Best of the Web Today - July 15, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Best of the Tube This Weekend
The good news first: We're appearing on this weekend's episode of PBS's "The Journal Editorial Report," with colleagues Paul Gigot, Dorothy Rabinowitz and Kim Strassel, to discuss Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. In New York the program airs at 9 p.m. on WNET channel 13; elsewhere, click here to check local listings. If the show doesn't air where you are, video and transcripts will be available at the link atop this item.
Now the bad news: We're going on vacation, not to return until Aug. 1. (Actually, come to think of it, this is bad news for you but good news for us.) We have left behind a few surprises, so make sure you keep checking the site or your e-mail.
An Innocent Man
Let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Suppose that people in Washington generally had the sense that Karl Rove was soon to be indicted in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. How would they react?
It seems to us the White House would be working to distance itself from Rove, possibly planning for him to make a quiet exit, much as John Kerry's campaign "disappeared" Joe Wilson last summer when Wilson's credibility fell apart. The Democrats, on the other hand, would act high-minded and talk of "letting the process work," at least as long as Rove remained on the job. An actual indictment, after all, would do maximal political damage to the Bush administration.
Instead, the White House (which knows a lot more about the investigation than any of us) is confidently standing behind Rove, while the Democrats are waging a hysterical attack that would be premature if it were based on anything real. Partisan Democrats don't want to talk about the facts of the case (facts are irrelevant, as a former Enron adviser insists) or about the law. They just want to pound the table and insist that Rove is metaphysically guilty.
Here at Best of the Web Today, facts do matter, so let's look at the latest to emerge on the Plame kerfuffle:
The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press all report that, as the AP puts it, Rove "originally learned about the operative [Plame] from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony," apparently a lawyer friendly to the White House. According to the Times account, Rove was the second source for Bob Novak's column identifying Plame's role in arranging Wilson's trip to Niger:
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." . . .
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."
That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said.
If this account is accurate, then Rove simply confirmed a fact that was already in circulation. He no more "outed" Plame than Wilson did when he peddled his "outing" allegation to various left-wing journalists after Novak's column ran.
Meanwhile, the Washington Times quotes an erstwhile colleague of Plame's who casts further doubt on the Democratic narrative:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. . . . The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover"--also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson--also said that she worked under extremely light cover.
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
In an interview with CNN yesterday, Wilson acknowledged, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," though he refused to say anything about her career before that day. As we noted yesterday, though, the source for that USA Today report was none other than Wilson himself, in his book, which apparently no one bothered to read until now.
Hell No, He Won't Go
"U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said on Thursday that he is not about to retire," Reuters reports:
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist, 80, who suffers from thyroid cancer, said in a statement issued by his family.
"I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits," he added.
We, however, are going to stand behind our prediction of a Rehnquist retirement. And actually, maybe his statement makes it more likely. After all, now, for the first time in months, he would actually take people by surprise if he announced he was stepping down.
What Would We Do Without Schumer?
"Having more than one nomination could have made things harder, or easier."--Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), July 14
Squandered Sympathy
"Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday," Reuters reports. The Pew Research Center survey covered Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon, and only in Jordan had sympathy for bin Laden increased since 2003:
In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.
In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.
In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.
Bin Laden had the sympathy of the world after 9/11, and he squandered it. Just pissed it away in the name of foolish foreign adventures! He must be ruing the day he ever went into Iraq.
Shouldn't That Be 'bin Luden'?
"Muslim Support for bin Laden Drops"--headline, CBSNews.com, July 14
Why Do They Hate Us? Eminent Domain!
"New London Bombing Arrest: Report"--headline, Daily Telegraph (Australia), July 14
Mind the Gap?
Andrew Sullivan had this little item on his blog the other day:
SODOMY WATCH: An obviously non-procreative couple gets married in Britain. Worse: "Simon is gifted with the organ." I anticipate condemnation from Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz, and Pope Benedict XVI.
This is supposed to be a snide little throwaway line, but it actually lays bare the sophistry at the heart of Sullivan's argument for same-sex marriage.
