/* trackback code -- i added this */

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Doleful Argument

In today's NYT, Bob Dole writes a doozy of a column.

First, the good part: Dole argues that the press should have a Federal shield. I'm on board with that one. But I am highly puzzled by this paragraph:
Congress can help rectify this situation by passing a bill introduced by Senator Richard G. Lugar and Representative Mike Pence, both Indiana Republicans, that sets clear standards the federal government must meet before it issues a subpoena to a reporter in a criminal or civil case. For example, in a criminal investigation, a reporter would be required to turn over confidential information only if a court determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed, that the requested information is essential to the investigation and that it could not be obtained from nonmedia sources. This is hardly a free pass for journalists; importantly, the bill specifically authorizes the forced disclosure of a source's identity if doing so is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security. [Emphasis added.]
Dole must be unaware of many of the basic facts of the Fitzgerald investigation. First, as Mark Kleiman has noted, Judge Hogan (the one handling Miller's contempt citation) said that Miller's is "a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime"; so I guess "a court determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed"; for more, see this post by Lawrence O'Donnell. Second, I'm pretty sure that Fitzgerald has argued in his court filings that there is no other way to get the information he seeks from Miller; assuming that information was transmitted between Miller and a single source (or recipient) facing legal jeopardy himself, I'm not sure how Fitzgerald could possibly get the information "from nonmedia sources". My point isn't to argue that Dole is wrong to support a Federal shield law (or, necessarily, to support Pence-Lugar). Rather, it's that the conditions of this law -- as Dole lays them out -- would be met here. So what's Dole's point?

Dole also writes that
I am also greatly concerned about Judith Miller's situation because she has been incarcerated as a result of an investigation into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, of which I was a sponsor. The law was intended to protect covert intelligence operatives whose lives would be endangered if their identities were publicly disclosed. We were particularly concerned about people like the notorious Philip Agee, a former C.I.A. officer who systematically exposed the agency's covert operatives.

Thus the act was drafted in very narrow terms: our goal was to criminalize only those disclosures that clearly represented a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair America's foreign intelligence activities.
Where to begin?

Having listened to legions of conservative assaults on the judiciary, I thought that the text of the IIPA is what matters. Dole's reference to perniciousness appears nowhere in the text, so this statement is basically a nonsequitur. In any case, isn't the intentional disclosure of a WMD agent's identity to discredit or seek revenge against political opponents pernicious enough for Bob Dole?

Dole continues:
With the facts known publicly today regarding the Plame case, it is difficult to see how a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have occurred. For example, one of the requirements is that the federal government must be taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the agent's intelligence relationship with the United States. Yet we now know that Ms. Wilson held a desk job at C.I.A. headquarters and could be seen traveling to and from work. The [despicable] journalist Robert D. Novak, whose July 14, 2003, column mentioned Ms. Wilson, using her maiden name, and set off the investigation, has written that C.I.A. officials confirmed to him over the telephone that she was an employee before he wrote his column.
Gee, I thought that CIA official Bill Harlow specifically asked Novak not to publish his story; the fact that Harlow didn't tell Novak that the reason was Plame/Wilson's undercover status seems to be because Harlow himself would have violated the IIPA if he had done so. Lastly, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument as to the relevance of Plame/Wilson's "desk job" status at the time Novak published his column. Dole may have helped write the IIPA, but he seems to have forgotten that 50 USC 426 says
(4) The term "covert agent" means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
For a few naive years after the 1996 election, I allowed myself to be lulled into thinking that Bob Dole wasn't such a bad guy. I realized the error of my ways when I watched Dole join the swift boat slander campaign. Read this column by former Nixon aide Noel Koch if you have any doubt regarding Dole's motives or essential indecency.

Update: ThinkProgress comments on Dole's column as well.

Update 2: Don't know how I forgot this, but I meant to point out that the IIPA is hardly the only, or even apparently the most likely, law posing jeopardy to the 21 Bush WH/inner circle members so far tied to the RWLDGate. Mark Kleiman has been pushing the Espionage Act angle for years; click here for a recent post.

15 Comments:

Blogger PGL said...

