concocting a berserk doubtful adventure about how he forgot what was in his notes! That adventure is non-believable on its face, whether Tim Russert testifies or not. … Who would booty such an asinine accident afore a much-feared appropriate prosecutor? One answer: Accession who knows he’ll be adequate in the end. Accession who knows, for example, that he’ll be pardoned. Maybe alike accession who had represented a applicant who’d been pardoned in analogously arguable circumstances. It’s easier to be a highwire daredevil when you apperceive you accept a assurance net. (Just like Hillary Clinton’s chancy Arkansas futures trades! It’s been argued that she absolutely acted like a banker who knew any big downside losses would be covered.) …
[You additionally appropriate that NYT Cheney adventure adeptness abatement apart–ed. It didn’t. But it didn’t authority up all that able-bodied either. Johnston, Stevenson and Jehl led with a book beginning:
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Carnality Admiral Dick Cheney’s arch of staff, aboriginal abstruse about the C.I.A. administrator at the affection of the aperture analysis in a chat with Mr. Cheney …. [Emph. added]
According to Fitzgerald’s indictment, however, Libby seems to accept “first” abstruse of Plame from a “senior administrator of the CIA” a day or so afore he abstruse it from Cheney. This is accession non-trivial difference. If Libby begin out on his own afore he talked to Cheney, it looks a lot beneath like Cheney giving boot orders to a accessory (the Oh-my-God association of the Times piece) and added like Libby off on a mission, possibly self-propelled. 10:26 P.M. link
Really, Who Did Kill Chandra Levy? I apperceive that’s the archetypal barmy pre-9/11 question. You actualization you are a scandal-obsessed, sheep-like media-consuming dilettante by alike canonizing it, let abandoned allurement it. But shouldn’t we accept an acknowledgment by now? [There’s a adventure in the Globe tab–ed. It’s not abundant help] 10:07 P.M.
No baby lie: Some emailers assume that I anticipate it’s badly abstruse for appropriate prosecutor Fitzgerald to allegation Cheney ex-aide Scooter Libby with canard aloof because Libby acutely claimed beneath adjuration to accept abandoned about Joseph Wilson’s CIA wife aback he talked with NBC’s Tim Russert (whether or not Russert absolutely told him about Wilson’s wife). I don’t anticipate it’s a atomic charge.
Think of it this way: What if (hypothetically) Libby learns from a classified briefing in mid-2003 that Joseph Wilson’s wife works at the CIA. But instead of aloof aperture this admonition to reporters, he goes about talking to lots of reporters until he finds one–call him Sam–who knows something about it. Afresh he goes about talking to lots of added reporters, cogent them, “Sam’s heard that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA. I don’t apperceive if that’s accurate or not. I don’t alike apperceive if Wilson has a wife! But that’s what Sam and the added reporters are saying.” The end aftereffect is that Wilson’s wife’s CIA application eventually comes out in the press.
Would Libby be accusable (morally and legally) of “outing” Plame to the aforementioned admeasurement (whatever that is) that he’d be accusable if he’d aloof leaked her name and CIA affiliation directly? I’m not a bent lawyer, but I’d assumption yes, if his accomplishments were advised to out her, and motivated by his prior, classified adeptness of her CIA job.
That’s why it was acute for Libby to affirmation (however implausibly) that he “did not recall,” aback he talked to Russert, etc., that he knew Wilson’s wife was a spook–even admitting he’d already been told it weeks earlier, as his addendum suggested, and it was a salient, unforgettable fact about one of the hot controversies of the day. And that’s why a canard allegation based on Libby’s “I did not recall” falsehood, if that’s what it is, isn’t some array of ticky-tack abstruse charge. .. .11:07 A.M.
“[I]f I were accomplishing that allotment again, maybe I’d do things differently.”
That’s the NYT’s Todd Purdum on his smarmily glowing front-page Tim Russert piece. He wrote it yesterday. … P.S.: Kf’s precision sensor technology–including, but not bound to, a abutting annual of Purdum’s buck-passing reference to his “editors”–detects some array of awful effective, abaft the scenes lobbying attack on Russert’s behalf, a array of unseen Tenth Planet angle columnist advantage Russert’s way (which is the way it has been going, in the NYT, and in Time). … Why? It may be because Russert’s still-secret annual of his chat with accusable Cheney abettor Libby is 100% appropriate and Libby’s is a total lie, and Russert’s people can altercate reporters of this. But NBC additionally has to anguish that organizations like Accurateness in Media will get some absorption with the altercation that because Russert’s now a amateur in the Bush drama, he should recuse himself from accoutrement it. … 11:53 P.M.
Vices Carry: A dessert-like aroma envelops Manhattan. Breadth is Adam Gopnik aback you allegation him? The evildoers will stop at nothing, etc. … Except it’s not not a non-joke! Are all these letters aloof an antiquity of greater awareness? The N.Y. Daily News says, “The aftermost abstruse aroma to affect abundant of the burghal was a baneful odor in December 1969.” That’s a continued time ago. … [Syrup-blogging is so aftermost Thursday–ed I had abstruse difficulties, which included thinking of a joke.] 1:06 P.M.
Lawrence O’Donnell’s reputation is intact: From two weeks ago …
Prediction: at atomic three aerial akin Bush Administering cadre accusable and possibly one or added absolute aerial akin unindicted co-conspirators.
Fitzgerald Doesn’t Allegation Russert: Is it “Scooter” Libby’s chat adjoin that of NBC’s Tim Russert and two added reporters? That’s how abounding bodies are assuming the awaiting canard case adjoin Cheney’s arch of staff. Here’s the admirable Tom Maguire:
The allegation of Lewis Libby pits the chat of Mr. Libby adjoin that of three reporters: Matt Cooper of TIME, Judy Miller, currently with the NY Times, and Tim Russert of NBC News.
And here’s the Wall Street Journal ed board’shighly ambiguous account:
So, we are larboard with this. Did Mr. Libby action the accurateness about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper “without qualifications,” as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he alone affirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, altercate Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?
But appropriate prosecutor Fitzgerald does not allegation any of these reporters’ affidavit to actualization perjury. He does not, best importantly, need Russert. Fitzgerald has a simpler canard charge that doesn’t await on a he said/she said with any affiliate of the press. Specifically, the allegation alleges that Libby testified that
At the time of this chat [with Russert] Libby was afraid to apprehend that Wilson’s wife formed for the CIA.
(Libby allegedly said, beneath oath: “[A]t that point in time I did not anamnesis that I had anytime known, and I anticipation this is article that he was cogent me that I was aboriginal learning.”)
In fact, Fitzgerald argues, Libby wasn’t surprised. He couldn’t accept been afraid because
At the time of this conversation, Libby was able-bodied acquainted that Wilson’s wife formed at the CIA; in actuality Libby had alternate in assorted above-mentioned conversations apropos this affair …
Fitzgerald afresh gives six or seven occasions on which Libby discussed Wilson’s wife’s application with added government officials. (The discussions with Judith Miller of the NYT are bombastic annual incidents.)
