European Bastards

>Not isolationist. Thinking strategically and prioritizing.

>Sri Lanka is marginally more important than the Dafur region

>of the Sudan, so we should throw them a few bucks. Neither is

>terribly important.

Translation from neoconese: No oil for halliburton

>If the governemtn should not

>decide how your dollars should be spent on emergency aid, why

>should it decide what to do with your hard earned cash at all?

>You are supposed to be a democracy after all, it should be up

>to you what is supported.

We don't have an omnipotent federal government. In fact, our country was born out of the desire to get away from the all-powerful lawless government in your country.

We have a federal government with very LIMITED powers. Taking citizens' money away from them in order to provide international charity is plainly NOT one of the functions of the U.S. Government.

The U.S. Constitution is the document which defines the powers and purposes of the Federal Government. Its Preamble makes clear what the purposes of the Federal Governemnt are:

<<to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . >>

Traveller is 100% correct. To the extent that giving away some money to some Muslim countries after a flood promotes our "common defense," it is absolutely legitimate for the U.S. Government to do it. But the U.S. Government doesn't exist and isn't empowered to help the people of Sri Lanka for magnanimous and charitable reasons.

To the extent that it is about "helping" people in Sri Lanka, that is for individuals, making their OWN CHOICES about where THEIR MONEY will be given, to do on their own. The U.S. Government isn't empowered to take away citizens' money in order to give to charitable causes.

This is a very difficult concept for Europeans and socialists to understand, becuase so many of you can't comprehend individual freedom and actaully hate individual liberty - just as your history illustrates.

But liberty means that individuals have the right to make decisions for themselves, EXCEPT where they consent to have the Government act for them. But to Europeans and Socialists, EVERYTHING has to be done through Government - even charitable acts - and it only counts if it's blessed and dictated by the Big Daddy Government, without which you're incapable of living your lives. Even worse, for snotty liberal pseudo-elitists, you believe that your fellow citizens are too dumb to make decisions for themselves, so the Government must act for them, and the only acts that really matter are ones done through the Governemnt.

On a differnet note, I've seen people who appear obssessed with counting which countries are giving "the most" to this disaster as though it's some sort of demented telethon, but Londonbear's daily, creepy calculations far surpass anything I've seen.

Just read his posts - can anyone doubt that nobody gives less of a fuck about the victims of this flood than Londonbear, who devotes his energies to masterbating every day with his calculator in order to use the dead bodies floating in the Indian Ocean merely as his latest prop in his anti-Bush and anti-American crusade?

Any person who reads about this disaster and the 150,000 human beings who have been wiped out by it and then adopts as their principal reaction the question "How can I use THIS to make Bush look bad?" is about as morally depraved as it gets.

>>Not isolationist. Thinking strategically and prioritizing.

>

>>Sri Lanka is marginally more important than the Dafur region

>>of the Sudan, so we should throw them a few bucks. Neither

>is

>>terribly important.

>

>Translation from neoconese: No oil for halliburton

Good point. Only Halliburton benefits from oil. Oil is totally irrelevant to the Western World and to your life. If the flow of oil were jeopardized or disruprted, it wouldn't have any bad effects at all on our lives. Oil is of value only to oil companies. Oil is just this slimy black substance that is way overrated. We don't need it. We should be focusing our military resources and foreign policy efforts on what really matters: helping Sri Lankans re-build their houses.

Is this brilliance what a Kerry foreign policy would have looked like?

>We have a federal government with very LIMITED powers. Taking

>citizens' money away from them in order to provide

>international charity is plainly NOT one of the functions of

>the U.S. Government.

>

>The U.S. Constitution is the document which defines the powers

>and purposes of the Federal Government. Its Preamble makes

>clear what the purposes of the Federal Governemnt are:

>

><<to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure

>domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote

>the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

>ourselves and our Posterity . . . >>

>

>Traveller is 100% correct. To the extent that giving away

>some money to some Muslim countries after a flood promotes our

>"common defense," it is absolutely legitimate for the U.S.

>Government to do it. But the U.S. Government doesn't exist

>and isn't empowered to help the people of Sri Lanka for

>magnanimous and charitable reasons.

>

So let's clarify your position. It's OK for the US government to give money to a province of a muslim country because that is promoting the "common defense" of the USA. That's because the people there are muslim and muslims hijacked the aircraft on 9/11. But before the earthquake you were supporting the Indonesian government in isolating Aceh province and fighting a particularly nasty civil war because of a "fundamentalist muslim" insurgency there.