As I noted over at Angrybear - the very 1st sentence of Dole's oped gives away his real motive, which was to attack Fitzgerald's prosecution. Dole will cover for Bush regardless.

8/17/2005 11:44 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

Although I agree that in general Dole is just a hack -- I'm surprised he hasn't tried to label Iraq as another one of the "Democrat wars" -- but I think he has a point on the pernicious business. (In the interest of full disclosure, I will also admit to a brief flirtation with Dole in the mid-90s -- at least he seemed to care about actually balancing the budget, and as I recall had little patience for Gingrich and voodoo economics, plus a pretty good sense of humor).

I also have to admit to not reading the whole Dole piece, but if I understand this one point it's that there should be some discretion BY PROESCUTORS in deciding which cases to pursue. It's hard, I think, to write a law that says "hey, this is illegal, but it's OK to look the other way sometimes"; instead, it's the usually limited resources of prosecutors offices and the legal system as a whole that leads to triage. That's one problem historically with these special prosecutors, of course -- no budget constraint so no sense of proportion.

I think you have to admit that the underlying "crime" -- outing Valerie Plame -- was pretty trivial from a national security standpoint. As a political matter, sure, hang Rove from the highest yard-arm and call the Repubs on their hypocrisy regarding other trivial violations. Maybe they put Plame herself (or some sources of hers) in danger. But don't imply the safety of the nation was harmed one whit by Plame's outing. And be careful too about prasing independent prosecutors only when you agree with them -- not that you're doing so in this post but something to consider (although some joy in Repub's comeuppance here is certainly in order).

8/19/2005 11:58 AM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

at least he seemed to care about actually balancing the budget, and as I recall had little patience for Gingrich and voodoo economics,

was it his 1996 platform's support for a permanent, across-the-board tax cut that convinced you of this impatience?

I think he has a point on the pernicious business.

interestingly, the law he says he helped write doesn't actually say anything about perniciousness. i'd be more sympathetic if it did.

I think you have to admit that the underlying "crime" -- outing Valerie Plame -- was pretty trivial from a national security standpoint.

why do i "have to admit" that? because of the fact that the prosecutor himself and every judge who has written an opinion about the issues has suggested that the damage to natl security was real and non-trivial? i'll be the first to admit that sometimes authority figures get these things exactly backward, but i don't think i would take "conclusion X" as evidence of "conclusion not-X" here. i am speaking tongue-in-cheek, of course. you and i don't know what the harm was, b/c no one is talking about it publicly. but i've posted more than once and linked repeatedly to mark kleiman and lawrence o'donnell's posts about this issue. nothing personal, but on this one i think you need to pay less attention to ken mehlman and more attention to those people who actually have some information regarding the harm done.

i just don't think you have one whit of basis for this imperative:

But don't imply the safety of the nation was harmed one whit by Plame's outing.

as for this:

be careful too about prasing independent prosecutors only when you agree with them -- not that you're doing so in this post but something to consider (although some joy in Repub's comeuppance here is certainly in order).

of course i agree with your basic point. i've always thought that on issues like this people are wrong to say "all special prosecutors are bad/good". the one looking into cisneros, for example, has gone from potentially reasonable, to tragic, to farce, to just a plain waste of time and money. ken starr was obviously a posterboy for what could go practically wrong with the mechanics of the IC law (never mind the very real constitutional defects that scalia wisely pointed out, even when guys like me wouldn't listen).

but i see no alternative in this case: evone in the upper ranks of doj was dirty as sin with love for rove et al -- how could you avoid it, esp after rove apparently lied to/obstructed investigators?

8/19/2005 12:17 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

nothing personal, but on this one i think you need to pay less attention to ken mehlman

Nothing personal? I'd hate to see what a personal attack looks like, then. But I do promise to stop taking Ken Mehlman's calls, and I'll take that mind controller thingy off my back too -- the WH probably needs it back.

And of course people are never convicted of crimes that are in the grand scheme of things trivial but are technically illegal (marijuana posession, the drug war, etc.). And people never bend over backwards to say the national security is threatened just to avoid looking like a wimp or a terrorist sympathizer. Wouldn't those also be Republican appointed judges and prosecutors that you would prefer not hold office?

