SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (302343)9/5/2006 7:28:42 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1572689
 
September 5, 2006 5:56 AM

Laboring to Victory

Who will wind up in the next Senate?

By John J. Miller
National Review Political Reporter

Pundits like to say that political campaigns don’t really start until Labor Day. Herewith, a review of the hottest one-day-old Senate races in the land.

This assessment updates my previous one, posted about two months ago. I’ve switched Minnesota from “toss up” to “leaning Democratic retention,” and I’ve moved Montana and Ohio from “leaning Republican retention” to “toss up.”

Republicans currently control 55 seats in the Senate, compared to 45 seats for the Democrats. Because Vice President Cheney would cast any tie-breaking votes, Democrats must gain a total of six seats in order to take over. That’s going to be tough: It will require wins in Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island — i.e., running the table in the races I’ve scored as “toss ups” — plus a big-time upset in Arizona, Tennessee, or Virginia.

ARIZONA: Democratic nominee Jim Pederson has poured millions of dollars from his bank account into his campaign, but so far he hasn’t been able to overcome a fairly consistent 10-point deficit against Republican senator Jon Kyl, a conservative favorite. Last week, an Arizona State University poll of registered voters put Kyl ahead, 46 percent to 36 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION

CONNECTICUT: Although Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joe Lieberman in last month’s Democratic primary, Lieberman appears well positioned to return to the Senate. He’s technically running as an independent, but he retains the support of many loyal Democrats and says he will remain within the party if he’s re-elected. Lots of Republicans are backing the incumbent as well: Last week, Lieberman said that Jack Kemp would stump for him. (They must have met at the annual gathering of the Loser Veep Candidates Association.) A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters gave Lieberman 49 percent and Lamont 38 percent. The GOP candidate, former state representative Alan Schlesinger, is mired in the low single digits. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

FLORIDA: A couple of months ago, a poll gave Democratic senator Bill Nelson a 30-point lead over GOP congresswoman Katherine Harris. It’s hard to imagine, but things have gotten better for the incumbent: A GOP survey of likely voters, conducted about a week ago, put Nelson up, 63 percent to 20 percent. Can it get any worse for Republicans in a state where they really ought to be competitive? LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

MARYLAND: Next Tuesday, Democratic primary voters will choose between Rep. Ben Cardin and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume. The winner goes against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a Republican. A recent poll of registered voters gave Cardin an edge over Mfume in the primary, 43 percent to 30 percent. Cardin’s sizeable money advantage should help him preserve this lead. The same survey also gave Cardin a small lead over Steele, 44 percent to 39 percent, in the general election. Steele, however, runs a bit ahead of Mfume, 42 percent to 38 percent. Interestingly, Steele performs much better among Democrats than either of his potential opponents do among Republicans; against Cardin (who is white), Steele (who is black) appears to draw about 20 percent of black voters. If he can improve that figure just a little, he may surprise. Expect him to camp out in Prince George’s County, home to many middle-class blacks. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

MICHIGAN: Sen. Debbie Stabenow will benefit from anti-GOP attitudes, but not as much as Democrats elsewhere: Michigan, which is the only state besides Louisiana to have lost jobs over the last year, may be in thoroughly anti-incumbent mood. Still, she holds a lead over her Republican opponent, Oakland County sheriff Michael Bouchard. A recent GOP survey put her up, 49 percent to 42 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

MINNESOTA: Although it’s far too early to toss in the towel, this open-seat race has disappointed Republicans. In other states, such as Florida and North Dakota, they’ve struggled to recruit first-class candidates. In Minnesota, they got exactly the guy they wanted: Rep. Mark Kennedy. But in last week’s USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters, Democratic county attorney Amy Klobuchar held a 10-point lead, 50 percent to 40 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

MISSOURI: Three recent polls have given Republican senator Jim Talent a slight lead over Democratic state auditor Claire McCaskill. The latest, a survey of likely voters by USA Today/Gallup, put the contest at 50 percent for Talent and 44 percent for McCaskill. This is a significant development, reversing a trend from earlier this year when McCaskill tended to hold a small advantage. TOSS UP

