by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, September 29, 2003 1:01 P.M. EDT

Ceausescu Watch
"Thousands of protesters demanding an end to the occupation of Iraq took to the streets Saturday in London, Athens, Paris and other cities around the world, chanting slogans against the United States and Britain," the Associated Press reports. The real news here, though, is that the antiwar movement has fizzled. "London's was the biggest protest, drawing 20,000 people."

Twenty thousand people? That's down two orders of magnitude since February. If the decline continues at this rate, they'll be lucky if they can scare up a couple of hundred people by next spring.

Not that you can't learn anything by listening to the voice of dissent. The Associated Press reports on a startling revelation at a rally in Los Angeles:

Disabled Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the Fourth of July," addressed the rally, saying "the same government that paralyzed me and put me in this wheelchair" was killing American and Iraqi boys.

We had no idea the North Vietnamese were fighting in Iraq, but hey--bring 'em on!

Blogger David Adesnik reports there were demonstrators at Harvard too:

"It Is OK to Hate George Bush": That's one of the signs that [Saturday's] protesters have up in Harvard Square. Another good one was "Lobotomies for Republicans--It's the Law." Well at least they're promoting a positive agenda for social change, instead of just engaging in destructive partisan attacks.

Boy, does this take us back. In the 1980s, when we were young, we'd occasionally go to visit our friend David Burkhart, then an undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego. Just for laughs, we'd usually pay a visit to a campus establishment called Groundworks Books, a student-run "collective" that sold communist literature. On one such visit we noticed that the place was selling buttons with the aforementioned lobotomy slogan. Apparently this was a play on a public-service ad campaign of the time--"Use a gun, go to jail--it's the law"--but we still didn't quite get it. So we asked the girl behind the counter to explain. The exchange went something like this:

Taranto: I don't understand this button. "Lobotomies for Republicans--it's the law." What does that mean?

Cashier: Well, Republicans are always saying, "It's the law," so it's pointing out a contradiction.

Taranto: But there's no law saying Republicans have to get lobotomies. What's the contradiction?

Cashier (exasperated): It's just a button!

Naturally, we bought a button, though we've long since mislaid it, which is just as well. As we got older, we came to realize that we'd rather have a bottle in front of us than a frontal lobotomy.

A few years later, in 1989, we were in California visiting our parents for Christmas, and we drove down to see Dave on Dec. 26. We paid our usual visit to Groundworks, and this time the cashier was a middle-aged man with a ponytail. As we browsed the shelves, looking at monographs with translated speeches of the Albanian Stalinist dictator Enver Hoxha (no joke), it suddenly dawned on us that the hippie cashier had the store stereo on and was listening to National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." Playing loud enough that everyone in the store could hear it was a report on the previous day's big news--the execution of Nicolae Ceausescu, communist dictator of Romania.

It was a magical moment, and thinking of it never fails to warm our heart and restore our faith in human progress. Thanks for the memories, you communist scum.

The Plame Facts
"At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist," yesterday's Washington Post reported. "The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons."

We've been keeping an eye on this story since July, when it first surfaced in the left-wing press. But we haven't commented on it, because we haven't been sure what to make of it. We're still not sure what to make of it, since we've heard only part of one side of the story; the administration has not made any substantive comments, and what we've heard from its accusers has been far from complete. But now that the story is getting attention outside the fever swamps, we thought we'd review what is and isn't known so far.

At issue is the following passage in syndicated columnist Robert Novak's July 14 column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Two days later, The Nation's David Corn published a column that laid out the allegation at the heart of the Post story:

The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. . . .

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.

A couple of caveats are in order here. First, it remains unconfirmed that Plame was in fact working covertly for the CIA. Novak described her as a CIA "operative," but not an undercover operative. Wilson and the CIA both imply that she was an undercover operative, but they employ various circumlocutions to avoid actually saying so. Thus Corn:

Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.

The Post, likewise, says "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

In addition, no one in a position to know has publicly fingered the alleged leakers. Wilson himself has said he would like "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," and various anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have latched on to the Rove theory. But this seems to be pure speculation, and possibly wishful thinking. Bush-haters, after all, would love to be rid of Rove, a great political asset to the White House.

The Post's main source narrows the field somewhat:

A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. . . . The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

One question that arises is how the Post's source knew that the alleged leakers were "top White House officials"--a category that is more specific than Novak's description of "senior administration officials." It's possible is that the Post's source is someone at the CIA who had knowledge of journalists' inquires to the agency about the leaks. Perhaps one or more of the journalists used the more specific description. But the Post account suggests that the source has even more specific knowledge. "The official would not name the leakers for the record," (emphasis ours), the paper says, implying that he did name them off the record. How would he know? Did one of the reporters betray his sources?

Then there's this, also from the Post account:

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. . . .