I was going to stop by and note that Dole had also made a logical error in (a) arguing that the law was not meant for technicalities and (b) saying let me show you how this was not technically a violation of said law. But I wouldn't want Dole to take that personally.

8/19/2005 2:32 PM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

Nothing personal? I'd hate to see what a personal attack looks like, then. But I do promise to stop taking Ken Mehlman's calls, and I'll take that mind controller thingy off my back too -- the WH probably needs it back.

ok, i deserved that one s4. but you know i love you, man....

And of course people are never convicted of crimes that are in the grand scheme of things trivial but are technically illegal (marijuana posession, the drug war, etc.).

point taken....but also a total non-sequitur given the point i made. the fact is that the judges at issue have all suggested that the crime is NOT trivial -- esp tatel, who very much wanted not to jail miller but concluded that the magnitude of this particular crime outweighed the federal shield right that (only) he found to apply to journalists. so i think you just have the facts wrong on this one.

And people never bend over backwards to say the national security is threatened just to avoid looking like a wimp or a terrorist sympathizer.

of course they do (see "Iraq, 2002 Congressional Resolution Allowing Use of Force Against"). but in the context of your argument, this is no dift from saying "we were attacked on 9/11" followed by "saddam hussein would like to hurt america". both are true, many people were/are fooled into thinking the second is thus related to the first, and those people are wrong, b/c the argument is specious.

Wouldn't those also be Republican appointed judges and prosecutors that you would prefer not hold office?

well, tatel was a clinton appointee. i'm pretty sure the other 2 circuit guys were gop nominees, tho i don't remember who they are nor whether they ought to have been defeated. i don't know who appointed trial judge hogan, nor do i know fitzgerald's party affiliation. you might be surprised to hear this, but i do not oppose confirmation of judges or prosecutors just b/c they are republicans. i oppose them when/bc they are extremists or partisan hacks.

8/19/2005 2:56 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

Ok, guess I'm not ready to snatch the pebbles from your hand just yet. And now that I'm back on my medication, I also admit (rather belatedly) that saying you "have to" concede a certain point was too far. It's not like I caught you in some logical inconsistency.

As for Plame, I'll wait to see how it plays out. I still think that on the merits there's a lot of over-reacting going on. But when Karl Rove is the witch, I'm not gonna stand in the way of a good witch hunt.

So all I'll say to you, now, j-man is [Alli G voice]: Respek!

8/19/2005 3:32 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

Well, a day later and I'm still not sure why I chose to take on Jonah on this topic; it's like challenging somebody on the subject of their doctoral dissertation.

Having said that, I'm still not seeing how some of my arguments were "specious." How do we know Tatel is immune from the general pressure to throw the book at people post-9/11 when "national security" is raised? Just because he seemed to be agonizing about it?

Of course, the Bushies play this card all the time, so there's no reason they shouldn't be hoisted on their own petard. But it's not specious reasoning to say general phenomenon A often happens and that specific case B seems to be an example of general phenomenon A (unless you have a Pensieve through which to examine Tatel's innermost thoughts).

8/20/2005 4:37 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

ETA: I mean, it's not like I said all men are Socrates. I may be wrong on the facts without being illogical.

8/20/2005 4:39 PM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

it's like challenging somebody on the subject of their doctoral dissertation.

LOL

How do we know Tatel is immune from the general pressure to throw the book at people post-9/11 when "national security" is raised? Just because he seemed to be agonizing about it?

the speciousness is that you simply assume that that is what is going on here, despite the fact that the only public evidence suggests the contrary.

that is, your argument is basically

1. sometimes people do X because of not-Y.

2. person A did X.

3. therefore A did X because of not-Y.

my point is that

1. sometimes people do X because of Y.

2. person A did X, explaining that the reason was Y.

3. while person A does not provide his basis for concluding Y---on the grounds that to do so would cause more Y---there is no publicly available basis for concluding that in fact not-Y is true.