MONTANA: Although a Rasmussen poll of likely voters had this race tied a month ago, Democratic state Senate president Jon Tester has otherwise led Republican senator Conrad Burns. Last week’s USA Today/Gallup survey gave him 48 percent, with 45 percent for Burns. The 50-year-old Tester, who sports an old-school crew cut, has proven to be a much more formidable challenger than even members of his own party suspected. His populist campaign may well terminate the career of the 71-year-old Burns. TOSS UP

NEBRASKA: After underwriting an expensive primary campaign, Republican businessman Pete Ricketts has pumped about $2.5 million of his own money into the general election race against Democratic senator Ben Nelson. Unfortunately for the GOP, this contest probably was lost on the day that President Bush asked Gov. Mike Johanns, a potential candidate against Nelson, to serve as agriculture secretary. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

NEVADA: This race isn’t really worth tracking, except that it’s fun to think that Jimmy Carter’s son, Democratic nominee Jack Carter, is going to get squished like an empty can of Billy Beer. A Las Vegas Review-Journal poll last month gave Republican senator John Ensign a healthy lead among likely voters, 54 percent to 33 percent. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION

NEW JERSEY: Tomorrow it’s Bush vs. Clinton in the Garden State, with President Bush flying in to help out Republican challenger Tom Kean and former President Clinton visiting to boost Democratic senator Bob Menendez. A Republican poll of likely voters in August gave Menendez a slight advantage, 42 percent to 40 percent. Possible upside for Kean: Menendez has a much higher unfavorable rating. TOSS UP

NEW YORK: In next Tuesday’s primary, Republicans will choose a sacrificial lamb to take on Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The choice is between former Pentagon official Kathleen Troia McFarland and former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, with Spencer probably favored to win. A month ago, a poll of registered voters showed him losing badly to HRC, 58 percent to 32 percent. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

OHIO: Earlier this year, Republican senator Mike DeWine led all the polls. Since July, Democratic congressman Sherrod Brown has enjoyed the position of frontrunner. About two weeks ago, a Rasmussen survey of likely voters gave Brown a three-point edge, 45 percent to 42 percent. DeWine is hobbled by GOP scandals in Columbus and a general lack of enthusiasm among conservatives; he may yet benefit from exposing Brown’s liberal voting record in Congress. TOSS UP

PENNSYLVANIA: Conservatives applauded the performance of Republican senator Rick Santorum in his Meet the Press debate against Democratic state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. on Sunday. Will it help? A lot of his supporters probably were at church. Over the last few months, this race — probably America’s most-watched Senate contest — has tightened significantly, as most people suspected it would. A few weeks ago, a Keystone Poll of registered voters gave Casey a lead of 44 percent to 39 percent — much different from the double-digit margins of earlier this year. Santorum’s unfavorable rating is far higher than Casey’s, and this will continue to dog him. What’s more, last week’s USA Today/Gallup survey of likely voters gave Casey an 18-point advantage. Wild card: The candidacy of Carl Romanelli of the Green party, who is polling at 3 or 4 percent. One survey suggests that these votes come right out of Casey’s column. TOSS UP

RHODE ISLAND: GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, a liberal, faces Cranston mayor Steven Laffey, a maverick conservative, in next week’s GOP primary. If Chafee survives this test, an equally difficult challenge awaits in the form of Democratic former attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse. For Chafee, it’s possible to see either race going either way — these are coin-flip contests. The probability of a quarter landing on heads twice in a row is 25 percent. TOSS UP

TENNESSEE: In a hard-fought, three-way contest, former Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker captured the Republican nomination last month with an impressive 48 percent of the vote. He’ll go against Democratic congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the race to succeed GOP Sen. Bill Frist, who is retiring. In July, a poll of likely voters showed Corker beating Ford, 49 percent to 35 percent. LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION

VERMONT: Republican businessman Richard Tarrant is spending nearly $5 million of his own money on this election, but he remains a serious underdog against congressman Bernie Sanders, a socialist “independent” who will caucus with Democrats. Next Tuesday, Tarrant is expected to beat retired Air Force colonel Greg Parke in the GOP primary. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

