Why I spent the weekend screaming

Really, you wouldn't want to be my neighbour.

The coverage of the leak investigation is starting to acquire a distinctly Rovian stench about it. Even though the White House is itself stunningly silent, the other root of all Bushit is on the case. The Sunday talk shows were full of the pro-administration talking points, with the NeoCon Numero Uno Bill Kristol leading the charge.

Kristol: The leak story is absurd, but I now think the whole prosecution is absurd. - I now think it's a politically motivated attempt to wound the Bush administration. - He is now out to discredit the Bush administration.

Kristol was backed up by a weird juxtaposition of editorial versus news reportage in the Washington Post.

The editorial page, a co-producer and then staunch defender of the war in Iraq, declared in a headline on Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) info “Scooter” Libby gave to reporters in 2003 was in reality “A Good Leak.” The White House was not out to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson for raising doubts about pre-war intelligence; in fact, Wilson is the bad guy in this story for making false claims. Bush, in a sense, is the hero, for instantly declassifying the key NIE document - he was only out to inform the public. Now the poor guy, the Post complains, is the target of “hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy” from the Democrats.

<SNIP>

On page one on Sunday, Post reporters Bart Gellman and Dafna Linzer observed that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald this week in his latest court filing had for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" using classified information to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson. “Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign,” they write.

Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

Then, getting right to the point, the two reporters debunk their own paper's “public service” defense by observing “that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." Libby, allegedly at Cheney’s direction, "sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation.” In other words: Far from serving our citizens, the White House was misleading and manipulating them.

The inimitable Firedoglake excoriates Fred Hiatt, the editor who presumably wrote "A Good Leak." The really good parts I can't print here. If you're over 18, I suggest you click on the link and read it. But here's a postable clip, and media-related at that.

George Bush abused his power to authorize leaks to mislead the press for political gain. 

The leakers in the NSA warrantless wiretap scandal are true whistleblowers, people who risked much to inform the public about the Administration’s illegal activities. 

Fred Hiatt takes out a big-ass knife and plants it in the back of his fellow journalists by applauding the witch hunt being carried out by the Bush Administration.

(Media Matters has a less amusing but equally thorough evisceration here.)

CNN's media critic Howard Kurtz devoted only a few minutes of his hour-long Reliable Sources to the subject yesterday, allowing power mouth-with-no-brain Scott Johnson to slag Ambassador Joseph Wilson all over again.

Powerline's Scott Johnson took a trip to Crazy Land today when he spouted the lie, drawn from now disproven Republican talking points, that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied about his trip to Niger, among other things. Scott Johnson (no relation thank God) lives with the delusion that if you say the earth is flat then it must be so. Too bad for Scotty that there are historical records and transcripts. A look at source documents makes clear that when it comes down to Joe Wilson versus Scott Johnson, the liar is Scotty.

Of course, the progressive blogs are all over this, calling for Bush's head. But all for nothing. This threatens to die on the too-complicated-to-tell-on-TV vine.

Blow jobs? They're easy for late night comedy show hosts to joke about.

Too bad Bush didn't authorize actually leaking ON the reporters. That might have shocked the American nation out its stupour.

Leak House

If your brain seizes up when you try to go around this leaking mess that started in the Oval Office, here are two must-reads complete with funny video of U.S. President George W. Bush playing dumb - snark! -- on the potential leakers in his midst.

First up, the American Progress Action Fund's ''Talking Points,'' which act as a primer with lots of fun links. It's a good place to start if you want to impress all your friends around the lefty dinner table tomorrow night, or smack down redneck Uncle Al at Sunday supper.

Then check out William Rivers Pitt's The Leaker-in-Chief where you'll find the video of Bush vowing to hunt down the leakers in his midst.

So there it is. We have Bush authorizing the disclosure of classified information, and we have that disclosure taking place for no other reason than to discredit an administration critic. Bush is often fond of defending his wildly inappropriate and often illegal activities by claiming that he has every right to do whatever he wants because America is "at war."

    Never mind that no war has actually been declared. If we take his premise that we are in fact at war, than the disclosure of classified information for political gain must be defined simply and directly.

    It is treason.

Yesterday, I watched Fox News gloss over this story several times. Sure it's a tough story to tell -- but does the channel believe its viewers are that stupid? Judging from Brit Hume's words, yes.

(O)n the April 6 edition of Fox News' DaySide, Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume said: "[B]oth he [Vice President Dick Cheney] and the president have the legal authority under an executive order signed by the president to make public classified information. So that takes the unauthorized out of it."

Gong! Wrong!

Not that other media got it right -- although it seems like newspapers covered it more accurately than did TV. Meanwhile, White House flackey Scott McClellan had this predictably fun exchange with the press corps:

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

<SNIP>

Q Can I just go back to this original statement that the President said about, "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information" -- leaving the impression he doesn't like any leaks. Can you give us an idea how the President feels about leaking information, since if this information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we have to draw distinctions here, and what specifically you're referring to. I mean, if people are going out there talking about a potential policy decision-making process that is still in development and that the President hasn't come to a decision on, then that's not helpful information, and of course we'd look down on something like that.

Q But otherwise, if it's helpful to you and it's declassified, leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if it's in the public interest.

Q Leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that.

You know, that guy can do such interesting acrobatics with his tongue, I am beginning to envy the woman in his life. I mean, this guy is HOTTTTT!

Plaming Liars

Well, well. What have we here?

The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.

The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.

You have to wonder which, if any, journalists were protecting Cheney as a source in this, and how much they have to answer for.

Legal Brief

This punkalawyer blogger is threatening an Ottawa-based blogger named Mark Bourrie with a libel suit over a post that has something to do with the former's supposed role in the Adscam thingie.