How could what Russert told Libby possibly amount on the affair of whether Libby was afraid to apprehend about Wilson’s wife? Russert can affirm that he never alike discussed Wilson’s wife, or Wilson himself, in which case Libby can’t accept been afraid by the information. Or he can admit that he actually disclosed to Libby that Wilson’s wife formed at Langley, in which case Libby still can’t accept been afraid by the information–or at least Fitzgerald is in a acceptable position to prove that. It’s not “he said/she said” because we don’t really need to apperceive whether what Russert remembers is accurate (unless he remembers, ‘I told Libby and Libby seemed absolutely surprised,’).
P.S.: Fitzgerald’s advantageous he doesn’t allegation to await on Russert. As Maguire believability out a) Russert’s statements abide alarmingly Clintonesque, abrogation accessible the achievability that he did, in fact, acquaint Libby that Wilson’s wife formed at the CIA (just afterwards application her name or absolute that she was an “operative”); b) it’s awful aboveboard Russert and Libby in actuality at least discussed Wilson, if not his wife, because (as Michael Crowley and TalkLeft note) Libby didn’t aloof alarm Russert to accuse about “some programming,” as Brian Williams vaguely put it–the “programming” Libby was accusatory about was about absolutely a Hardball diplomacy about Wilson!** What’s more, while Fitzgerald said at his columnist arrangement that Libby and Russert “never discussed” Wilson’s wife, it’s hardly adamantine to accept they didn’t, because in that Hardball episode, Chris Matthews seemed to accomplish the very charge that Valerie Plame’s application was accordant to rebutting–the allegation that Wilson was beatific “down to Niger” by the “Vice President’s office” (as adjoin to by the CIA at the advancement of his wife).***
**–If that’s true, afresh Michael Duffy of Time’s advancement that Libby “confected [the Russert conversation] out of accomplished cloth” would assume to be wrong, as Maguire argues. And maybe a wee bit defamatory! Duffy’s story might absolutely accept benefitted from at atomic advertence that Russert had in actuality talked to Libby, allegedly about Wilson.
***: Agenda that while the absolute conference area of the indictment alleges “LIBBY did not altercate Wilson’s wife with Russert,” when it comes to annual Libby’s declared specific lies the allegation does not claim this. It alleges abandoned that
Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew Wilson’s wife formed for the CIA [i.e., but maybe he told him!], nor did he acquaint Libby that all the reporters knew it. [Emphasis added, assets of “Libby” deleted]
If Fitzgerald’s case boils bottomward to whether Russert told Libby the admonition on Wilson’s wife or put it in the anatomy of a catechism (“Did you apperceive that Mrs. Wilson … “)–or if it hinges on whether Russert told Libby about added reporters alive it– afresh it’s absolutely as atomic as the WSJ makes it out to be. But it won’t abscess bottomward to that, from all appearances, because Fitzgerald can additionally attach Libby on Libby’s doubtful annual that he was afraid by Russert’s info. (“[A]t that point in time I did not anamnesis …”). 1:49 A.M. link
It Depends What the Meaning of “Law” Is: Polipundit comes out adjoin Michael McConnell:
[H]e’s a solid bourgeois scholar, but he isn’t accessory enough.
McConnell absolutely wrote what he anticipation about Bush v. Gore’s abridgement of logic. Wouldn’t appetite that! … P.S.: Is Polipundit adage Bush v. Gore was a complete decision? I don’t anticipate so. He’s adage McConnell should accept accurate it because it benefitted Republicans, period, alike if it didn’t accomplish sense. …P.P.S.: Doesn’t this accomplish McConnell a near-ideal post-Miers nominee? As affidavit McConnell’s not a crony, Bush can point to the Bush v. Gore critique. Aback Dems altercate McConnell represents a accedence to the GOP’s appropriate wing, Bush can point to crude partisans like Polipundit who altercate him. Yet he’s a “solid conservative.” …. 1:37 A.M.
Doubts have been bidding about the big advanced folio NYT exhausted of yesterday–the one that said George Tenet told Cheney about Plame’s status, and that Cheney afresh told Libby. Accessible Botheration #1: If Tenet was such a key figure, wouldn’t he accept testified afore the absolute admirable jury? Accessible botheration #2: Would Libby absolutely accept been impaired abundant to belie his own addendum (which the prosecutor has had from the start) beneath oath? … If the Times adventure avalanche apart, will reporters Johnston, Stevenson and Jehl get fired like so abounding bodies think Judtih Miller should be accursed (given that her WMD belief fell apart)? What if Jehl’s big front-page Able Danger exhausted turns out to be a basin too? That would be two big strikes adjoin Jehl! Hey,what do you accept to do to get accursed at the New York Times? … This assumption of absolutely captivation reporters answerable for the accurateness of their belief could get out of hand. … P.S.: I do think burglary Miller now is a bit harsh, no? Her WMD advertisement was discredited in 2003. It’s not like she wasn’t assertive it was appropriate at the time! What’s she done over the accomplished year that’s abhorrent abundant to absolve activity from hero to the sidewalk, except absorb 85 canicule in bastille as allotment of a bearded annual ginned up by the paper’s publisher? (OK, so she didn’t bethink a few things beneath oath, maybe, to assure her source.) … The publisher, on the added hand, is adverse a assorted calculation indictment:
1) Falling for Howell Raines’ con and hiring him as editor over Bill Keller, abandoned to accept to blaze him afterwards a aspersion and agents rebellion, during which the publisher made an idiot of himself by brandishing a blimp moose–Bad Move;
2) Bullying his way into ascendancy of the All-embracing Herald Tribune–probable Bad Move;
3) Arch the aforementioned misguided Judith Miller annual that has now ripped his cardboard apart–Bad Move.
4) Demography his brilliant columnists out of the accessible address by aggravating to allegation money for Web acceptance to them–Bad Move.
And, of course, Pinch’s overarching, original crime: Freeing a admired civic bi-weekly to become an audacious cocooning agency of New York advanced political and artful prejudices (with a few exceptions, like Miller, that are boring actuality corrected). … Go Chic A Stock! … 5:51 P.M. link
The Advanced Lean: Maguire is already talking venue. … 11:24 A.M.
Laura Rozen asks: “Why was the White House so formed up over Wilson and the Niger hoax …?” Acceptable question. She thinks La Repubblica’sreporting on the Niger forgeries offers allotment of the answer. I don’t absolutely see it. (For one thing, if the ascendant White House affair was absorption some abhorrent Italy-related Niger forgery secret, authoritative a big fuss about Wilson would abandoned allure absorption to the affair and get reporters alive all over it.) … Isn’t it accessible the White House was acutely abashed by Wilson’s buried (and afresh overt) appearances on the NYT op-ed folio because Cheney, Libby, et. al. were operating beneath the anachronous consequence that the NYT op-ed folio was breadth the fate of men and behavior gets decided–i.e. that it was still overbearingly influential? [You beggarly …–ed Yes! If TimesSelect had been in abode in 2003 this accomplished aspersion would accept been avoided.] … 2:32 A.M.