Novak said in an interview [Saturday] night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

If the revelation of Plame's name was such a serious breach of national security, why didn't the CIA make a stronger pitch to Novak to withhold it? Indeed, as blogger Donald Luskin asks, why did the CIA answer Novak's questions at all?

Instead of saying "Valerie who? We've never heard of anyone named Valerie" or simply that "We don't answer media inquiries about CIA personnel"--the CIA itself confirmed [her identity], and in so doing the CIA itself leaked it.

Then there's the question of motive. Why would Novak's administration sources blow Plame's cover, assuming indeed that they did so? Wilson told Corn the revelation "is intended to intimidate others who might come forward." But this doesn't make sense. An ordinary reader of Novak's column had no way of grasping the purported significance of the revelation. Novak didn't make explicit that he was blowing Plame's cover; what he reported seemed to be more an accusation of nepotism. (Not a very convincing accusation, we might add, since Wilson was not paid for his sojourn to Niger, which is not exactly one of the world's leading vacation spots.) In order for the revelation to have the kind of deterrent value Wilson claims, it would have to be clear to an outsider that Novak had reported something truly damaging--and that couldn't happen without the leakers themselves being incriminated. And in any case, how many administration critics are married to CIA covert operatives?

The Post's source's theory is that "it was meant purely and simply for revenge" against Wilson. Human nature being what it is, one can't rule out such ignoble motives. But as a political matter, taking such action would have been, as the Post's source puts it, "a huge miscalculation." What could have been in it for the administration, or for the leakers? Why risk creating the Bush White House's first-ever scandal over the yellowcake kerfuffle, an issue that no one cared about outside the Beltway and the Bush-hating left? It doesn't sound like something Karl Rove would do.

Good News Is No News, Post Writer Insists
Journalists tend not to respond well to criticism, and the Washington Post's Dana Milbank provided a good example yesterday on CNN's "Reliable Sources," hosted by fellow Postman Howard Kurtz:

Kurtz: There is criticism that the media, for example, are playing up bad news in Iraq, and therefore making things look worse, and therefore damaging the president, some would say intentionally.

Milbank: This is one of the most dangerous things I think happens in our whole culture. . . . The implication is that the press, by writing about bad news, things that are happening bad to the United States occupation in Iraq, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And this, I think, is against the long tradition that has governed the press in America, and that is that we--it is our responsibility to point out when things are wrong. It's not our job to be cheerleaders.

So criticizing the media is dangerous and the job of the media is to report bad news? Isn't the job of the media to report news, good and bad? The criticism that the media have dwelled too much on bad news is hard to refute.

Example: This week's Time magazine cover shows President Bush in his flight suit after that glorious May 1 landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Later that day (after changing into a business suit), the president delivered a speech declaring the end to "major combat operations" in Iraq. Sailors had strung a banner from the ship's bridge reading "Mission accomplished." The Time cover blurb reads: "Mission Not Accomplished: How Bush Misjudged the Task of Fixing Iraq."

"The mission wasn't accomplished then, and it still is not," Time carps. "The reconstruction of Iraq has proved far more difficult than any official assumed it would be." But here's what Bush said on the Lincoln:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people,

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

Reuters, meanwhile, carries what should be an upbeat story about American soldiers teaching Iraqi orphans to play football, but can't resist throwing in this anti-American non sequitur: "None of the boys asked to play was orphaned as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in which an unknown number of Iraqi civilians were killed. U.S. efforts to restore order since the end of the war have floundered and postwar guerrilla attacks in which 80 U.S. soldiers have died have left troops wary of contact with locals."

Sorry to be so critical, Milbank, but we like to live dangerously.

Maybe She Should Ask Osama bin Laden for Help
"As Congress considers the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, it cannot ignore failing schools and a crumbling infrastructure at home, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Saturday," reports the Olympian, the newspaper of the Washington state capital. " 'We all understand the importance of helping the Iraqi people, but it need not come at the expense of our schools, roads, health care and jobs,' Murray said in her party's weekly radio address."

She forgot to mention day-care centers.

Sour Peaches
"Former Sen. Max Cleland, a triple-amputee from the Vietnam War, is asking people to sign a petition citing what he says are eerie similarities between President Bush's actions in Iraq and the war in Vietnam," the Associated Press reports. Celeland wrote an op-ed along similar lines in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution earlier this month: "Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance."

Cleland voted for the war in Iraq last October. The next month, he lost a hard-fought re-election campaign in which challenger Saxby Chambliss made an issue of his obstructionism on the homeland-security bill. Democrats keep accusing Republicans of having questioned Cleland's patriotism, though we have yet to see any evidence that's true, and it seems implausible that anyone would believe a public servant who lost three limbs in combat is anything other than a patriot. But while Cleland is a war hero, his lashing out this way over a political loss is anything but heroic.