Now as the people of Sri Lanka are mostly Bhuddist with a Christian minority, they do not deserve any money as no-one from those religions hijacked an aircraft on 9/11. The same presumably applies to Thailand which is mostly Bhuddist. So the way for a Sri Lankan or Thai to ensure their country gets aid in the event of a future natural disaster is to hijack passenger aircraft in the USA and fly them into a couple of important buildings. Do you have any to recommend to them which will provide the maximum impact and perceived threat?

Maybe in Europe we do not make "Liberty" the holy grail because we remember the other two pillars of a just and civilised society "equality and brotherhood". And just to stop you snipping, I made contributions to Unicef and our DEC, equivalent to a day's income, while Bush was still doing his yard work. When did you contribute or are you saving your money to hire an escort? I'll remind you yet again that this thread was started by a right=winger attacking two european countries for not contributing enough but you all have now gotten terribly defensive when the boot is on the other foot. As for calculating, never heard of a spreadsheet?

By the way, you still have not told us how federal subsidies to the tobacco growing industry promotes "the general Welfare"

>So let's clarify your position. It's OK for the US government

>to give money to a province of a muslim country because that

>is promoting the "common defense" of the USA. That's because

>the people there are muslim and muslims hijacked the aircraft

>on 9/11. But before the earthquake you were supporting the

>Indonesian government in isolating Aceh province and fighting

>a particularly nasty civil war because of a "fundamentalist

>muslim" insurgency there.

Absolutely. Of course, if Kerry were taking these actions it would be hailed as "nuanced," given the apparently conflicting positions. Your inference that it is inconsistent is completely consistent with liberal mantra of Bush-is-dumb-as-a-post and therefore taking actions at odds with one another and harmful to our country. As other posters would state, at least attempt to apply the same standards to the other side that you apply to your own party.

>

>Now as the people of Sri Lanka are mostly Bhuddist with a

>Christian minority, they do not deserve any money as no-one

>from those religions hijacked an aircraft on 9/11. The same

>presumably applies to Thailand which is mostly Bhuddist. So

>the way for a Sri Lankan or Thai to ensure their country gets

>aid in the event of a future natural disaster is to hijack

>passenger aircraft in the USA and fly them into a couple of

>important buildings. Do you have any to recommend to them

>which will provide the maximum impact and perceived threat?

Wrong about Thailand. They get bucks. We have a substantial amount of trade with them. More importantly, they supported us in a major way in the Viet Nam War, primarily through the establishment of numerous bases on their soil. Granted it was because they bought the domino theory, which turned out to be completely correct, and so, their own self-interest was involved. They get a helping hand on all matters because of this. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, doesn't much warrant even an afterthought.

>Maybe in Europe we do not make "Liberty" the holy grail

>because we remember the other two pillars of a just and

>civilised society "equality and brotherhood". And just to stop

>you snipping, I made contributions to Unicef and our DEC,

>equivalent to a day's income, while Bush was still doing his

>yard work. When did you contribute or are you saving your

>money to hire an escort? I'll remind you yet again that this

>thread was started by a right=winger attacking two european

>countries for not contributing enough but you all have now

>gotten terribly defensive when the boot is on the other foot.

>As for calculating, never heard of a spreadsheet?

One, your slogans are more applicable to the revolution that cut off rulers' heads, not my country. The course of each revolution, of course, is the fundamental difference between the philosophies of the two systems. Apply your rules to Old Europe, as they're the only countries that are still buying them.

Two, my whole argument is that I don't think it means a rat's ass whose government gave what in absolute or any other terms other than national interest aims.

Three, instead of aid to the tsunami victims, I doubled my annual contribution to the NRA as I feel that will do more for the world harmony.

Lastly, by spending mountains of cash on escorts each year I'm doing my best to practice what I preach - the old trickle down theory. I'll bet I helped the world economy, and thus the world's needy and poor, a boat-load more than you did last year.

>By the way, you still have not told us how federal subsidies

>to the tobacco growing industry promotes "the general Welfare"

They don't. And neither do tort laws which permit Lefties to file frivolous suits against every harm imaginable. "Imaginable" being the operative word.

Later.

PS. Doug, why respond with a coherent argument to BON's Haliburton wail? I would've just screeched "Monica Lewinsky" and called it a day. This would put it on the same level of discourse.