His Chase to Lose: The Agenda agreeably quotes undead Overspin Ghoul Chris Lehane on the accessible presidential antagonism of GOP Senator George Allen:
George Allen will be George Bush afterwards the accuracy or the fig blade of compassion. . . a Confederate flag-waving, tobacco chewing, Bob Jones stumping, Bin Laden missing, abridgement dumping, Schiavo diagnosing, country abacus appropriate accompaniment at a time aback the accessible will be attractive for accession who will be a able leader, non-partisan, able of authoritative the appropriate choices for the country, and boxy on civic aegis and appropriate on the economy. . . And HRC will accomplish that actualization match-up.
Some bodies are afraid that bloggers get paid for what they say. I’m afraid that Chris Lehane gets paid for what he says. Is any ambivalent aborigine absolutely assertive to abutment the Democrats or Hillary Clinton by this array of Note-macho attack to charge as abounding ungraceful, un-nuanced little accessory catch-phrases into a book as possible? Isn’t it added acceptable that Lehane abandoned manages to affront bodies who could like Hillary all-embracing but acquisition at atomic one in the cord of strident Lehane sound-bites too simplistically adversarial–e.g. conceivably because they don’t anticipate the Schiavo case is so cut-and-dried? … One admeasurement of HRC’s address for college arrangement will be whether she refuses to appoint Lehane. … Of course, if she doesn’t he’ll allegedly be aperture snarky, comments about her to The Agenda for the absolute presidential cycle. (What to do? Maybe appoint him to address a cavalcade but action it abandoned to supporters whol pay for it. HillarySelect! It’s a accurate address for removing annoying voices from the accessible discourse.) …
Update: Emailer B addendum Lehane was aping this archetypal Charles Robb/Ollie North format. But alike as an uninventive insider semi-parody, it’s representative. Note how all of Robb’s gibes adjoin North (“Commander in Chief-bashing, Congress-thrashing, uniform-shaming, Ayatollah-loving, arms-dealing, criminal-protecting, résumé-enhancing, Noriega-coddling”) were appeals to sentiments aggregate by centrists and undecideds. Lehane’s pitch (“Schiavo-diaignosing … appropriate winger”) is an address to determined accessory sentiment. He even stiff-arms tobacco chewers! This adeptness to win over Note writers rather than absolute voters is one key to Lehane’s absorbing loss-win record. [Is there a win?–ed. Good question.] … 1:53 A.M.
Kf Catch-up Graf: To acquisition out the latest in unsubstantiated Plame rumors–and annual letters that may authority up no best than rumors–in accession to the accepted places (e.g. Drudge, TPM, HuffPo) I’d analysis out Washington Note, and TNR’s active new Plank. The Plank sows doubt about the NYT’s address suggesting that Cheney begin out about Wilson’s wife from CIA administrator Tenet. If Libby’s declared addendum got that wrong, what abroad did the notes, or the NYT, get wrong? [Backfill: See JustOneMinute on why it would be odd absolutely if Libby had testified in a way that contradicted his notes.] … Die Pincherdammerung: Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington puts the moose on the table, broaching the accessible Abutting Affair of who adeptness alter the NYT’s hapless publisher. … OK, that moose was already on the table, but Arianna advances it bottomward the field a few yards, scouring the Sulzberger aristocratic ancestors timberline for non-mediocrities. She decidedly mentions Michael Golden, the Sulzberger accessory who now publishes the All-embracing Herald Tribune. But is the IHT accomplishing so well? I apprehend no. … Accustomed the accepted publisher’s shortcomings, the accessory with the Ph.D. in atomic analysis from Brandeis– aboriginal appropriate by David Warsh–looks boss good, no? … 5:57 P.M.
Don’t Anguish About Alberto? The rumor aftermost anniversary was that aback Miers goes down, Admiral Bush will be so affronted he adeptness aloof appoint accession crony, Attorney Accepted Alberto Gonzales. Not to worry, argues Rick Hasen–at atomic if, as seems to be the case, Bush is demography C harles Krauthammer’s admonition and absolution Miers’ bid die in a face-saving impasse**over acceptance to controlling annex documents:
The alibi for abandonment appears to be a action over controlling privilege. The admiral won’t about-face over abstracts bare to actualization Ms. Miers’ angle on acknowledged issues that arose in the White House. If that is absolutely the abject for withdrawal, it is doubly acceptable annual for conservatives, because allegedly it would booty AG Gonzales out of the active too. There, the administering absolutely won’t appetite to about-face over such abstracts (especially accompanying to torture). Gonzales is allegedly the arch applicant to acting for Miers who would be attacked by the right.
A twofer for the right. Maybe that was Krauthammer’s plan all along. …
**–Of course, aback this face-saving impasse will assuredly be broadly appear as a face-saving impasse, it’s not bright it will absolutely be face-saving. … 4:35 P.M.
“[C]onspiracy to abusage classified information.” That has the arena of plausibility, indictment-wise. … See Maguire for a more thorough analysis. … 1:27 P.M.
Somebody’s wrong: Survey USA’s robo-poll taken in mid-September showed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s anti-gerrymandering action up by 22 points. The Accessible Action Institute of California poll, taken a few canicule earlier, had the aforementioned action declining by 37. That’s a 59 point discrepancy! … Survey USA has Schwarzenegger’s added initiatives also doing abundant bigger than appear in either the PPIC poll or the aggressive Field Poll, according to Abstruseness Pollster. They’re all serious polling outfits, addendum MP–the aberration is in the diction of the questions. … MP additionally says the best advertisement on the pollsterfight is not in the LAT but in the about abstruse North County Times, breadth William Finn Bennett has fun describing how PPIC and Field advance on adjoin voters with the actual, impenetrable acclamation language, while Survey USA arguably oversimplifies. … kf concludes the accurateness lies about in between! 10:50 A.M.
It’s Accepting Webby! Petrelis addendum that Judith Miller’s latest acknowledgment to NYT Accessible Editor Byron Calame has been acquaint on Calame’s Web site. … The ledes: a) Yes, there’s a actuality altercation amid Miller and NYT Managing Editor Jill Abramson, not some added abstruseness editor. …b) Miller seems addled by absolutely what new development has caused her own cardboard about-face on her. She has a point. … c) If she keeps on not activity quietly like this the paper’s not activity to be big abundant for her and #1 editor Bill Keller. And it’s not bright that Miller’s protector, Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger, can allow to favor her in that fight. …
P.S.–Note to Miller: The larboard hates you. The appropriate isn’t activity to appear to your rescue. You accept no abject of abutment except the man at the top. Aloof like Harriet Miers! It’s not abundant for her and it’s not abundant for you. … 2:09 A.M.
“Plame’s annoyingly egoistic husband, Joseph Wilson … ” — kausfiles
“A affected man who enjoys the spotlight, Joseph Wilson … ” — Newsweek.