The report to which Sullivan links appears in London's Daily Mail, and it describes the recent marriage of Simon Martin and Edna Townsend. He is 31; she is 70, a "sprightly grandmother." They share an interest in music, which explains Sullivan's reference to "gifted with the organ" (really mature sense of humor there, Andrew!). Sullivan implies that because Gallagher, Kurtz and the pope rest their opposition to same-sex marriage in part on the procreative nature of matrimony, it is inconsistent of them to tolerate a marriage like Martin and Townsend's, in which having offspring is a biological impossibility.
For the sake of argument, let's suppose someone actually were arguing for a policy that would bar the Simon-Townsend nuptials--that is, for a law preventing couples whose age difference exceeds some limit from marrying, or prohibiting men under a certain age from marrying postmenopausal women.
This would be an argument about the regulation of marriage. And make no mistake, marriage is subject to a lot of regulations. Current law everywhere in America prohibits, for example, marriage between a parent and child or brother and sister; a couple in which one partner is below the age of consent (with some exceptions); a couple whose "marriage" is a sham for immigration purposes; or a couple in which one partner already is married to someone else, even if separated. There are solid public-policy grounds for all these limitations on marriage. Other restrictions are invidious, such as the bans on interracial marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 1967.
In evaluating a proposal to ban marriages à la Simon and Townsend, one would weigh its effect on the couples involved against the purported public benefit of such a law. The reason no one has actually advocated such a ban is because it so obviously doesn't pass the test. Even if we disapprove of the Simon-Towsend union--and to be candid, this columnist finds it pretty creepy--it would be cruel to outlaw it; and because very few 31-year-old men have any interest in marrying septuagenarian women, the public benefit of such a law (i.e., encouraging fertility) would be vanishingly small.
The debate over same-sex marriage is entirely different. It is about the definition, not the regulation, of marriage. Merriam-Webster's entry on marriage confirms the point:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
For the entire history of mankind except the past few years, the first definition was the only one. That definition is broad enough to include forms of marriage that were once outlawed (exogamy) and others that are now outlawed (polygamy). But same-sex marriage requires a new definition. Note, however, that the original definition still has pride of place; same-sex marriage, according to the dictionary, is "marriage" only by analogy: "like that of traditional marriage." Presumably if Sullivan were writing the dictionary, only the first definition would stand, minus the phrase "of the opposite sex."
Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, represents a radical change in a bedrock social institution and thus is not comparable to any other reform of marriage law. This is why it generates such wide opposition even among people who harbor no antipathy toward homosexuals, and why it is much harder to stomach than any other gay-rights measure.
My Fetus Killing Me!
Usually Reuters is the most politically correct news organization around, but an exception is these two headlines, both from yesterday on the same story:
Reuters: "Unborn Babies Carry Pollutants, Study Says"
Associated Press: "Study: Fetuses Exposed to Toxic Chemicals"
As if you're not already confused enough about what to call those womb-bound critters, the Reuters dispatch includes yet another locution, in a quote from Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York:
"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb," Slaughter, a Democrat, said.
With a name like Slaughter, she ought to know that by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, you haven't lived until you've lived outside the womb.
Faulty Thought Is Most Dangerous of All
"Fault May Be More Dangerous Than Thought"--headline, Associated Press, July 14
It Makes Us So Mad When This Happens
"Anger Management Tour Bus Crashes, 11 Injured"--headline, AZCentral.com, July 14
(Dessert) Order in the Court
In an item yesterday, we speculated about the possibility of Judge Edith Jones, Judge Edith Clement or both being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With no imminent threat of a retirement by Chief Justice Rehnquist, a multi-Edith court looks less likely this year. But we got to thinking: What if President Bush got lucky and a total of six justices retired? And what if his nominees to replace them were Jones, Clement, John McCrea, Vince Di Fiore, Xan McCurty and Gabe Nelson?
If all six made it through the Senate, the court would have its Cake and Ediths two. |
