I finally got around to adding the obligatory archive of pet pictures here. Feel free to ignore if you’re not a cat person.
Author: lux
Dean Ought To Know
John Dean, of all people, ought to know a thing or two about Presidents who break the law. So when he writes an article about the serious implications of President Bush’s consultation with a criminal defense attorney, it’s time to sit up and take notice.
Here’s the money quote:
Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so.
Dean’s take on the situation is that if the President did not know anything about the leak, he wouldn’t need to call in outside counsel. The fact that he did so strongly suggests that he knew about the leak (emphasis added).
On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush’s move – unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. “It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak,” he told me.
The question that remains to be answered is, in those immortal words: “What did he know and when did he know it?”.
The other important question that needs an answer: is the Plame investigation going to get anywhere significant before November?
Friday Morning Funny
Courtesy of Kevin Drum:
CLANCY ON WOLFOWITZ….From … Deborah Norville’s segment with Anthony Zinni and Tom Clancy last night:
Deborah Norville: What’s your impression of Paul Wolfowitz?
Tom Clancy: Is he working for our side?
As they say, ouch.
Update: Further reading of the Washington Monthly commentary on this item brought out that lovely (not!) meme, the “Jews Have Dual Loyalty” canard. Now I do not particularly like Wolfowitz, but I really hate it when people suggest that because someone is a Jew that their loyalties are questionable.
Despite this, I still think the original comment was funny in a snarky kind of way.
Does it Look Like a Duck To You?
I didn’t have much to add to the noise about George Tenet’s retirement, but the news that a second senior CIA official is leaving makes you wonder what the heck is really going on…
James Pavitt, deputy director for operations, has announced his retirement. Apparently he was the guy in charge of human intelligence (AKA spies).
The repor insists that there’s no coincidences here, that this was all planned in advance, but I have got to wonder – why these two? Why now? What’s really going on here?
Fahrenheit 9/11 – coming soon!
The trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11 is out.
I am not a complete admirer of Michael Moore. In fact, I couldn’t get through “Stupid White Men”, it annoyed me too much. I prefer Bill Maher or Al Franken; they make anger funnier. But I’ll go see this one when it comes out.
Too Good To Be True
Taking a break from politics, here’s a neat news item: Prayer does not help you get pregnant after all.
It was a miracle that created headlines around the world. Doctors at one of the world’s top medical schools claimed to have scientifically proved the power of prayer.
Many Americans took the Columbia University research – announced in October 2001 after the terror attacks on New York and Washington – as a sign from God. It seemed to prove that praying helped infertile women to conceive.
But The Observer can reveal a story of fraud and cover-up behind the research. One of the study’s authors is a conman obsessed with the paranormal who has admitted to a multi-million-dollar scam.
Now, I am not even remotely a scientist, but there does seem to be something slightly hinky with the numbers in the study. If you look at Table II, the NIP group (not prayed for), had 28 preembryos implanted, of which 21 resulted in successful pregnancies. This is a success rate of 75%. The IP group (prayed for) had 62 preembryos implanted, of which 44 resulted in successful pregnancies. This is a success rate of 70% – a figure lower than the not prayed for group. So how did the authors come up with the original claim of a 100% improvement in implantation success? Or am I just a moron that can’t read the numbers correctly?
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine is apparently a reputable organization. Why they decided to publish this in the first place is a mystery to me. My guess is they didn’t know how to vet pseudo-science like the power of prayer and didn’t want to seem politically incorrect by outright refusing to print the study. Less likely – perhaps some misguided believers on the staff were so thrilled to see a study ‘proving’ their beliefs that the standard review procedure was skipped.
Either way, it’s another example of the pervasive influence of religion in America today and why it’s a problem.