4. therefore the most reasonable belief -- particularly since person A and others like him who have evidently concluded the same thing have no known reason to behave dishonestly -- for us to have is that person A did indeed do X because of Y rather than because of not-Y.

if you want to find and discuss some evidence that not-Y is indeed the case (which is to say, that the harm done by Novak and the Bush White House's apparent conspirators was trivial), i'd be happy to listen.

but so far the only evidence actually contradicts your claim, which you explained away by questioning motives -- again with no basis.

that's what i meant.

maybe "specious" is the wrong name to put on my critique (i never took a class on formal logic), but actually i think "conclude not-Y because/in spite of fact that evidence points to Y" may be worse than "all S are M, therefore all M are S".

8/20/2005 4:52 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

Perhaps this is a semantic issue and I don't recall taking a logic course either so it may not be worth debating much more; we have gotten rather far afield of the initial debate. But I still think you are taking a disagreement over the facts (wheher the underlying crime is serious) and turning it into a dispute about whether my argument is logical. From your point of view, the prosecutor and particularly the judge wouldn't have done what they've done if the crime weren't serious. From my point of view, there are plausible reasons why those actors may have done what they've done even if the underlying crime was not that serious in terms of its impact on national security.

Maybe there's an argument that, even if this case isn't so egregious, they can't let it go because of the precedent it sets (see Melville's Billy Budd -- the novel or the movie -- on this point.) But as I understand it -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you support the view that in isolation Valerie Plame's outing did meaningful harm to our country's efforts to protect itself against WMD.

I disagree. You may reject my argument. But that doesn't mean my argument is "specious." According to my dictioonary, specious "applies to that which is superficially reasonable, valid, etc. but is actually not so, and it connotes an intention to deceive (emphasis added)> Thus, in my view the use of that term should be reserved for dullards, hucksters, and other Fox News commentators. "You're wrong" or "Wow, that's a stretch" or "My argument is more plausible" would be a better way to put it, IMHO. But if you stipulte that the factors I identified are sometimes valid -- prosecutors get overzealous, and judges can sometimes be very deferential to the exec branch on flimsy national security arguments -- then it's at least possible that those factors played a role here.

What is more -- and I admit I haven't been following this as closely as you -- it seems to me the ONLY evidence anybody has that the underlying crime is serious is the actions of the prosecutor and judge(s). You are assuming that the judge would not have convicted (or I guess the only action so far is to hold the reporters in contempt) -- taken action X in your schema -- if the underlying crime were not serious. In other words, you have concluded that the crime is serious -- that Y is true -- because X implies Y.

My argument (and I'm not 100% sure it's right but I think it's also quite plausible) is that the judge took action X even though not-Y is true (i.e., the crime is not serious) because of consideration Z, which is that (particulary today) folks who don't look tough about national security risk looking like pussies (Z).

Again, I'm not seeing all this evidence that Y is true. So it seems to me you have just as much of an obligation to spell out that evidence as I have to come up with contrary evidence. If it's the case that ALL OF the evidence is sealed and can't be discussed, then we should probably retire to our respective corners and call it a draw.

I also have to say that I think there is a tendency on the eft -- and I'm not saying you are subject to it -- to WANT to believe the charge against Rove is serious because he's such an asshole, or because the Repubs came after Clinton and other Dems on such minor points. But let's keep things in proportion -- I mean, it's not like Valerie Plame gave anybody a blow job or anything (well, other than her husband I suppose). So how serious can it be? (Can you see the tongue in my cheek from there?)

I don't want to leave things on a sour note, so to the extent we still disagree, I say -- to use the phrase from my new favorite show, Entourage -- let's hug it out, bitch.