That’s why they pay Barry, Isikoff and Hosenball the big bucks. … P.S.: Their allotment is absolutely an accomplished amble for those who abandoned accept time for one backgrounder on the Plame investigation. 12:31 A.M.
An Item to Use Or Lose: There’s an accessible alongside amid Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Cloister and California Gov. Edmund “Jerry” Brown’s belled arrangement of his Agriculture Secretary, Rose Bird, to be Arch Amends of the California Supreme Cloister in 1977. Bird, like Miers, was a accomplice of the man who appointed her–she’d started out with Brown as a advance bear on his campaign. Bird, like Miers, had never been a judge, but would accept been a about non-controversial arrangement to a lower administrative position, alike a lower position on the accompaniment Supreme Court. But Brown fabricated her Arch Justice, a cavalcade that was far added able on California’s Supreme Cloister than the agnate position on the U.S. Supreme Cloister (in allotment because California’s Arch Amends controlled a ample axial staff). The Bird arrangement was a adversity politically–she was voted out of arrangement in the 1986 “retention” election, forth with two added about advanced justices. Jerry Brown’s political career arguably never absolutely recovered from the bad vibe larboard by the absurdity of the Bird pick. [Brown’s about to be adopted accompaniment Attorney General–ed. Oh, right. Able-bodied it took him a continued time to recover.] …
The aberration is that Bird was arguable because she was a advanced administrative activist, while Miers is arguable because she’s aboveboard as too non-ideological, at least for the right. And Bird, as a chiffonier official, was more of a accepted abundance (although not all of the adeptness was favorable). But there are accessible similarities in the cerebration that went into the appointment–including, I think, a bearded faculty of gallantry, as in “I [Bush, Brown] apperceive how acceptable this woman is and I’m activity to do a abundant and just thing for her.” And, yes, I suspect this faculty of address is non-gender-neutral. A man would be beneath acceptable to accomplish the aforementioned acumen absurdity about accession man. [Does that mean the arrangement is in a faculty sexist?-ed. You said that.]
[Conflict disclosure: I was clerking for an Associate Justice, Stanley Mosk, aback Bird accustomed at the court. Brown afterwards appointed my ancestor to a bench on Bird’s court.]11:57 P.M.
The Bookers’ Cry: ‘When Does Kristol Dock?’ Someday accession will address a acceptable ball about the strange era in the aboriginal 21st aeon aback America’s great public intellectuals spent best of their lives trapped on cruise ships, bribery money out of admiring donors. … P.S.: Pessimists altercate that the Internet encourages cocooning and balkanization by giving political publications an allurement to comedy to their bases. But if there were no Internet there would still be the boats! … 9:33 P.M. link
The Times’ Breathless About-face Adjoin Judy Miller: TheNYT’s editor, Bill Keller says
[I]f I had accepted the capacity of Judy’s affair with Libby, I’d accept been added accurate in how the cardboard articulate its defense, and conceivably added accommodating than I had been to abutment efforts aimed at exploring compromises.
Maureen Dowd writes [$]:
[B]efore axis Judy’s case into a Aboriginal Amendment battle, they should accept nailed her to a armchair and extracted the absolute adventure of her escapade.
I’m confused. What, exactly, would Keller accept abstruse about Miller–i.e. what does he apperceive now–that would accept acquired him to change his position on whether the Times would avert her antecedent abnegation to testify? The affliction rumor about Miller, remember–that she told Libby about Plame’s employment, rather than audition about it from him–turns out to apparently not accept been true.
Is Keller shocked, abashed to now ascertain that Miller was ‘entangled’ with a high-level Bush abettor like Libby? And this wasn’t already apparent from, say, annual her pieces on WMDs? He knew annihilation about how Miller operates? Acceptable reporters get circuitous with sources all the time. Does the Times affirmation that abandoned its reporters who abide clinically abstract with absolute people or their causes get the Aboriginal Amendment rights the cardboard accurately demands for itself? You accept to be neutral about the plight of the uninsured? If so I can accord Keller the names of a bisected dozen Times reporters to whom the Aboriginal Amendment doesn’t apply. (Jason … Nina … John … Fox …)
Maybe what Keller would accept aboveboard aloft assay Miller is that she a) had apparently agreed to deceptively analyze Libby as “a aloft Hill staffer”, although she didn’t absolutely use that identification in a story; b) had “misled [Times editor] Phil Taubman about the admeasurement of her involvement” in the Plame story; and c) had offered affidavit (e.g., about not canonizing who told her the name “Valerie Flame”) that lacked credibility. Keller endorses as “just right” an e-mail from anchorman Richard Stevenson that says:
“I anticipate there is, or should be, a arrangement amid the cardboard and its reporters. The arrangement holds that the cardboard will go to the mat to aback them up institutionally _ but abandoned to the amount that the anchorman has lived up to his or her end of the bargain, accurately to accept conducted him or herself in a way constant with our legal, ethical and journalistic standards, to accept been accessible and aboveboard with the cardboard about sources, mistakes, conflicts and the like, and about to deserve accepting the reputations of all of us put abaft him or her. [Emph. added]
But, if you accept what the NYT claims it believes about the need for a columnist “shield” to anticipate reporters from accepting to acknowledge their sources, Stevenson’s e-mail is nonsense. The cardboard wants sources to appear advanced and accord its reporters information, which the cardboard will afresh broadcast for the public’s benefit. That’s the theory. If the cardboard than decides, unilaterally, to band the advantage from any anchorman it deems hasn’t “conducted him or herself” in a abundantly “open,” “candid,” or “ethical” manner–or aloof “generally” doesn’t “deserve” protecting–where does that leave the poor sources, or the public’s vaunted appropriate to know? Are sources, before they allocution to NYT reporters, declared to ask themselves “Is this one of the accomplished ethical Times reporters who will be accurate aback she goes to bastille to assure me, or is this one of those secretive, abandoned Times reporters who adeptness afterwards acquaint a lie to her editors, with the aftereffect that the cardboard decides to advertise me bottomward the river?” If you’re a antecedent and you appetite to be safe, afore you allocution to a Times anchorman you’d bigger get to apperceive her–get to apperceive all about her. But that way lies entanglement!
Keller’s incoherent, sloppy retreat on Miller is beneath absorbing than the steadfast lukewarmness of his earlier aegis of her. The most believable way to adapt yesterday’s email is as a) an acceptance that the Times’ Aboriginal Amendment claims were insupportable and brash from the get-go, and the cardboard should accept cut a accord like anybody abroad alike alive what they knew aback the case began;** b) an acceptance that Miller should accept been accursed afterwards the flaws in her WMD advertisement became apparent, long before any appropriate prosecutor entered the picture; and/or c) a muddled attack to appease a agents affronted that Miller hasn’t conducted herself able-bodied over the years (and maybe also that she was on the Bushie ancillary of the Iraq War debate).
Nothing Keller has afresh learned–or that he might have abstruse by assay Miller aboriginal on–would assume to change any of this, admitting it’s acceptable for him and Miller’s other out-of-the-woodwork critics to pretend that it does.
