Text of the Statutes in the Wilson/Plume Affair II - Definitions
USC Title 50 section 426

Sec. 426. - Definitions


For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1)

The term 'classified information' means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

(2)

The term 'authorized', when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.

(3)

The term ''disclose'' means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.

(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; or

(B)

a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -

(i)

who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii)

who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C)

an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

(5)

The term ''intelligence agency'' means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(6)

The term ''informant'' means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.

(7)

The terms ''officer'' and ''employee'' have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.

(8)

The term ''Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

(9)

The term ''United States'', when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(10)

The term ''pattern of activities'' requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective

Text of the Statutes in the Wilson/Plume Affair I - Protection of Covert Identities
USC Title 50 section 421

Sec. 421. - Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences



A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment

Who Says Clark is More Electable?
The convention wisdom and DLC mantra about Wesley Clark's campaign is that a centrist who appeals to Independent and Republican swing voters is more electable than partisans like Howard Dean.

I'm not convinced. Where is the proof that centrist, luke-warm Democrats actually DO win elections? Show me ONE DLC presidential candidate that has ever gotten over 51% of the vote. Not Billy, who got 43% in '92 and a bare 50% in 1996. And don't get me started about how these same geniuses killed Gore's campaign.

Moreover, the track record of Congressional Democrats has been absolutely abysmal since the DLC took over. Ten years ago Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Now they are not only the minority in both houses, but with the 2002 catastrophe, Democrats endured the almost unprecedented shame of LOSING seats to an opposition President in an off-year election.

And the DLC still has the gall to tell us that PARTISAN Democrats are unelectable? How bankrupt is this strategy? And why do so many still buy into it?

Mentally & Spirtually, We Are Dying . . .
From Common Dreams via Blah3.com

'Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally and spiritually we are dying.

'We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of "suck it up and drive on." We just want somewhere to drive on to.'

Bush's $87 Billion War Bill
This says it all.

Bush Pimps for Gates at the UN
Nicholas Kristof is right now on a humanitarian tour with Bill Gates in Africa. Guess what cause Bill's promoting?

You guessed it: AIDS and the Sex Trade.

"He's going to talk to the prostitutes about male and female condoms, the sex trade and safe sex options as part of his campaign to understand and ultimately defeat AIDS in Africa."

So now we know the answer to why Bush took so much time to tout a completely extraneous topic in his UN Iraq speech yesterday. It's a sop to one of his big donors.

Don't get me wrong. Gates is doing a noble thing here (his suspect motives notwithstanding as Kristol points out). But Iraq is crumbling down around our ears, and Bush has a big opportunity to try start turning it around by playing it straight at the UN. What does he do instead? He turns the prestigious forum into a cheap political fund raiser. How pathetic.

There is NOTHING this guy won't do for a quick buck.

Josh Marshall's 'Evolving' Position on Dean

Josh Marshall is losing a lot of credibility with me right now.

In defending Clark's against the 'war waffling' charge, he says:

"[L]et's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either."

OK fine Josh, if you want to muddy the waters about Dean's anti-war stance to help soften the 'Clark is waffling' charge, go ahead and try (I doubt people will buy it but that's your choice). But if you want your spin to appear credible you should really put a little more space between this post and your post two spots down which you put up only ten hours before.

"The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.

"Either you were against the war from the beginning, against even threatening force under any and all circumstances, soup-to-nuts, or you were for it, more or less under the same range of conceivable circumstances. If you have a position that falls between these two monochromatic options, you're indecisive, a waffler or a trimmer."

So which is it Josh? Is Dean against the war 'soup-to-nuts' or is he a waffler? Seems Dean may not be the only one with and 'evolving' position, Josh.

Bush's Igor on the Economy: Could Be Worse
Mood:  d'oh
Bush reminds me more and more of Igor in the Mel Brooks' film, Young Frankenstein.
________________________________

Dr. Frankenstein: What a filthy, disgusting job!

Igor: Could be worse.

Dr. Frankenstein: How?

Igor: Could be raining.