>PS. Doug, why respond with a coherent argument to BON's

>Haliburton wail? I would've just screeched "Monica Lewinsky"

>and called it a day. This would put it on the same level of

>discourse.

Amazing how consist you Reborglican drones are in initiaing your preprogrammed directives, such as the Lewinsky one. A word waged for halliburton in Iraq, millions of dollars misspent and somehow a blowjob is equivalent to that. You must belong to the Coulter branch of the Collective.

Well, I just read this thread for the first time, from top to bottom. And, honestly, I don't think I'd invite any of you to dinner.

Whatever happened to reasoned discussions, respect for the opinions of others, and debate with an open mind that was open to convincing arguments from the other side?

The feeling I get from reading this thread is that you are all yelling past each other, giving no quarter, with no interest whatsoever in what the others are saying. You seem often to be simply trying to shout the loudest to convince the others that you are right, with little or no interest in what the other side is really saying. It's as if to feel good about yourself you have to be right completely, absolutely right and the other guy has to be completelly, absolutely wrong.

It takes more than simply yelling the loudest to truly be a thinking man, much less someone worth listening to.

The US and Europe used to be pretty good friends, as friends go. If this thread is any indication, I don't hold much hope for the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance, more the pity.

BG

>Wrong about Thailand. They get bucks. We have a substantial

>amount of trade with them. More importantly, they supported

>us in a major way in the Viet Nam War, primarily through the

>establishment of numerous bases on their soil. Granted it was

>because they bought the domino theory, which turned out to be

>completely correct, and so, their own self-interest was

>involved. They get a helping hand on all matters because of

>this. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, doesn't much warrant even

>an afterthought.

Last year the tariffs on clothing imports to the USA from Sri Lanka were more than twice the $350 million total pledged in aid by Bush. Contined tariffs by the USA when at the same time the Multi Fibre Agreement was allowed to expire is likely to have more economic effect on Sri Lanka than the tsunami.

.

>

>>By the way, you still have not told us how federal subsidies

>>to the tobacco growing industry promotes "the general

>Welfare"

>

>They don't. And neither do tort laws which permit Lefties to

>file frivolous suits against every harm imaginable.

Glad to see then that you will be objecting to the continuation of these subsidies in the upcoming budget. I wonder how many Republican (or Democrat come to that) congressmen will be willing to support you.

>Glad to see then that you will be objecting to the

>continuation of these subsidies in the upcoming budget. I

>wonder how many Republican (or Democrat come to that)

>congressmen will be willing to support you.

Absolutely. I hate smoking (distorts kissing) and farm subsidies (distort markets). Easier to decrease the tobacco subsidies with Helms gone. Harder with McConnell rising. The only hope is with the WTO at some point, although the Europeans, unfortunately, don't grow much tobacco.

Later.

PS. I just had to add, as most of you undoubtedly noted today, that Moonves letter directly ties Rather's "retirement" to his unjournalisitc and unethical actions in September. Say goodnight Danny.

>PS. I just had to add, as most of you undoubtedly noted

>today, that Moonves letter directly ties Rather's

>"retirement" to his unjournalisitc and unethical actions in

>September. Say goodnight Danny.

Frankly, who gives a fuck about CBS or Dan Rather? The real issue, Dubya's AWOL status from the National Guard, could be easily resolved by Bush releasing his Social Security Administration records for the period in question. This would resolve, once and for all, who is telling the truth and who is lying. Of course, Bush already lied repeatedly when he kept saying that he had released all the records. That is a lie, pure and simple, because the Social Security records haven't been released. Now why would he be reluctant to release this information. I think any fairminded person could draw a reasonable conclusion that the cat would finally be out of the bag, and we would have definitive proof that Dubya was the deserter that many thought him to be.

All this talk about Rather and CBS is just smoke and mirrors to keep the public away from the real story: that Bush was a deserter who used his family name and influence to escape the consequences. That has been the story of his sordid life.

>

>All this talk about Rather and CBS is just smoke and mirrors

>to keep the public away from the real story: that Bush was a

>deserter who used his family name and influence to escape the

>consequences. That has been the story of his sordid life.

>>

>

Gee Bucky, do you have a direct phone to god? Glad you have a reason to know sooooo much. Of course some people don't know when to keep their mouths shut...

>Gee Bucky, do you have a direct phone to god? Glad you have a

>reason to know sooooo much. Of course some people don't know

>when to keep their mouths shut...