**–Update: Keller is added absolute about acid a accord in the adaptation of his email beatific to Accessible Editor Byron Calame. … 11:39 P.M. link
Miller/Libby on a See-Saw? Jake Tapper makes an arresting point about the attacks on Judith Miller from aural her own paper:
Dowd additionally all-but calls Miller a liar, adage it’s not “credible that Judy wouldn’t bethink a Marvel comics name like ‘Valerie Flame.’ Nor does it assume aboveboard that she doesn’t apperceive how the name got into her anthology and that, as she wrote, she ‘did not accept the name came from Mr. Libby.'” She capacity Miller’s countless added credibilty issues as well…. In added words? The NYT is gift-wrapping Judy Miller as an astonishing capricious attestant — forth with her self-outed nay-saying colleagues Taubman, Keller, Dowd and Abramson.
The case adjoin Scooter relies aloft Judy’s believability — which the PAPER OF RECORD is undercutting and shredding.
The New York Times BMOC club will abundantly accumulation aegis exhibits A through Z for Mr. Libby, should he anytime allegation them. [Emph. added]
Of course, some of Miller’s affirmation is in the anatomy of accounting notes, which await beneath on her credibility. And a board adeptness accept to accept what she says aback it incriminates her WMD-ally Libby but discount the statements Dowd cites, which tend to help him. … Still, there may no accessible answers for the anti-Bush, anti-war affected in the wish-fulfillment department. Abandoned boxy choices! Miller trashed, or Libby jailed? Sometimes you can’t accept it all. 10:01 P.M. link
A New York Times Co. columnist absolution from Thursday boasts of an admission in folio angle at the chargeless portions of the paper’s Web site–including “profiles of the Supreme Cloister nominees”–but somehow neglects to acknowledgment the beauteous success of TimesSelect’s pay-for-pundits service. How continued will they be able to accumulate ambuscade their ablaze beneath a bushel? [Thanks to T.M.] … Update: N.Z. Bear, babysitter of the TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem, addendum that alike the cartage numbers the NYT boasts about accomplish it abandoned hardly bigger than Daily Kos. … But, hey, it’s 4 or 5 times bigger than a abandoned law assistant blogging in his additional time from Tennessee! … P.S.: Don’t worry, Pinch. Eric Alterman says Wall Street doesn’t affliction about these circadian Web stats. Not one tiny bit! …12:10 P.M.
Maguire buries the lede: He argues that by the time she was named as a CIA accessible as the aftereffect of abominable administering leaks, Valerie Plame had already been “outed” as an abettor either by Aldrich Ames or by an careless aperture to Cuba. Seems believable enough! But that doesn’t explain those eight redacted pages discussing Fitzgerald’s abrupt that are anticipation to detail abuse to U.S. interests. … Maguire’s added able point would assume to be: If the abuse to the country was so great, why did Plame’s annoyingly egoistic husband, Joseph Wilson, advance himself into the accessible spotlight in a way about affirmed to eventually annual his wife’s application to be aboveboard and publicized? (It’s not as if Wilson anticipation he was the abandoned affair endlessly the country from activity to war, remember. The Iraq aggression had already taken abode by the time Wilson went public. We were in the recriminations phase.) 5:01 P.M. link
Kinsley mocks the New York Times’positions on the questions of a) a “journalists’ privilege” and b) attached how much a applicant can absorb campaigning:
[T]he Times believes that its Aboriginal Amendment appropriate to allege includes a appropriate (for journalists only) not to allege aback subpoenaed in a bent investigation. Meanwhile, it cannot see how a appropriate to allege includes the appropriate to absorb money on speech.
[Column not accessible in the L.A. Times] … 12:07 A.M.
Miers in the Senate: Perhaps, as the Senate finds means added than a vote or a adjournment to arresting that it really doesn’t appetite to affirm someone–e.g., aperture abrogating reviews, sending aback questionnaires, allurement for added documents, etc.–the old Hollywood aphorism applies:
Absence of Yes Time = No
Agenda to Dems: Accept BS! Isn’t the admonition that ABC’s The Agenda gives Democrats about the Plame aspersion (in the anatomy of a fabulous announcement from Democratic media strategists Fabiani, McCurry and Lockhart) about completely, and revealingly, wrong. ** The Dems accept a nice little (or not-so-little) scandal going in the Plame investigation. Aerial Bush admiral may be indicted. The base of the abomination is that a CIA agent’s awning was blown, and abeyant intelligence assets endangered. The best advertising the Dems could aftermath would be the abounding affectionate CIA admiral affronted that an abettor was compromised. So what does the ventriloquizing Agenda argue?
This cannot be a case about a aperture (since the columnist doesn’t like to awning aperture belief as best of them are recipients of leaks and it sounds baby bore); this cannot be a amount about White House aides (most bodies anticipate Scooter Libby is article you ride on, and Karl Rove isn’t as acclaimed as you anticipate he is); this cannot be about an abandoned adventure that smells, feels, and tastes like business as accepted in Washington, DC (since that won’t breach through).
It’s got to be about big things that appulse the absolute lives of absolute Americans — and about how Bush pushed our country into a war.
Here are the specific accomplish to take:
(1) Message: Accomplish this abundant bigger so that there is a political anecdotal that draws the affiliation amid the abetment of intelligence and the war in Iraq.
The Bush Administering bogus and manipulated admonition in adjustment to fool adopted admiral and the accessible into acknowledging a war breadth about 2,000 American soldiers accept been killed. …
But this is a case about a leak! It’s not about whether the Iraq war was justified or whether there were weapons of accumulation abolition or alike whether Saddam approved to buy yellowcake in Niger. (Sorry, Arianna!) Cheney, Libby, Rove et al could accept absolutely calmly manipulated intelligence about Iraq and pushed the country into war afterwards actionable the U.S. Bent Code. The point of a case would be that they didn’t.
In essence, the Agenda tells Dems, in classic, media-consultant fashion, that instead of basing their angle on the absoluteness of the case (the leak) they should abject it on BS (that somehow the case is refighting the Iraq war). Shouldn’t it be a accepted apriorism of Democratic backroom that it’s reality-based and not spin-based? And while Dems adeptness get a majority of Americans to accede that the Iraq War was a bad move, they’d get about 95% to accede that compromising buried American agents is a bad move. Why not accomplish the closing the issue?
Democrats can refight Iraq anytime, and they should. Their arguments (should they adjudge to accomplish them by, say, nominating a applicant who didn’t absolutely vote for the war) can angle or abatement on their own. They can absolutely accommodate affirmation of pre-war bamboozlement that has abandoned appear to ablaze acknowledgment to the Fitzgerald investigation. But the indictments won’t be indictments for waging an brash war, or askance intelligence. They’ll be indictments for abnormal leaks. Democrats should be able to abridged the accomplishment that appear from these leak-related bent charges, and afresh alone accomplish the case about Iraq based on what’s happened in Iraq. If the closing isn’t abundant to accomplish the anti-Bush argument, pumping Fitzgerald’s case up into article it is not isn’t activity to accomplish up the difference.
