Amateur Hour at the AP on Cheney and the Outing of Valerie Plame

Associated Press reporter Pete Yost apparently doesn't know who outed Valerie Plame--or thinks it's not an important issue in the controversy over the leaking of her identity as a CIA agent.

In an almost 800 word article on Vice-President Dick Cheney's testimony on the leaking of Plame's identity, Yost raises the issue of Cheney's knowledge of the leaker.

Citing faulty memory, former Vice President Dick Cheney told federal investigators in a 2004 interview he had no idea who revealed to reporters that Valerie Plame, the wife of a Bush administration critic, worked for the CIA.

It turns out that Cheney didn't know the leaker was Richard Armitage. It's unclear whether Yost knows it even now since he never once mentions Armitage in his long article on the issue.

More than three years ago Armitage publicly admitted he leaked Plame's identity to Robert Novak. Upon reading Novak's column Armitage immediately admitted to his boss, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and to FBI agents that he was Novak's source. From a September 7, 2006, CBS interview (easily googled):

He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger."

"I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says.

Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak.

"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however.

Actually Yost mentions every one but Armitage:

According to courtroom testimony, Rove was one of Novak's sources for his column disclosing Plame's CIA identity and Rove and Libby were sources for Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, who also wrote a story identifying Plame.

One of the first rules of Journalism 101 is to include key facts. That Yost doesn't speaks volumes about the quality of his reporting and the Associated Press.

Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer

Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer are two smart commentators. But, who is smarter? The one who makes gratuitous hits without supporting evidence or the one who gives easily substantiated praise?

Hanson in a wide ranging piece on problems facing America under Obama policies gives praise to former Governor Sarah Palin on understanding the nation's energy resources/needs.

We should be on a dash to build nuclear plants for the coming demand from plug in hybrids and spikes in electricity usage. We should be leasing as much natural gas lands as possible, to gain the supplies to run energy plants and to power vehicles. There is plenty of oil in the Dakotas, California, Texas and in the Gulf and we should be drilling there like mad. Sorry, even Santa Barbara should either ban SUVs or have oil derricks on the horizon. Sarah Palin knows far more about ANWR than does Van Jones.
[link added]

It's pretty clear that Sarah Palin knows a lot more about ANWR and oil not only than Van Jones but than any other major political figure in the U.S. The comparison advances Hanson's overall argument that Obama policies are bad for the nation while showing that Hanson respects Palin.

On the other hand, Krauthammer in a long interview conducted by Der Spiegel criticizes President Obama. But, in talking about 2012 GOP leaders, Krauthammer goes out of his way to label Sarah Palin "not a serious contender":

SPIEGEL: Who will be the next leader of the Republican Party?

Krauthammer: Some presidential candidates from last year will return in 2012. Sarah Palin is not a serious contender, but somebody like Mitt Romney will be. He is a serious guy, he understands the economy. There will also be some young people many haven't yet heard about, such as Rep. Paul Ryan or Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Or outsiders like the mastermind behind the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who might retire from the military and run for President on the Republican ticket.

What's interesting is that the polls say that Palin is in the top three--number two in the most recent poll (CNN) after Governor Huckabee, with Governor Romney coming in number three. In an earlier poll this month (Rasmussen) Palin scored third after Huckabee and Romney. Krauthammer doesn't even mention number one in both polls: Huckabee.

No one knows what will happen in 2012, but if Palin is the nominee or among the top candidates what does that say about Krauthammer's political smarts? Especially since she is the only candidate he names as "not a serious contender". Krauthammer's comment was a gratuitous hit without any basis in fact. It's basically a statement about Krauthammer's personal dislike for Governor Palin rather than a serious reading of Republican politics.

Win-win for Professor Hanson and likely lose-lose for Dr. Krauthammer.

Oregonian Circulation Down 12%

The Oregonian continues to see its daily circulation numbers fall. Editor & Publisher reports a 12.06% slide from 283,321 in September 2008 to 249,163 in September 2009.