VIRGINIA: Can former Reagan administration official James Webb, running as an antiwar Democrat, actually oust GOP senator George Allen? Last month, a Zogby Interactive poll put the race at 48 percent for Webb and 47 percent for Allen. Every other recent survey, however, has given Allen the edge: A Rasmussen poll of likely voters, for instance, had it 47 percent for Allen and 42 percent for Webb. There still appear to be enough undecided voters to give Webb hope, and Allen’s notorious “macaca” comment has hurt the senator. Yet Allen, a likely 2008 presidential contender, has a lot more money in the bank. This one remains his to lose. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION

WASHINGTON: In a different national political environment, GOP businessman Mike McGavick might actually be leading Democratic senator Maria Cantwell. He’s a good candidate and Cantwell has weaknesses. He tends to do much better in polls of likely voters as opposed to registered voters — not a surprise — but he always seems to trail. A GOP poll of likely voters late last month put Cantwell at 48 percent and McGavick at 43 percent. LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

WEST VIRGINIA: GOP businessman John Raese has struggled to gain traction against Democratic senator Robert Byrd, who will be 89 years old when he’s sworn in for a new term next year. LIKELY DEMOCRATIC RETENTION

article.nationalreview.com





To: Road Walker who wrote (302343)9/5/2006 7:58:33 PM
From: kech  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572689
 
Do you have a link to that out of context paragraph?

Sure here is the article that cited it. See bold at the bottom of the article. Enjoy the rest of the article while you get there!

The flameout of the Plame game
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 5, 2006

The expectation on the left that the Valerie Plame affair would blossom into another Watergate, bringing down a second Republican presidency, has fizzled.

Liberals expected that convictions of one or more persons in the Bush administration for leaking or confirming to columnist Robert Novak that Mrs. Plame, the wife of Bush critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, was an undercover CIA operative. Echoing Mr. Wilson's claims, prominent liberals and leftists, most of them in the press, accused the White House of orchestrating a smear, and sought to drive Karl Rove either out of office or into prison, or both.

Three years on, none of that has happened, and the "scandal" is played out.

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, urged on by the pundits and the mainstream press, delved into the city's culture of reporters and their confidential sources. He issued subpoenas for all types of e-mails and documents to find out which Bush administration officials were talking to which reporters. He threatened reporters with jail -- and imprisoned one of them -- which may have set a precedent for future prosecutors to compel reporters to disclose their confidential sources.

But in the end, the exhaustive investigation produced no criminal charges against any official for leaking Mrs. Plame's name in violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, it has recently emerged that the official who first revealed her name to Mr. Novak, for a July 2003 column, was not a White House official, but Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state to Colin L. Powell.

Rather than being part of a smear, Mr. Armitage mentioned her name, in response to a Novak question, as the person who got her husband sent to Niger on a 2002 CIA mission on reports of Saddam Hussein's Iraq trying to acquire uranium. Mr. Armitage, now in private business, had never publicly acknowledged his role in the previous three years.

Mr. Novak recently wrote, "After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part."

Hopes shattered
David Corn, the Washington correspondent for the left-wing Nation magazine, was one of the first columnists to suggest that the Plame matter was a scandal, orchestrated to punish critics of the Iraq war.

"Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?" Mr. Corn asked in the Nation two days after the Novak column appeared. "It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted."
Last week, Mr. Corn, co-author of a new book that revealed Mr. Armitage as Mr. Novak's original source, took a different view, acknowledging Mr. Armitage's reputation as an "inveterate gossip" rather than a partisan hit man.

"The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case," he wrote in the Nation. "The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic."

Internet bloggers wrote hopefully of many indictments. One blogger even reported that Mr. Rove had been indicted, which he had not. Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the leftist MoveOn.org wrote in July 2005, "This conspiracy clearly reaches into the highest levels of our government. This could be among the worst presidential scandals in our history. ... Again, we call on the president to keep his promise and fire Karl Rove. How long will the cover-up continue?"
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean likened the scandal to Watergate, which brought down President Richard Nixon.

"This is like Watergate," he said in November. The deed was done and then the cover-up came with [former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis] "Scooter" Libby being charged with the cover-up because that's an easier charge to prove, but the truth is, had the president not misled the American people about the war, this wouldn't have happened. They got in trouble when they tried to discredit people telling the truth like Joe Wilson."