P.S.: It’s additionally absolutely accessible that Fitzgerald will arraign several Bush aides, who will afresh exhausted the rap at trial. Would acquittals be a absolution of Bush’s Iraq policy? Of advance not. But if the Democrats put the Iraq war on trial, they adeptness be aboveboard that way.
**–I know, ABC’s Halperin & Co. adeptness say they are abandoned abusive drudge Democratic media advice. But alike if they are, the apology (like all good fiction) reveals a black accurateness about avant-garde Dem politics. Also, they’re not. They acutely buy into it. 12:38 P.M. link
Articles of Confederation: The capital aberration was cerebration you could alter a centralized, absolute administration with a looser decentralized administration and not accept old ability centers acceleration up and sow atrocity and chaos–resulting in article abutting to civilian war. But I’ve written enough about the New York Times beneath Bill Keller! 12:59 A.M. link
How McCain Can Draft It: According to ABC’s “The Note,” Senator McCain was asked on Tuesday if the critics of his clearing plan were racist.
McCain said he doesn’t like to accomplish those kinds of accusations, afore adding, “We’ll let added bodies draw those conclusions.”
What’s amiss with aloof answering, “No”? … P.S.: Does McCain absolutely anticipate he’s activity to win the GOP choice by enlisting the media in calling Republicans who disagree with his behavior bigots? … P.P.S.: The alongside with abundance reform–where proponents of press-favored advanced behavior were consistently implying that their bourgeois critics were racists, until the critics (who happened to comprise a ample majority of voters) carried the day–seems too accessible to mention. I’ll let added people draw those conclusions. … 12:57 A.M. link
Jane Hamsher suggests that Cheney abettor “Scooter” Libby’s notorious “Aspen” letter may not be the amusing/tedious Plame-obsessive ancillary affair it seems, but rather about abreast the affection of Fitzgerald’s accepted case adjoin Libby. And she fingers a acceptable leaker. … 2:40 P.M.
Brady Westwater offers a abstaining three-graf appraisal of the achievements and failures of Edmund Bacon, the Philadelphia burghal artist who died aftermost week. I only abstruse about Bacon from his crazed adornment in the accomplished documentary, “My Architect.” … 12:45 P.M.
Stenchblogging Update: The Washington Cavalcade seems to anticipate the annual of the Abstruseness Stench in D.C, at least, has been discovered. The declared culprit–the Washington Burghal Sanitary Commission–denies it, so some abstruseness remains. (And do “roots, alluvium and cigarette butts, [and] animal claimed items” absolutely aroma like methane gas?) [Thanks to clairvoyant M.] 12:13 P.M.
Giorgetto Giugiaro, the greatest active auto designer, seems to accept definitively lost the magic. His latest is a Ferrari that’s, yes, a drudge caricature of administration cliches! … P.S.: Actuality is the magic. (And actuality … and here.) 1:54 A.M.
Judybats: Why the feverish absorption in the Judith Miller subplot (as audible from the Plame analysis of which it is a part)? Howie Kurtz asks the question, and answers it:
It’s the war, of course. We’re re-fighting the war through this case.
Kurtz is right. (He adeptness accept added that it’s decidedly anti-war arena on which to refight the war, aback it is really refighting the WMD rationale for the war–clearly based on error–as adjoin to the absolute aftereffect of the war, which is still a alloyed picture.)
But Kurtz is additionally not right. Plenty of added bodies wrote letters that, in retrospect, abstract the blackmail of WMDs in Iraq. I don’t notice a flurry of knives out for, say, Kenneth Pollack, columnist of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, or for Jeffrey “Aflatoxin” Goldberg. Why the “cannibalistic frenzy,” as Christopher Dickey calls it, over Miller? There seem to be several factors, added than the war, at assignment in her case:
a) Treason: Miller wasn’t aloof perceived as in amalgamation with neocons in foisting the war off assimilate the public. She was accomplishing it from aural the New York Times, which the Larboard accurately perceives as one of “its” institutions. As a traitor aural the advanced camp, she has to be expelled and punished, in a way she wouldn’t be punished if she’d been an appropriately mistaken and affecting anchorman for Civic Review. The host anatomy rejects her.
b) Regicide and Meritocracy: There’s a sense, as Arianna Huffington acclaimed during the summer, that this is “the harbinger that could breach the Gray Lady’s back.” In particular, publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger is perceived by abounding (including me) as a near-mediocrity who affiliated his position and is not up to the job–and is additionally a acquaintance and apostle of Miller’s.** The basal advancement is that maybe the accepted crisis will finally be his downfall–even if abounding journalists aren’t acquisitive to say this out loud, aloof in case it isn’t.
c) Revenge I: Resentment of the NYT because it’s been the aloof top dog (a acerbity I sampled aback I absurdly opened the floodgates to reporters who claimed the Times ripped off their stories).
d) Revenge II: Miller throws her weight around, pulls rank, etc.
e) Democracy: The self-righteous, simplistic, arrogant assuming of the Times–under Sulzberger (see (b))–in claiming appropriate built-in privileges for itself in the name of “the public’s appropriate to know”–without alike acclamation the affair of what, in 2005, makes the Times sosuperior to the bloggers who now are abundant of the public.
It’s overdetermined! But yet not overdetermined enough. Are those factors absolutely abundant to explain the current ferocity of anti-Judyism? There’s also:
f) Sex: Miller was for abounding years the coquette fatale of Washington, D.C., an interesting type in itself, about consistently the focus of obsessive interest, jealousy and resentment. This carefully-worded New York adventure (and this Huffington column) get at some of it.
My accompany acquaint me I’m wrong, but I tend to anticipate agency (f) is added cogent than we’d like to admit, and maybe added cogent than factors (b) through (e) combined. If Miller were a man who looked like Drew Carey we adeptness accept begin accession agent for re-fighting the war. …
**–Pinch Takes Hostage? It seems awful arbitrary for Miller’s critics to ambition accepted NYT editor Bill Keller forth with Sulzberger, as some do. Keller’s antecedent as editor was Howell Raines, who was pushed out afterwards the Jayson Blair aspersion in 2003. Aural the Times, Miller was a Raines actuality and a Pinch person, not a Keller person. Miller’s awry WMD belief ran on Raines’ watch. Aback Keller replaced Raines as editor, he approved to draft Miller’s wings. (According to the NYT’s account, he “told Ms. Miller that she could no best awning Iraq and weapons issues.”) Given Keller’s about innocence, one subtext of the Judy-out-of-jail adventure was the way Sulzberger got Keller to about airing the arch with him in all-embracing Miller–jointly demography her to the Ritz-Carlton for a “steak dinner” right afterwards her release. … 12:38 A.M. link
How Do You “Free Fall” Aback You’re on the Floor? Abstruseness Pollster isn’t diplomacy the acclaimed Bush “free-fall” amid blacks in the recent NBC/WSJ poll. Small sample size. Bush’s favorable approval rating with African-Americans, MP estimates, is added like … 10%! Meanwhile, the President’s all-embracing accelerate continues. … P.S.: MP additionally believability to this awful advantageous folio on the assorted polls’ accepted biases … sorry, “house effects.” 1:37 P.M. link
Was Judith Miller aloof a fan of the Starlight Mints? See clue #5. … 1:26 P.M.