8/21/2005 2:09 AM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

s4: let me start by saying that i do not think, nor did i ever think, you "inten[ded] to deceive." so i stand corrected as far as that connotation of "specious" goes.

but your argument still makes little sense to me in logical terms. i keep pointing out that the judges involved say they have considered the evidence and that it suggests a serious crime has been committed. this is the only evidence we have. it may be -- as i keep trying to concede to you -- that all 4 judges as well as fitz are lying/wrong/confused on this point.

but, aside from your very general point that sometimes people exaggerate these things, you have offered no particular reason to believe that is the case here.

as hume might have said, it is possible that next time i hit the cue ball with the cue stick, the cue ball will turn into a frog. but based on experience, it probably won't, and in the absence of some reason to believe it will, i am not going to buy a claim that it will.

in that spirit:

it seems to me you have just as much of an obligation to spell out that evidence as I have to come up with contrary evidence.

i already have spelled out my evidence: i am taking the word of judges who have no particular reason to say otherwise, other than your supported-only-by-a-null-information-set hypothesis. i would never think someone should be convicted on such a basis, but i am not on the not-even-empaneled-yet because-there-are-no-charges-filed-yet jury; rather, i'm a spectator.

i don't really understand why you are so resistant to the proposition that the burden of showing that something is false is greater when there is evidence that it is true than when there is not. you may wish to disregard that evidence, but you need a reason to convince me your choice to do so is not gratuitous.

I also have to say that I think there is a tendency on the eft -- and I'm not saying you are subject to it -- to WANT to believe the charge against Rove is serious because he's such an asshole, or because the Repubs came after Clinton and other Dems on such minor points.

i don't disagree with the overall point you're making. but the fact that some people are looking for a reason to go after rove does not mean that this isn't a good reason.

i didn't make this point before, but i actually think that the precedent that high political officials can go after civil servants -- of any kind -- for revenge or to discredit political opponents is uniformly bad, quite apart from the seriousness of the intel compromising caused by the outing of plame/wilson. from that perspective, what rove & co did is a serious offense per se. the natl security implications are an additional issue. (i'm not saying that was the position of the judges in this case; just mine.)

lastly, you know i love you s4---no need to worry about sour notes.....

8/21/2005 12:46 PM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

OK, on the “specious” thing I appreciate your clarification -- I didn’t think that’s what you meant but was still taken aback somewhat when you said it. To me, calling an argument specious still implies you’d have to be pretty gullible to fall for it, so if it were me I’d reserve that term for the Bush Admin (they’ve practically cornered the market). But I am feeling the love – and again, to the extent I started this by saying “you’ve gotta admit” I regret that a turn of phrase was taken as an assertion of infallibility.

As for the rest . . . well, I can’t believe I’m doing this again, but if you would stop presenting your side of the argument as having a sun-rises-in-the-east certainty, I’d feel less compelled to respond. I mean, I hardly see how that cue-ball analogy works, unless you’re prepared to demonstrate that every conviction in human history has involved an objectively serious crime. (Maybe you were just using that as an extreme example to prove the point that one should generally accept the most straightforward explanation, and if so, I apologize in advance for over-reacting.)

But if your argument that X always means Y is true, then there’s a substantial share of the prison population I’d like to introduce to you that’s doing time for minor drug-related offenses. I’m not saying they are a bunch of angels that should be released, or that they weren’t guilty of other crimes and merely convicted of the ones for which they were caught – and I’m not on the “Free Mumia” bandwagon or anything. But to me that’s what the Rove case resembles. Or to use what I think is a better analogy, the whole Rove/Plame thing seems to me to be the equivalent of nailing Capone for tax evasion. Sure he did it, yes it’s symptomatic of larger badness (albeit of the non-criminal type in Rove’s case) but by itself it was not a big deal. (And don’t accuse me of reasoning by analogy either; my argument is NOT the following: “Capone got caught on a technicality” and “Rove is like Capone” ergo “Rove got caught on a technicality.”)

Given the nature of the case it would also be hard for me to amass evidence for my side, and I’m not trying to say “well you can’t disprove it so it MUT be right” since obviously it would be hard to utterly refute my claims (until we see what the case for national security harm is, which may never happen). Dismissing them, however, requires a lower burden of proof. While I am – drumroll, please – prepared to concede that your side of the argument may be the more compelling case or at least the more straightforward explanation, that doesn’t mean I have to accept it. I suspect that if I simply perused this blog I’d find cases where you are advancing an argument that seems to me like a stretch give the facts – that you, to borrow the phrase, are saying that the frog will appear the next time.