Bush on the Economy:
"Had we not taken action, this economy would have been in a deeper recession. It would have been longer, and as many as 1.5 million Americans who went to work this morning would have been out of a job." NYT - 09/05/03 - Bush Offers Six-Point Plan for an Economic Recovery

Cue thunderclap and downpour.
______________________________

On the Deficit:

"The White House serenely brushed off a detailed caution from the Congressional Budget Office last week that the growth in the deficit is more likely to roar than retreat across the next decade, fed by the three Bush tax cuts and other debt-fattening indulgences. If that warning was not enough, how about the concern reported at the International Monetary Fund that the administration has no credible plan to restore budget balance? Yes, the I.M.F., which must lecture the profligates of the globe, is worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers." NYT Editorial, 'Deficit? What Deficit?' - 09/02/03

Bush: What Hump?

New Democracy Corps Poll
There's a new Democracy Corps Poll (PDF) out today confirming falling approval numbers for Bush. The numbers I like best, however, are on Congressional approval. They show that in a generic ballot test the Dems (45%) out poll the GOP (39%) by six points, this is a big switch from last month: Dem (44%) - GOP (45%). So, even with all the gerrymandering that went on in 2000, there might still be a chance for some coat tails next year. Here's hoping.

The Great Debate
I enjoyed the Democratic debate in New Mexico last night very much. If you look at the overall picture, the candidate pool is a fairly good representation of the entire party (an Hispanic candidate would have been nice last night though). They are all well spoken, respectable and together give an impression of true compassion. The Dems should run these debates as often as possible because people need to see what a party with thoughtful discussions about real issues looks like.

I like Howard and have since January. I'm right with him on almost every issue (except the death penalty), and he's got the base going like I've never seen - pouring dollars in like they will be worthless tommorow (which may well be given the current state of affairs). Internet fundraising and organizing is important of course, but the key to Howard's success is his willingness to let the energy bubble up around him and not try to control too much from the top. Rigid discipline is the GOP way. Dems need a more Zen approach to corral all the cats.

My ticket is Dean/Graham. Although the Florida Senator/former Governor hasn't really inspired too many of the red meat crowd; demographically, politically, and temperamentally I think he's the perfect complement. (I get the impression from the debate that he may already be schmoozing Howard for the job.)

Howard, though, wasn't at his best last night. He played it too safe - perhaps expecting a tougher fight, and is still getting used to the cameras which is natural at this point in his experience. Still, there's plenty of time to get over a bit of stagefright.

I'm not sure what Joltin' Joe is trying to accomplish unless he thinks he can win the nomination by alienating everyone. The current gossip seems to be that he's trying to torpedo Dean to clear the field for Hillary in 2008. Really hope that's not true. Even so, I think having a Republican-lite sparring partner in the ring is good for Dean. A Dem love fest may be good for the party, but it won't prepare Dean for the big time the way someone taking a few right-handed shots will.

Gephardt gets points for pulling out his trademark, union rabble-rousing schtick, but he went over the top by repeating the 'miserable failure' line again and again and fillibustering over his time. Trying too hard.

Kerry is droning big time. Poor guy, he really looks like a deer caught in the headlights. Unfortunately for him, the Viet Nam vet angle simply has no traction within a party base that thinks military matters are overemphasized to begin with. If Clark (is he even a Democrat?) gets into this I think he'll discover the same thing.

Edwards did himself a favor last night. Man . . . he sounds like Billy sometimes. Nice story about Dad and a good punch line. He's still weak on policy however, and it shows. Why didn't he wait a few years? Also, he really should be trying this from the NC governor's chair.

Kucinich has that wacky, Naderite fringe thing down. He's confident and well spoken. He's juvenile though. The WTO shot at Howard was potentially a good left hook, but ending it with 'DUH!' meant it didn't need to be answered. He's kinda looks like the Chess Club guy running for Student Council President. It's good that he's there though, WITHIN the party fold. The Dems should make damn sure he doesn't get carried away with all the attention and pull a greenie/independent move after he loses.

Believe it or not, Carol Mosely-Braun actually performed the best last night. She really knows her stuff on health care and took on all comers. She also made some very important points on womens' and minority issues. Her time as ambassador has really groomed her. I was pleasantly surprised. Secretary of HHS might be the spot for her in a Dean Administration.

Finally, where was Al?