A direct phone to God isn't necessary, there's plenty of documentation in the public arena to show that Dubya's wealthy family and friends have constantly had to bail him out of every mess he's created. Ever hear of his failed days as an oil man? Or how Poppy Bush's friends bought Dubya into the Texas Rangers, how Dubya and Company screwed the citizens of Arlington Texas into building a stadium at taxpayer's expense, and how Shrub made his money due to all those factors? Ever hear of how Poppy Bush's connection got Dubya into the National Guard in the first place, over a lot of others who were ahead of him in the line? No, I'm sure you haven't heard of these things, because it's pretty hard to be aware of much when you keep your head up your ass.

You should follow your own advice about people knowing when to keep their mouths shut. You didn't provide any refutation of what I said, only a few well-worn bullshit and trite comments that, as always, fail to address the issue at hand.

I'm certainly not surprised. I doubt you've ever had an original thought in your life, so you just copy Rush and the rest of the dittoheads. Some fucking accomplishment. Now piss off.

>Absolutely. I hate smoking (distorts kissing) and farm

>subsidies (distort markets). Easier to decrease the tobacco

>subsidies with Helms gone. Harder with McConnell rising. The

>only hope is with the WTO at some point, although the

>Europeans, unfortunately, don't grow much tobacco.

>

The latest figures readily available are from the late 1990s when the EU15 produced 345,000 tonnes and the Accession Countries a further 110,000 tonnes. Not quite the 575,000 tonnes produced in the USA in the same period but not "not much", especially as Greece exports to the US. EU subsidies are actually being phased out so the position is fluid.

Tobacco is actually not the most significantly protected crop in the US. Cotton producers get about $3.9 Billion in subsidies each year, roughly the amount of Development Aid the US identifies it gives to the poorest countries.

Meanwhile I shall ignore your attempt to redirect the thread by letting you know that the UK government has now upped the amount for initial aid to $142 million. They have also annouced that they have committed cash expenditure totalling $380 million so far consisting of the direct aid packages, income tax relief on donations given to charities (given to the charities), VAT (purchase tax) being suspended for sales of tickets to events and records produced for the appeal and in debt suspension for the affected countries.

Not only is that more in absolute terms from one European country's government than the USA, it is five or six times per head or by GDP. Time for Bush to make another statement and to put his money where his mouth is or Kippy will have to accept that the United States is falling behind Europe's enlightened example.

To hell with Dan Rather and CBS. I want to know why Robert Novak isn't behind bars for outting Valerie Plame!

My Goooooooood! ( I can still say that can't I?) The global consciousness that this thread has fallen into is appalling. What? No gardens to tend, antiques to collect or ANYTHING other than spew European Union (Think Holy Roman Empire}( stats at us? On a lighter non-GWB note has any one seen the movie "The Aviator"? Now there's a good example of capitalism gone awry and not one drop of social consciousness!!:+

Peace,

Kipp

No Kippy, what has happened in this thread you started is that you and your cohorts have made a series of ill-informed claims and comments in an attempt to attack "European Bastards" and somehow show the moral superiority of the USA.

When verifiable, independent data shows your statemnts to be fallacious, you attack the messenger or try to divert the thread you started. I am sorry for you if your delusions are challenged by facts. There are many instances where the Bush administration has engineered just that situation. I cannot but feel that the degree of hostility you display is not solely based on the Bush propaganda. Is it because european escorts have refused to lower their local price for you because the value of your almighty dollar has fallen through the floor? Are the South Americans finding the French and Germans' euro give them more to "trickle down" into the economy?

>You should follow your own advice about people knowing when to

>keep their mouths shut. You didn't provide any refutation of

>what I said, only a few well-worn bullshit and trite comments

>that, as always, fail to address the issue at hand.

>

>I'm certainly not surprised. I doubt you've ever had an

>original thought in your life, so you just copy Rush and the

>rest of the dittoheads. Some fucking accomplishment. Now

>piss off.

>

I didn't refute anything you said? What was there to refute? You did not say a damn thing expect your opinion. Read your post again and think again - but I doubt you are capable. "I only used well-worn bullshit and trite comments that, as always, fail to address the issue at hand"? Can't you read what you said? Do you have an ounce of brain in your head?

All I did was respond to your personal opinion. Read it AGAIN. Do you know how? Probably not. It is such a shame that you think you have a right to even express an opinion. Of course the country that you hate so much allows you to do that. Oh well, you take the good with the bad. Now why don't you piss off - it seems to be a favorite expression of yours.