There are, however, two points I can try to bring to bear are as follows:

1) The John Walker Lind case, or “American Taliban” as he was called. I read a very nice piece in The New Yorker (not that I believe every Sy Hersh conspiracy theory I read there) that I thought made a strong case that Walker basically did NOTHING. Nonetheless, I believe he will be eligible for parole in about 20 years (though I can’t recall if he was convicted or pled guilty to a “lesser” offense).

2) I just find it hard to believe that mid-evil CIA agent Valerie Plame is so personally vital to the WMD team that her outing made a meaningful difference. It’s not like she’s fucking James Bond about to discover Goldfinger’s plan to blow up Fort Knox (Operation Grand Slam, of course). Equally likely, she was off interviewing Curveball II and getting misled about some other country’s WMD program. Given all the bang-up info and analysis on WMD coming out of the CIA, I’d even go so far as to say – paraphrasing John Bolton – that you could lose a couple of stories over at Langley and it wouldn’t matter. So for me, the burden of proof is on those who would say that her outing did real damage. You would say – not without reason – that that’s the evidence the judge weighed and he came down on your side. Fair enough.

Again, please don’t construe my argument as “sometimes X happens despite the fact that not-Y is true, ergo it is certain that in this case X implies not-Y” – that would indeed be an argument of the all-men-are-Socrates variety. All I’m really saying is that X doesn’t imply Y with 100% certainty either, a general point which strikes me as inarguable even if IN THIS CASE X has happened and Y is also true. Above I bring up arguments that X sometimes happens when not-Y is true simply to make my argument plausible, not to try to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Likewise, I think you are arguing that X usually implies Y to strengthen your case, and perhaps it does, but it does not make your argument irrefutable. Only time, and more information, will tell.

OK, that’s enough – we’ve wasted more than enough electrons on this – and now it’s time for Entourage! LHIOB!

8/21/2005 10:15 PM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

s4: before i read the rest of your reply, regarding this:

(Maybe you were just using that as an extreme example to prove the point that one should generally accept the most straightforward explanation, and if so, I apologize in advance for over-reacting.)

yes. that is definitely what i was doing.

8/22/2005 10:05 AM  
Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

continuing my piecemeal answer....



2) I just find it hard to believe that mid-evil CIA agent Valerie Plame is so personally vital to the WMD team that her outing made a meaningful difference.


well, i wouldn't insist that that's the case, because i don't know that it is. but i also don't
find it as hard as you seem to believe that she was vital -- or at least perceived by the cia to be so -- since she was obviously involved in some way in what at the time was likely a fairly big-deal issue.

It’s not like she’s fucking James Bond about to discover Goldfinger’s plan to blow up Fort Knox (Operation Grand Slam, of course). Equally likely, she was off interviewing Curveball II and getting misled about some other country’s WMD program.

or maybe looking into documents meant to mislead our government about iraq's purported niger uranium deal?

Given all the bang-up info and analysis on WMD coming out of the CIA, I’d even go so far as to say – paraphrasing John Bolton – that you could lose a couple of stories over at Langley and it wouldn’t matter.

lol....nice paraphrase....kevin drum recently suggested only partly in jest that maybe we should get rid of all intel agencies except state-inr....i figure you'll like that one given your history....

So for me, the burden of proof is on those who would say that her outing did real damage. You would say – not without reason – that that’s the evidence the judge weighed and he came down on your side. Fair enough.

that is true. except i'd say it differently: "that's the evidence the judges weighed, and they came down where he did, which is therefore the position i will take provisionally, until i know more and can therefore reassess."

8/22/2005 10:12 AM  
Blogger strategery4 said...

Hey, I think we have a consensus! The Entourage is back together again! Cool! Just wish one of us had one of those classic Continentals (but even the Masserati would be OK).

And thanks for the INR plug -- in the interest of maintaining my cover (careful there, Novak!), never worked there myself but I know folks who did and boy did they come off smelling like a rose. Not that you'd know that from the MSM with their "everybody was fooled" meme (though I recall perhaps one NYTimes piece about INR).

I wonder if Colin Powell regrets not listening to his guys and buying (however skeptically) the CIA story for his U.N. speech? I guess being right is the best revenge. But enough of this post -- on to other debates!

8/22/2005 6:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home