The Oregonian's 12.06% decline was 1/5th higher than the national average 10.06% loss measured among 379 newspapers.

In the last two years the Oregonian has seen a 22% reduction in circulation down more than 70,000 from 319,624 in September 2007.

The circulation drop combined with the national trend of falling advertising revenue is not good news for the big O.

The only major newspaper to show a circulation increase was the Wall Street Journal at 0.06%. Its 2,024,269 daily circulation puts it number one in the nation overtaking USA Today and more than doubling the circulation of the New York Times. The list of the top 25:

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 2,024,269 -- 0.61%
USA TODAY -- 1,900,116 -- (-17.15%)
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- 927,851 -- (-7.28%)
LOS ANGELES TIMES -- 657,467 -- (-11.05%)
THE WASHINGTON POST -- 582,844 -- (-6.40%)

DAILY NEWS (NEW YORK) -- 544,167 -- (-13.98%)
NEW YORK POST -- 508,042 -- (-18.77%)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- 465,892 -- (-9.72%)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE -- 384,419 -- (-14.24%)
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER -- 361,480 -- N/A

NEWSDAY -- 357,124 -- (-5.40%)
THE DENVER POST -- 340,949 -- N/A
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 316,874 -- (-12.30%)
STAR TRIBUNE, MINNEAPOLIS -- 304,543 -- (-5.53%)
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES -- 275,641 -- (-11.98%)

The PLAIN DEALER, CLEVELAND -- 271,180 -- (-11.24%)
DETROIT FREE PRESS (e) -- 269,729 -- (-9.56%)
THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 264,105 -- (-18.48%)
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 263,810 -- (-22.16%)
THE SEATTLE TIMES -- 263,588 -- N/A

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE -- 251,782 -- (-25.82%)
THE OREGONIAN -- 249,163 -- (-12.06%)
THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK -- 246,006 -- (-22.22%)
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE -- 242,705 -- (-10.05%)
ST. PETERSBURG (FLA.) TIMES -- 240,147 -- (-10.70%)

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama is "The mouth that roared"

Victor Davis Hanson pens another priceless column. This one on President Obama's propensity to shoot himself in the foot--making big promises and keeping none of them.

President Obama keeps roaring out deadlines like a lion - only later to meow like a little kitty.

Remember, for example, how he bellowed to cheering partisan crowds that he would close down the detainment facility at Guantanamo within a year?

The clock ticks - and Guantanamo isn't close to being shut down. It once was easy for candidate Mr. Obama to deplore President George W. Bush's supposed gulag. Now it proves harder to decide between the bad choice of detaining non-uniformed terrorist combatants and the worse ones of letting them go, giving them civilian trials or deporting them to unwilling hosts.

Professor Hanson goes on to note President Obama's problems with:

2. Getting troops out of Iraq immediately

On Iraq, candidate Mr. Obama also railed that "the American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet."

Talk about "unmet" deadlines and "spin" - here we are in October 2009, and there are still 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The reason why Mr. Obama fudged on his promised deadline is that the surge in 2007 worked. American deaths plummeted. The theater is quiet. Iraqi democracy is still there after six years. Mr. Obama cannot quite admit these facts, but on the other hand he does not want to be responsible for undermining them.

3. In July Obama said Iran had to prove compliance with non-proliferation protocols by September or face the consequences. September and most of October has come and gone. No consequences.

4. Health care reform had to be passed by the August recess.

5. The Afghanistan war would finally get attention it deserved and get won.

Afghanistan: This was once Mr. Obama's promised war to win - the one we had to refocus on after supposedly taking our eye off the ball to fight in Iraq. Now, instead, we are suddenly blaming the eight-year-old Karzai government for not being the stable partner we need to finish the job.

6. Ethics reform: Candidate Obama pledged to keep lobbyists out of government, post legistlation online and have negotiations on C-SPAN. (None of it done.)