Scoundrel Watch
"Iraq is a test the U.S. cannot afford to fail. The real patriots are the Americans protesting the inadequacies of the Bush administration's politically skewed policies. . . . America should be questioning the patriotism of those in the White House who put re-election and ideology above the nation's interests."--editorial, Roanoke (Va.) Times, Sept. 26

Great Minds Think Alike

"Gen. Wesley Clark told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."--PoliticsNH.com, Sept. 27

"There are many disturbing passages in the soon-to-be-published book 'Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait,' by Midge Decter. . . . The word to describe Rummy, she says in Helen Gurley Brown italics, is manliness. (I would describe him as the man who trashed two countries, spent hundreds of billions, exhausted our troops, but still hasn't found Osama, Saddam or W.M.D.)"--Maureen Dowd, New York Times, Sept. 28

"Rumsfeld whose political faith is to establish the U.S. style world order by strength is known to be a typical stupid man for professing 'neo-conservatism' censured and mocked at worldwide. He is, therefore, not a guy who the DPRK can deal with. Rumsfeld asserted with acrimony that one who does not follow the U.S. view on value can never coexist with it but must die. One can easily assess the political line of the Bush administration which includes such a dangerous international dictator as that guy."--KCNA (North Korea's state-run "news" agency), Sept. 27

You Don't Say
"Bush '04 Readying for One Democrat, Not 10"--headline, New York Times, Sept. 29

Everything's Coming Up Arnold
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has bad news for California's Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and worse news for Gov. Gray Davis. Of those polled, 63% support the Davis's recall, vs. just 35% who oppose it. Davis needs more than 50% "no" votes to stay in office. In the race to replace Davis, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger out-polls Democrat Bustamante, 40% to 25%, with Tom McClintock, another Republican, getting 18%.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party
Cruz Bustamante finally finished his college degree this spring. We guess that's admirable, but the Fresno Bee reports that he may have cut some corners. A Fresno State University professor gave Bustamante a C in a speech course he never attended because he decided the lieutenant governor "would have earned at least a C based on his public utterances":

"In my judgment at the time, he had certainly demonstrated minimal proficiency, and I emphasize minimal proficiency . . . in the fundamental skills mandated by the course," Robert Powell, former chairman of the communication department, said last week. He interjected: "I'm not going to make any judgment about the eloquence or anything else" of Bustamante's speeches.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

That Would Have Taught Him a Lesson
"Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini once privately suggested the Vatican consider excommunicating Adolf Hitler, a historian said Saturday, citing a document recently disclosed by the Holy See," the Associated Press reports from Rome.

Homer Nods
Friday's item on the lawsuit over the do-not-call list (since corrected) misidentified the name of the judge who issued the first injunction against the list. He is Lee West, not Lee Edwards. Lee Edwards is the Heritage Foundation's Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought, and we have no idea how we got them mixed up.

Deep Thoughts About Violence

"It's absolutely clear we can't prevent violence. We need to work together to limit it."--Janet Reno, quoted in the Finger Lakes (N.Y.) Times, Sept. 26

"Crime Blamed for S. Africa Violence"--headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 26

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

"Expert: France Not to Blame for Blackout"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 28

"France Blames Swiss-Italian Powerline for Blackout"--headline, Australian Broadcast Corp. Web site, Sept. 28

"Swiss Deflect Blame for Italian Blackout"--headline, SwissInfo.org, Sept. 29

"Italy's Big Blackout Blamed on a Tree"--headline, Ireland On-Line, Sept. 29

What Would Sheep Dealers Do Without Experts?
"Experts Deployed to Seal Sheep Deal"--headline, (Melbourne, Australia) Age, Sept. 28

Next Target: Turkish Delight
"U.S. Says Dutch Need to Fight Ecstasy"--headline, NYTimes.com, Sept. 26

What Kind of Weasel Would Fry a Sales Slip?
"French Fry Sales Slip Over Fat Worries"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 27

Didn't Columbus Settle This Question?
"Europe Launches First Mission to Moon," reads the headline of an Associated Press dispatch. Hmm, we seem to remember there were some moon missions before: Apollo XI, Apollo XII, Apollo XIV, Apollo XV, Apollo XVI and Apollo XVII. Of course, there are people who don't believe the Apollo missions really went to the moon. Has Europe joined the Flat Earth Society?

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Justice, George Bone, Steven Platzer, Natalie Cohen, Gregory Baruch, Scott Ott, Robert LeChevalier, Joseph Slife, John Campbell, Daren Hiedgerken, Barak Moore, Joel Goldberg, Yehuda Hilewitz, S.E. Brenner, Raghu Desikan, Ron Ackert, John Williamson, Justin Taylor, Keivn Smith, Bob Grinsell, Jerry Liberace, Jennifer Ray and John Forsberg. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Donald Rumsfeld: We're not in Iraq to stay. We are there to get the job done.
• Robert Bartley on myths and facts about exchange rates.
• Brendan Miniter: Why doesn't Johnny vote? Blame it on social studies.