Stacie Paxton, a spokesman for the committee, argues now that the Armitage disclosure does not vindicate the White House of misconduct. "Nothing changes the fact that the White House had an Iraq working group whose sole purpose was to sell the war, that Karl Rove leaked the name of a covert secret CIA agent in a time of war and still has a security clearance. Nor does it change the fact that George Bush said he would fire anyone who would release classified information, and he did nothing."

The motive
Another facet of the Plame affair also has become clearer: the motive. Nearly all the accounts in the mainstream press quoted Mr. Wilson as saying the leak was an attempt to punish him and his wife. Few other explanations were offered.

Why were Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove and others talking about Mrs. Plame? Rather than a smear, the mentioning of Mrs. Plame's name now appears to have been an attempt to set the record straight on this issue: how it came about that Mr. Wilson, a Bush critic who later joined Sen. John Kerry's campaign and who was not a trained intelligence investigator, was chosen by the CIA to travel to Niger to investigate an important question for the administration as it planned to go to war in Iraq.

The question: Did Baghdad approach Niger about buying yellowcake, a refined uranium that can be further processed into weapons-grade material?

Mr. Wilson said he found no such evidence and went public with his findings in summer 2003. In an op-ed essay in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, he disclosed his CIA mission and said he found no evidence of a deal.

To some, the column left the impression that he was on a mission for the vice president. His aim was to chastise the president for citing a British intelligence report in his January 2003 State of the Union address about a possible Niger-Iraq connection.

He wrote, "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. ... The agency official asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Mr. Wilson had first revealed his trip to Niger to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Mr. Kristof wrote a May 6, 2003, column that said, "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

Mr. Wilson's op-ed prompted questions from reporters, including Mr. Novak, on why Mr. Wilson had been sent. Mr. Novak wrote a July 14, 2003, column that reported that Mrs. Plame was instrumental in obtaining the assignment for her husband.

Actually, neither the White House nor the office of CIA Director George J. Tenet knew of the trip. When the White House, seeking to contain damage, inquired how Mr. Wilson was chosen for the assignment, the CIA said that Mrs. Plame, who worked in a counterproliferation office, had recommended him. This version of how he got the job was later confirmed in 2004 in a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Breaking his silence in July, Mr. Novak told Fox News Channel's Brit Hume that he had an hourlong interview with his initial source, now known to be Mr. Armitage, and asked questions about the Niger mission.

Mr. Novak told Mr. Hume, "In the course of that interview, I said, 'Why would they send Joe Wilson to Niger? Why would the CIA send him there? He's not a CIA agent. He is not anybody who knows Niger that well; he served there a long time ago.' He said his wife worked in the Office of Nuclear Proliferation at the CIA, and she suggested he go."

Mr. Novak said he then called Mr. Rove to talk about the Niger trip. Mr. Novak, not Mr. Rove, brought up the issue of his wife getting him the trip.

"I called him about the mission to Niger, but in the course of asking about the mission to Niger, I said, 'I understand that his wife works at the CIA and she initiated the mission,'" Mr. Novak told Fox News. Mr. Rove answered, "You know that, too?" Mr. Novak said Mr. Rove never belittled or criticized Mr. Wilson.

Other reporters
Another reporter on the case was Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine. Mr. Cooper, in a dispatch for Time in July 2005 recounting his grand jury testimony (which is perfectly legal), said that after Mr. Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times, but before Mr. Novak's column, he telephoned Mr. Rove and asked him about the Niger trip.

He said Mr. Rove discounted the importance of Mr. Wilson's findings and said that his wife at the CIA, not the White House, got the assignment for him. He said Mr. Rove never mentioned her name or that she was a covert officer.
Mr. Cooper wrote that he later talked to Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff. Mr. Libby has been charged with lying to Mr. Fitzgerald's grand jury in testimony about the leak, but not for the leak itself.
Mr. Cooper said he brought up Mr. Wilson's wife's role in the Niger trip and Mr. Libby replied: "Yeah, I've heard that, too."

Judith Miller of the New York Times is the third reporter known to have discussed Mrs. Plame with an administration official, in this case, Mr. Libby. She initiated an interview to ask why no large stocks of weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. They had two subsequent meetings. She later wrote in the New York Times that Mr. Libby mentioned Mr. Wilson's wife briefly, but did not think that Mr. Libby divulged the name.