Hanson sums up:

Mr. Obama ran on the accusation that Mr. Bush missed promised targets and deadlines. Yet when the loud reformer Mr. Obama himself proves even emptier in his promises than Mr. Bush, he suffers an additional wage of theatrical hypocrisy.

But there is an even greater problem. Overheated rhetoric got Mr. Obama into these jams - and he seems to expect that his dramatic flair can always get him out as well. So we all await more of the empty hope-and-change hocus-pocus - as Mr. Obama explains how he never really promised to get out of Iraq "now!" or to "take further steps" against Iran in September 2009.

Liz Cheney Calmly Dissects Obama's Policies

Another Cheney is becoming a major voice of intelligent analysis among conservatives. Liz Cheney is a leading figure in Keep America Safe a new organization seeking to "provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues."

In this interview Cheney calmly explains the dangers in President Obama's Afghanistan "waffling". She also touches on the dangers of a weakened dollar as well as "abuse of power" and "censorship" in the Obama administration openly calling for a "secondary boycott" of Fox News.

H/T Jennifer Rubin

Palin on Real Hope and Change

Former Governor Sarah Palin points out smoke and mirrors in Obama administration plans and presents workable options on how to effect needed health care change.

1. The Senate Finance Committee health care bill is structured so that it is cheaper to pay the fine and not buy health insurance until a big ticket health crisis occurs in your life. This will result in less people being covered and higher costs.

"However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program."

2. Cutting Medicare and taxing high value health care plans, insurers, drug companies, labs, etc., will end up as a huge tax increase on the middle class and lower their wages.

"As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes 'will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.' Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. . . . The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest."

3. President Obama's promise not to sign a health care bill that will "add even one dime" to the nation's debt is in line with previous promises that if the stimulus bill were passed, unemployment would be kept under 8% and 3 to 4 million jobs would be created or saved. None of it happened. In fact, things got a lot worse.

"With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it 'adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.' But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. Last month, our unemployment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?"

4. President Obama's promise of open negotiations with health care lobbyists is also a casualty.

"In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to 'broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...' However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help 'set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.' Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see."

5. Same thing with Obama's promise that non-emergency bills would be posted for public comment five days before being signed. Didn't happen.

"Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not 'sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.' PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform."

Palin gives suggestions for how to achieve health care reform without breaking the budget. No subsidies, public option, or nationalized health care.

Put in tort reform. Though "a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill."

Embrace free market competition, allow purchase of plans across state lines, give individuals who purchase health plans the same tax benefits as those with employer paid plans. Don't cripple Medicare, but "reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage."

Sounds a lot more likely to not add "even one dime to our deficit over the next decade" than any of the President's plans while effecting needed health care reform.

Health Care and Econ 101

OregonGuy gives the best summary I've seen on government health care priorities and basic economic realities.

OregonGuy points out that health care costs are going up because almost all of us would rather treat ailments that in the past have been considered untreatable rather than save money and just do the "live with it" routine.

Most of us would choose a knee replacement rather than spending life with a walker or in a wheelchair--even if the knee replacement is a lot more expensive than the walker or wheelchair.

Health care costs going up are a function of choosing to pay for treatment rather than spend money or something else--say a new car or a more expensive vacation.

But, with government setting cost cutting goals, your priorities won't count. As Mark Steyn points out:

The problem with government health systems is not that they pull the plug on Grandma. It's that Grandma has a hell of a time getting plugged in in the first place. The only way to "control costs" is to restrict access to treatment, and the easiest people to deny treatment to are the oldsters. Don't worry, it's all very scientific. In Britain, they use a "Quality-Adjusted Life Year" formula to decide that you don't really need that new knee because you're gonna die in a year or two, maybe a decade-and-a-half tops. So it's in the national interest for you to go around hobbling in pain rather than divert "finite resources" away from productive members of society to a useless old geezer like you.