I would have linked to Bourrie's blog. But, today, he posted the notice of libel which contains the contentious paragraph. If I link to it, it could mean that I would be guilty of republishing the libel which is just as bad as making the original libel. I would rather avoid the grief.

Bourrie refuses to back down.

I am not familiar with the precedents, if any, on blogolibel lawsuits so I am going to keep an eye on this one.

UPPITY DATE: Tod Maffin has a great take here.

My prediction: Kinsella will back down when he realizes his case is unwinnable. In which case, Mark the blogger deserves an apology.

Dude. Seriously. You’re a lawyer. Relax. Drive your BMW around a couple of blocks.

TOMORROW NITE DATE: Uh, Warren, does this mean you're not giving me a lift to tomorrow night's blogstravanganza anymore?

In blogs we trust

For those of you who can mentally grapple with ITscam, Hack on Crack has been doing some speculation on that spike in the Medisys trades.

The Medisys trust sent out a release on Monday, Nov. 21, at 2:18 PM EST — see below — in which it announced that it was increasing, by 0.0075¢, its distribution per unit, to 0.7875¢ from 0.7800¢. (I know there was an increase because I checked past Medisys financial statements, available on sedar.com)

But more importantly, it said the same distribution was available to holders of the Medisys Holdings Limited Partnership, a different structure altogether, if they exchanged their LP units into trust units.

I can do further research, but my guess is the LP units are held by Medisys insiders. Hence, on Nov. 22, the day after the Nov. 21 release, they likely exchanged their LP units for trust units, in order to get the increased distribution.

Therefore, I think the trading in Medisys had little to do with an alleged leak from Finance and more to do with this announcement, in which LP units were converted into trust units. That also explains why the huge increase on Nov. 22 and then a dropback on Nov. 23.

Hack also points to this ''must-read'' column by the National Post's Terence Corcoran on why the allegations of insider trading in the income trust policy affair must be investigated.

The OSC should use its broad "public interest" powers sparingly and only under circumstances that can be clearly defined. Events surrounding the income trust trades of Nov. 23 -- trades worth hundreds of millions in the wake of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence of a leak or tip -- provide as clear a justification as the OSC is ever likely to get.

Pass the beer and the pocorn, this one is still not going away.

Kernels of truth

So much for income trust dividend tax cuts leak shock and awe in BlogoCanada, at least for now. There's still no there there, at least not enough for media to report, and it's too darn complicated for most. Asked about it during a news conference today -- I only caught the tail end of his answer -- Conservative leader Stephen Harper had nothing of substance to add to what is already known.

And so the pajama-clad hordes have moved on to two-fours and snack food, the much-blogged about ''gaffe'' made yesterday by Liberal Party communications director Scott Reid on CBC News: Sunday.

"(Children) need care that is regulated, safe and secure and that's what we're building here. Don't give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work." (AZ sez: Note that it's a week, not a day. Which ain't a lot of beer but whatever.)

Listen to the entire panel discussion and you may feel that Reid was taken at least a little teeny tiny bit out of context. Of course, that doesn't excuse the remark, or the sentiment behind it. Nor does it bail the Libs from finally delivering on their endless child care plans.

Not suprisingly the Conservatives grabbed it and shot it into the political net. An easy score.

But is it really the big deal so many are making it out to be, both in the mainstream and in the conservative blogosphere? Consider this and this and this and this and let's not forget this.

A chimp could have predicated the reaction from the Liberals.  Scott Reid “apologized” (liberal-left style—with a big huge chip on his shoulders and full of “buts” and obfuscations).

Paul ("I dint know nuttin") Martin said that Reid dint mean nuttin by what he said.  Other Liberal hack, John Duffy, who later yesterday gleefully endorsed Reid’s comments—has not bothered to apologize.

And apologies are only nominally useful here.  The critical lesson we’ve learned here, as a nation, is that under even a little pressure, a tiny part of the Fabian socialist liberal hidden agenda is exposed.  Yesterday it was confirmed that they don’t trust Canadians with their own money, and think that only government—liberal elites and socialists—can control your life and that of your family.  Your money, your health, your very children and family, their education, social structure, culture, what we watch on TV and hear on the radio, these things and much much more are best left in the hands of liberal governments and people like the arrogant ass Scott Reid, because Canadians are too stupid and untrustworthy. 

There's even a petition.

As parents, we resent being insulted so your party can score some cheap political points. We are asking you, Mr. Prime Minister:
Do you agree with your aides and believe that parents would choose beer over their kids?

If not, why would you allow your aides to go on national television and insult millions of parents?

One day wonder. Two day tops. Not because the media are ''liberal'' but because this was a gift on a slow news day and, in the grand scheme of things, a few ill-chosen words on a political panel made by a backroom boy, not a politician.

What's more, I'll bet there are a lot of so-called family-oriented folks out there who secretly believe that ''those welfare mothers'' really will blow the cash on booze. As Warren Kinsella points out, these were also the folks who liked Mike Harris.

Another brilliant move by Mike Harris, is taking away an allowance for pregnant mothers on welfare. The small monthly payment (I think it was $26), was intended to make sure that expectant mothers got the extra nutrition they needed. Mike Harris took this allowance away, his reason, "We want to make sure they're not spending it on beer". So, to make sure they're not spending it on beer, they just remove it, condemming a portion of these unborn children to the problems of pre-natal undernourishment, such as metal disabilities, and various physical ailments. $26 dollars a month for 9 months is a good investment, when you consider the consequences of even a small portion of these welfare children being born unhealthy, or worse, inable to function in society.

I'm not defending Reid here. I'm just saying.

UPPITY DATE: Why are so many media organizations running the Reid quote corrected to say ''a week'' in stead of his incorrect ''a day?''