Most of the discussion on Mr. Wilson centered on Mr. Libby's criticizing his post-Niger trip report as inadequate and complaining about CIA leaks to discredit Mr. Bush. She never wrote a story.

An early newspaper story asserted that two White House officials actively contacted six Washington reporters to reveal Mrs. Plame's identify and that she worked at the CIA. This was accepted as fact by liberal bloggers. There is no mention of these events in the Libby indictment, which summarizes the incident. But Mr. Novak, Mrs. Miller and Mr. Cooper said they initiated the contacts with administration officials -- not the other way around.

Bob Woodward of The Washington Post later said he, too, heard Mrs. Plame's name from "a person," later reported elsewhere to be Mr. Armitage. Mr. Woodward dismissed the incident as mere gossip, not a smear.

All available evidence now suggests that the White House was blindsided by news of the Wilson trip and sought answers from the CIA on how it came to be. Several Bush officials talked of Mrs. Plame for the purpose of disabusing reporters of the idea the White House authorized Mr. Wilson to go to Niger.

Although officials should not have mentioned Mr. Wilson's wife, since she was in the clandestine service, Mr. Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence that officials knowingly revealed her name to expose her position, as legal charges would require.

The Plame role
In July, on the third anniversary of the Novak column, Mr. Wilson, his wife, and attorney Christopher Wolf held a press conference to announce a civil suit against Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Wilson had written a best-selling book, appeared on TV frequently and called for Mr. Rove to be driven from the White House. He and his wife, her face concealed, had posed in a provocative Vanity Fair photograph. But Mrs. Plame was now outed in full. She blamed the White House for ending her CIA career by "blowing her cover."

"I and my former CIA colleague trusted our government to protect us as we did our jobs," she said. "That a few reckless individuals within the current administration betrayed that trust has been a grave disappointment to every patriotic American."

The trio took questions, none of which touched on the fact that a 2004 report cast doubt on some of Mr. Wilson's claims.
In 2003-04, the Senate Intelligence Committee spent considerable time investigating why the CIA got the intelligence wrong on Iraq. As part of that mandate, staffers delved into the Niger mission.

First, it reported that, despite Mr. Wilson's denials, he did get the Niger assignment because of his wife. When her unit, the Counterproliferation Division, got word that Mr. Cheney wanted the yellowcake report investigated, Mrs. Plame recommended him to her boss, and she put it in writing.

The committee, which wrote a bipartisan report, turned up a memo to her superior which said, "My husband has good relations with both the [prime minister] and the former minister of mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The report said that the next day her unit arranged for Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger.

She approached her husband with the remark that "there's this crazy report" on a deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. Niger had sold yellowcake to Saddam two decades ago, and some of it was still in Iraq when U.S. troops arrived in the Gulf war in 2003.

The Senate investigators reported that Mr. Wilson did, in fact, find evidence that an Iraqi overture to buy yellowcake may have occurred. To Republicans, this meant Mr. Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times -- the essay that triggered the whole affair -- was inaccurate, just as Mr. Libby contended to Mrs. Miller that it was.

In an addendum to the bipartisan report, Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, wrote that "public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report 'debunked' the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public's understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal."

Wilson at fault
The Wilsons are now represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Melanie Sloan, executive director and a former Democratic Senate and House staffer, said in an e-mail to The Washington Times it's wrong to infer that Mr. Wilson was sent to Niger on the suggestion of his wife. The Senate report "clearly indicates that the CIA decided to send Wilson to Niger."

Ms. Sloan said the Armitage disclosure does not affect the Wilson lawsuit, "which is premised on the deliberate and unlawful actions of top White House officials to publicly discredit Mr. Wilson and retaliate against him by deliberately disclosing the classified identity of Ms. Wilson. Mr. Armitage's conduct in no way alters the fact that VP Cheney, Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were engaged in a concerted effort to violate the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and they should be held accountable for their actions."

Perhaps the biggest remaining question is why Mr. Armitage -- and his boss, Mr. Powell -- stayed silent about the inadvertent Armitage leak of Mrs. Plame's name while the administration was pilloried in the press and key Bush-Cheney staffers ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

At the end of the affair, some liberal voices concede the fizzle. In an editorial last week, The Washington Post observed that "It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."