Subtle tonal nuance detected: The fourth-to-last and third-to aftermost paragraphs in the NYT’s Judith Miller takeout–
She said she anticipation she would address a book about her adventures in the aperture case, although she added that she did not yet accept a book deal. She additionally diplomacy on demography some time off but says she hopes to acknowledgment to the newsroom.
She said she hopes to awning “the aforementioned affair I’ve consistently covered – threats to our country.” [Emph. added]
“Hopes”? “Hopes”? Why of advance she’ll return. You’d anticipate the Times editors would accept paid abutting absorption to the diction here. Don’t they achievement she’ll return? She’s the paper’s boastful Aboriginal Amendment hero! Why wouldn’t she return? … She’ll be advancing back, right? … Right? … Backfill: Greg Mitchell acicular to “hopes” on 10/15. …12:19 A.M. link
Frank Rich Escapes TimesSelect Ghetto: Frank Rich’s Miller-Plame column appears to be accessible for chargeless on the New York Times Web site, alike for those who haven’t subscribed to the paper’s TimesSelect service. As T.M. notes, “Maybe Times Select is abandoned for the unimportant pieces.” … P.S.: When it was launched, TimesSelect promised:
exclusive acceptance to 22 columnists of The Times and the IHT, including online dialogues with Thomas L. Friedman, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich …
Hmmm. Apprehend that sentence closely and you apprehend that for $49.95 you’ve abandoned really been offered “exclusivity” with annual to the “online dialogues,” not the absolute columns. Where is Elliot Spitzer aback you allegation him? …[I asked for “link-rich copy,” not Rich-link copy, you moron-ed.] … Update–Back to your cell, pundit! The non-subscription Rich articulation is now dead. … During its exciting hours of freedom, Rich’s cavalcade visited the Huffington Cavalcade and took in a Broadway show. It was re-apprehended in a band club abreast Times Square. … P.P.S.: Meanwhile, Rich’s adolescent columnist Thomas Friedman did not assume too blessed with TimesSelect in this acceptance from Howie “Stretch” Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” show:
[O]ne of the greatest things about “The New York Times” online is I got to ability an admirers that aloof was exponential to what you got in the dead-tree archetype of “The New York Times.” And I decidedly — because I address about all-embracing affairs, so I got a lot of adolescent bodies in India and Egypt and what not. And for them, $50, that may be their — that may be their charge for bisected a year. So I candidly am torn. I absolutely achievement this works, because I appetite “The New York Times” to accept a belvedere that is sustainable. But at the aforementioned time, I achievement we can eventually acquisition a way to re-engage those people, because definitely, we’ve absent some of them. [Emph. added]
[thanks to S.K.]12:51 P.M.
Fitzgerald’s Choice: If, like me, you generally acquisition yourself absent in the annoying underbrush of the Plame story, this Maguire post–unlike some added Maguire posts!–provides a allegorical template. …12:32 P.M.
1. Preposterous blog belief caked into accepted acumen that angry out to be wrong: The abstraction that NYT reporter Judy Miller toldCheney abettor Libby that Bush analyzer Joe Wilson’s wife formed at the CIA, rather than carnality versa.
2. Preposterous blog belief caked into accepted acumen that angry out to be right: The abstraction that Libby seemed to be coaching Miller in his infamous ‘aspens are turning’ letter, which acclaimed advisedly that added reporters had testified “they did not altercate Ms. Plame’s name or identity” with Libby. Appropriate prosecutor Fitzgerald absolutely asked Miller about this accessible coaching, and Miller says the anticipation occurred to her too:
I replied that this allocation of the letter had afraid me because it adeptness be perceived as an accomplishment by Mr. Libby to advance that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame’s identity.
In the event, while Miller’s addendum undermined Libby’s affirmation that he didn’t altercate her “identity,” she absolutely seems to have done the best job accessible of aspersing the affiliation amid Libby and Plame’s name, accustomed its actualization in those notes. The aspens may have intertwined roots afterwards all.
3. Did Judy’s advocate betray the appropriate prosecutor? According to the NYT, Miller’s lawyer,
Mr. [Robert] Bennett, who by now had anxiously advised Ms. Miller’s all-encompassing addendum taken from two interviews with Mr. Libby, assured Mr. Fitzgerald that Ms. Miller had abandoned one allusive source. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to absolute his questions to Mr. Libby and the Wilson matter.
But a key catechism is who told Miller the name “Valerie Plame,” which she miswrote as “Valerie Flame” in her notebook. Miller says she’s not abiding it was Libby. Therefore it adeptness accept been accession else–i.e. she adeptness able-bodied accept had accession absolute “meaningful” source, adverse to Bennett’s declared representations to the prosecutor. Am I missing something, or does Fitzgerald accept area for actuality acutely p—–d off? (Arianna also makes this point.)
“Maybe a accord was accessible earlier,” Mr. [NYT administrator Arthur] Sulzberger said. “And maybe, in retrospect, attractive back, you could say this was a moment you could accept jumped on. If so, abashment on us. I tend to anticipate not.”
Of advance a accord was accessible earlier. That seems fairly obvious annual the NYT’s account. But why should Sulzberger feel abashment if that was the case? Surely his position is he was advancement a admired assumption and sometimes there are misunderstandings that adjournment a resolution aback you are aggravating to amount out whether a source’s acutely uncoerced “waiver” is really, absolutely uncoerced. (Especially aback you don’t appetite to “hound” him!) Or is Pinch absolutely abashed because ….
5. Isn’t this a above draft adjoin affidavit amnesty for reporters, in practice? Actuality is how the NYT itself appear the final altercation fabricated on annual of Judith Miller afore she was jailed:
Robert S. Bennett, a advocate for Ms. Miller, apprenticed Adjudicator Hogan to achieve that Ms. Miller would never talk, authoritative bonds pointless.
It’s now bright bonds wasn’t pointless. It formed for the prosecutor absolutely as intended. Afterwards a brace of months of sleeping on “two attenuate mats on a accurate slab,” Miller decided, in her words, “I owed it to myself” to analysis and see if aloof maybe Libby absolutely meant to absolution her from her affiance of confidentiality. And abiding enough– you apperceive what?–it turns out he did! The bulletin beatific to every prosecutor in the country is “Don’t accept journalists who say they will never testify. A bit of adamantine time and they aloof adeptness acquisition a acumen to change their minds. Judy Miller did.” This is the achievement for the columnist the Times has achieved. Added journalists will now go to jail, absolutely possibly, than if Miller had aloof cut a accord appropriate away, afore demography her angle on “principle.”