>Meanwhile I shall ignore your attempt to redirect the thread

>by letting you know that the UK government has now upped the

>amount for initial aid to $142 million. They have also

>annouced that they have committed cash expenditure totalling

>$380 million so far consisting of the direct aid packages,

>income tax relief on donations given to charities (given to

>the charities), VAT (purchase tax) being suspended for sales

>of tickets to events and records produced for the appeal and

>in debt suspension for the affected countries.

>

>Not only is that more in absolute terms from one European

>country's government than the USA, it is five or six times per

>head or by GDP. Time for Bush to make another statement and to

>put his money where his mouth is or Kippy will have to accept

>that the United States is falling behind Europe's enlightened

>example.

Londonbear, I know how much you hate my country but you are not doing anthing to help us or Europe. You can read CNN, BBC, etc. but your stating how much Europe is helping Asia or whatever in the world is much more than what we are doing.

Think, and think carefully, what country spends more, and far more, than any country in the the world. And forget GDP. Think about the troops, Army, Navy, etc. (yes you can forget about Iraq). It is also costing us 6 million a day to support our relief in Asia. I am not downgrading any country (especially Australia) in the relief effort but we really should be appreciated in so many other things.

What I am trying to say is that this country helps everywhere, which is not true of many countries. And when people like you think we are not doing enough, you never consider the total contribution.

Most gay people are usually well read but quite liberal. However, there are so many decent Americans with different opinions that don't like your criticism of what we do and that you have the gall to criticize our good intentions. In the long run I think people like you and the ilk are just contributing to another Berlin wall, this time between the USA and Europe.

Well I would appreciate a link to the "$6 million a day" and a breakdown of it as I have seen that quoted as the weekly cost. It is also open to debate if you should include the cost of the naval pay in that total as you have to reveal what they would otherwise be doing. My understanding is that they were due to take part in exercises off the east of Thailand so in effect are doing the job they would otherwise be training for. That is not to reduce the valuable contibution the aircraft have made or the effort put in by the individuals on the ground or at sea.

Many other countries have sent contingents from their armed forces. The fact that the USA choses to spend more and therefore has the largest amount of assets suitable is an expression of the role you have chosed to adopt.

Maybe you can define the "help" the USA gives elsewhere and not forget the quid pro quo you get for the expenditure that you are probably thinking of.

Any form of comparison has to be on a like-for-like basis and it is therefore necessary to do things like looking at the EU as a whole rather than any individual country. Even if you look at just the largest 3 together, Britain France and Germany they give more in development aid (@$20 billion) compared to the USA's just under $16 billion, with a combined population of about two thirds that of the US. The relative positions of the USA and Japan as the largest cash donors alters with the changes of the value of the Yen against the dollar.

If you are going to make assertions, support them with verifiable facts and not your own misinformed opinions.

>Well I would appreciate a link to the "$6 million a day" and

>a breakdown of it as I have seen that quoted as the weekly

>cost. It is also open to debate if you should include the cost

>of the naval pay in that total as you have to reveal what they

>would otherwise be doing. My understanding is that they were

>due to take part in exercises off the east of Thailand so in

>effect are doing the job they would otherwise be training for.

>That is not to reduce the valuable contibution the aircraft

>have made or the effort put in by the individuals on the

>ground or at sea.

>

>Many other countries have sent contingents from their armed

>forces. The fact that the USA choses to spend more and

>therefore has the largest amount of assets suitable is an

>expression of the role you have chosed to adopt.

>

>Maybe you can define the "help" the USA gives elsewhere and

>not forget the quid pro quo you get for the expenditure that

>you are probably thinking of.

>

>Any form of comparison has to be on a like-for-like basis and

>it is therefore necessary to do things like looking at the EU

>as a whole rather than any individual country. Even if you

>look at just the largest 3 together, Britain France and

>Germany they give more in development aid (@$20 billion)

>compared to the USA's just under $16 billion, with a combined

>population of about two thirds that of the US. The relative

>positions of the USA and Japan as the largest cash donors

>alters with the changes of the value of the Yen against the

>dollar.

>

>If you are going to make assertions, support them with

>verifiable facts and not your own misinformed opinions.

>>Well I would appreciate a link to the "$6 million a day"

>and

>>a breakdown of it as I have seen that quoted as the weekly

>>cost. It is also open to debate if you should include the

>cost

>>of the naval pay in that total as you have to reveal what

>they

>>would otherwise be doing. My understanding is that they were

>>due to take part in exercises off the east of Thailand so in

>>effect are doing the job they would otherwise be training

>for.

>>That is not to reduce the valuable contibution the aircraft

>>have made or the effort put in by the individuals on the

>>ground or at sea.

>>

>>Many other countries have sent contingents from their armed

>>forces. The fact that the USA choses to spend more and

>>therefore has the largest amount of assets suitable is an

>>expression of the role you have chosed to adopt.

>>

>>Maybe you can define the "help" the USA gives elsewhere and

>>not forget the quid pro quo you get for the expenditure that

>>you are probably thinking of.

>>

>>Any form of comparison has to be on a like-for-like basis

>and

>>it is therefore necessary to do things like looking at the

>EU

>>as a whole rather than any individual country. Even if you

>>look at just the largest 3 together, Britain France and

>>Germany they give more in development aid (@$20 billion)

>>compared to the USA's just under $16 billion, with a

>combined

>>population of about two thirds that of the US. The relative

>>positions of the USA and Japan as the largest cash donors

>>alters with the changes of the value of the Yen against the

>>dollar.

>>

>>If you are going to make assertions, support them with

>>verifiable facts and not your own misinformed opinions.

>

You are absolutely insufferable. Why are you posting here? You hate this country so much yet you can't stay away. "I want to know the breakdown of what the USA is spending". Could that be the cost of aircraft, personal, ships, aircraft carriers, hellicopters, shoes, socks, underwear, uniforms, toothbrushes and dental floss (oh sorry you guys don't use those with your rotten teeth), gasoline, salaries, etc. But then we are already there in Thailand for exercises. Funny,

fixed aircraft come with aircraft carriers. Some generous person must have sent the hellicopters in for free. Not that WE would foot the bill (or Europe).

Then you want to know the cost of what we have spent around the world in aid (no not Iraq). And you actually want the amount.Do you absolutely think we don't outspend the rest of the world? Why don't you support your statements with "verifiable facts and not your own misinformed opinions".

So then the answer is no you cannot provide any verifiable information to back up your claims.

The reason Robert Novak is not behind bars for outing Valerie Plame is that he committed no crime. Here is an article from today's Washington Post by the people who wrote the law that would have been used to put him in jail:

washingtonpost.com

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?

By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford

Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist Robert D. Novak the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.

Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."

It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.

Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."

There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?

The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues. The authors will take questions today at 2 p.m. on http://www.washingtonpost.com.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Maybe this, then, is the most jarring thing of all. Bogus presidents and unwinnable wars and humiliating foreign policy, rabid homophobia and misogyny and pseudo-Christian absolutist agendas that seek to maul the kaleidoscopic nature of the national spirit, these are issues and events we can access, get our minds around, things the media can report on and people can discuss with something resembling articulation and alacrity. And yet here we are, the most massive and horrific disaster in decades, and ... nothing.

There is no available perspective, little by way of opinion or viewpoint except of course for reports covering the turbulent ecology or the amazing survival stories or the massive relief efforts and the U.S.'s initial embarrassing wimpiness therein, coupled with a few mentions of President Bush's own weird and paltry $10K personal contribution. (Note to Dubya: When the spoon-fed multimillionaire WASP president of the United States won't even match the donations of the star of "Miss Congeniality 2," better to not donate anything at all, OK, George? Now go back to your nap.)

Mark Morford SFGate 12JAN2005

>Note to Dubya: When the

>spoon-fed multimillionaire WASP president of the United States

>won't even match the donations of the star of "Miss

>Congeniality 2," better to not donate anything at all, OK,

>George? Now go back to your nap.)

>

And it was reported that Teresa (rhymes with Costa Mesa) Heinz (don't bother with that Kerry nonsense anymore), billionaire widow, gave all of $450,000 to tsunami relief. Of course, this was from her dead husband's private foundation and not her own income. She herself gave....nothing. Boy, if Teresa can't give as much as Miss Congeniality (although she's sure trying to look like her with bi-weekly botox injections), let alone our President, I guess she should just continue ordering more cake for the Indonesians.

Later.

PS. Aviod the latest Chinese flick that the critics are raving about, Crouching Heros, Flying Daggers, or whatever. The first flying martial arts film with excess use of primary colors was innovative, the second tolerable, this one unbearable.