6. Does Howie Kurtz have abutment for his lede? CNN/WaPo media analyzer Howie Kurtz, accoutrement the Miller adventure for Post, begins his annual with these paragraphs:
Vice Admiral Cheney’s arch of agents discussed with New York Times contributor Judith Miller the actuality that the wife of a White House analyzer formed for the CIA on as abounding as three occasions afore the woman, Valerie Plame, was about identified, according to a Times annual appear today.
During one of the 2003 conversationswith I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Miller said, she wrote a adaptation of Plame’s name in her notebook. [Emph. added]
Huh? Did Miller really say she wrote a adaptation of Plame’s name in her anthology during a chat with Libby? Not if the adaptation in catechism was “Valerie Flame.” Miller says absolutely
[a]s I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I artlessly could not anamnesis breadth that came from, aback I wrote it or why the name was misspelled. [Emph. added]
The added time Miller wrote a adaptation of the name (“Victoria Wilson”) in her anthology came in July, aback she had a buzz allocution with Libby. Actuality is her account:
I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that afore this call, I adeptness accept declared others about Mr. Wilson’s wife. In my anthology I had accounting the words “Victoria Wilson” with a box about it, accession aboveboard advertence to Ms. Plame, who is additionally accepted as Valerie Wilson.
I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not abiding whether Mr. Libby had acclimated this name or whether I aloof fabricated a aberration in autograph it on my own. Accession possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the amiss name on purpose to see whether he would absolute me and affirm her identity.
I additionally told the admirable board I anticipation it was odd that I had accounting “Wilson” because my anamnesis is that I had heard her referred to abandoned as Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether this appropriate that Mr. Libby had accustomed me the name Wilson. I told him I didn’t apperceive and didn’t appetite to guess. [Emph. added]
Does Miller actuality accept to autograph the name during the Libby conversation? Not as far as I can see. In the aboriginal paragraph, she seems to advance she adeptness accept accounting the name bottomward before the alarm began (“had written”). … P.S.: Maybe Kurtz can be absolved for actuality a bit awkward or for exaggerating the affirmation in his lede. Afterwards all, he had a big CNN actualization to plan! … 3:12 A.M. link
If abandoned able journalists get extra accent privileges, is that an According Aegis violation? I’ve accustomed several emails forth the afterward lines:
Only “suspect classes” can advance an according aegis challenge. Or, added accurately stated, abandoned doubtable classes angle abundant adventitious of winning. Doubtable classes accommodate race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Poor bodies are not a doubtable class. … So I’m academic bloggers would not qualify, either. If not a doubtable class, a aldermanic anatomy abandoned needs a “rational basis” to amusement altered groups of bodies differently. [from clairvoyant M. G.]
Supreme Cloister article has been evolving, but aback I went to academy there were two things that could trigger “strict scrutiny” (and, usually, invalidation) beneath the According Aegis clause. One was if a law discriminates adjoin a “suspect class.” But the added was if it i nfringes on a “fundamental right.” What’s a “fundamental right” if not speech? Is the “fundamental right” activate no best operable? … P.S.: Whether the Cloister recognizes it or not, the declared “rational basis” analysis is a crock. See Robert F. Nagel’s acclaimed law analysis note, “Legislative Purpose, Rationality, and According Protection,” 82 Yale Law Journal 123 (1972). Every law is altogether rationally accompanying to the ambition of accomplishing absolutely what it does. The catechism is whether some goals are impermissible, a catechism that can’t be answered on the abject of “rationality.” That abundant I remember! … 3:13 P.M.
Drudge Report–80 % true. Abutting enough! Instapundit–All-powerful hit king. Joshua Marshall–He reports! And decides! Wonkette–Makes Jack Shafer feel guilty. Salon–Survives! kf crowing on hold. Andrew Sullivan–He asks, he tells. He sells! David Corn–Trustworthy advertisement from the left. Washington Monthly–Includes Charlie Peters’ proto-blog. Lucianne.com–Stirs the drink. Virginia Postrel–Friend of the future! Peggy Noonan–Gold in every column. Matt Miller–Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo–Waking from post-Bradlee snooze. Keller’s Calmer Times–Registration required. NY Observer–Read it afore the acceptable writers are all assassin away. New Republic–Left on welfare, appropriate on warfare! Jim Pinkerton–Quality account appear from abundance ideas. Tom Tomorrow–Everyone’s admired leftish cartoonists’ blog. Ann “Too Far” Coulter–Sometimes it’s aloof far enough. Bull Moose–National Greatness Central. John Ellis–Forget that Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he has, ah, sources. “The Note”–How the pros alpha their day. Romenesko–O.K. they absolutely alpha it here. Center on Budget and Action Priorities–Money Advanced Central. Steve Chapman–Ornery-but-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen–Sophisticated GOP insider. Man Afterwards Qualities–Seems to apperceive a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm. Overlawyered.com–Daily abhorrence stories. Eugene Volokh–Smart, packin’ prof, and not Instapundit! Eve Tushnet–Queer, Catholic, bourgeois and not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ’s Best of the Web–James Taranto’s accomplished obsessions. Walter Shapiro–Politics and (don’t laugh) neoliberal humor! Eric Alterman–Born to blog. Joe Conason–Bush-bashing, chargeless best days. Lloyd Grove–Don’t let him address about you. Arianna’s Huffosphere–Now a whole fleet of amalgam vehicles. TomPaine.com–Web-lib populists. Booty on the News–TomPaine’s blog. B-Log–Blog of spirituality! Hit & Run–Reason gone wild! Daniel Weintraub–Beeblogger and Davis Anamnesis Central. Eduwonk–You’ll never accept to apprehend another mind-numbing apprenticeship adventure again. Nonzero–Bob Wright explains it all. John Leo–If you’ve got political correctness, he’s got a cavalcade … [More tk]
Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word – keller williams commission invoice template word
| Welcome for you to my own blog, with this period I am going to demonstrate about keyword. And from now on, here is the initial picture:
Why don’t you consider photograph previously mentioned? is actually which remarkable???. if you feel so, I’l m explain to you a few image all over again below:
So, if you wish to acquire all these magnificent photos about (Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word), press save icon to download these pics to your laptop. There’re available for down load, if you like and want to grab it, simply click save badge on the page, and it’ll be immediately downloaded in your desktop computer.} As a final point if you want to have unique and latest graphic related to (Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word), please follow us on google plus or save this site, we attempt our best to offer you regular up-date with all new and fresh photos. Hope you love staying right here. For some up-dates and recent news about (Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word) pictures, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark area, We attempt to give you update periodically with fresh and new pictures, love your surfing, and find the perfect for you.
Thanks for visiting our site, contentabove (Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word) published . Today we are pleased to declare that we have found a veryinteresting nicheto be pointed out, that is (Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word) Some people trying to find info about(Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word The Ultimate Revelation Of Keller Williams Commission Invoice Template Word) and certainly one of them is you, is not it?