If you’re like me, you’ve been wondering what happened to John Kerry’s national security advisor, and the investigation into his criminal activities. Let the speculation cease:

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday.

… The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

I can’t decide who is hurt the worst by this whole thing.

Sandy Berger: he can’t be too happy about it.

John Kerry: he could have done without another public embarrassment.

The Washington Post: who will it turn to for lame Middle East analysis while Berger’s in jail?

The American People: well, I think we fare quite nicely, actually, provided we managed to save at least one copy of our top secret intelligence documents. You know, just in case.

The Blogs React: Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Balloon Juice…

A New York Times editorial:

Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that Ms. Schiavo should be [starved to death].

Well, thank God for that; I certainly hope so.

What good is a religious conviction if you can subvert it with an opinion poll?

I was prompted by Impromptus.

A few days ago, Jay Nordlinger wrote:

Speaking of Cheney: In every interview he gives, he makes a cute remark about Ottumwa, Iowa. That is, if ‘08 comes up, he explains how important it is to Bush to have a vice president who’s not looking to replace him, and who doesn’t worry about how his actions or words will play in Ottumwa. He usually mentions Ottumwa’s “precinct committeeman” or “county chairman.” Some enterprising journalist should call up whoever the Republican honcho is in Ottumwa and ask him for his views. I should do it myself — but I’m on an airplane at the moment, and those calls are durned expensive.

So that’s what I did — I found the chair(man) and asked for HER views on Cheney.

Here’s the note I just received from Ottumwa’s “honcho,” Trudy Caviness.

Mick,

Thank you for your interest in Ottumwa, Iowa and Wapello County.

I have had the opportunity to met Vice-president Cheney. I was part of the welcoming team when he visited Ottumwa in September 2004. I have been an admirer of his for many years. As Secretary of Defense, I formed an opinion of Cheney as a man who was directed by principle, leadership, and commitment to a safer United States and World.

I would back Cheney in a presidential run enthusiastically. I think though the vice-president is not going to run. He has spent many years in public office and I feel he and his family want to spend time together without the
constant spotlight.

Who would be the candidate for 2008? As an ardent supporter of President Bush and his policies, I think we need to continue on this direction. We need a strong President who knows and lives his convictions and beliefs. We need a person who will continue to stand strong in the face of terrorism, whether that means in the United States boundaries or abroad. We need a President who will support our military with the respect and materials and training that they deserve.

I feel the Republican Party has many people who could and would be a strong leader for not only the United States, but for the world.

I hope this has answered your questions.

Trudy Caviness, chair
Wapello County Republicans

I believe it has.

NOTE: The sentence in bold above has been corrected.

Michelle Malkin and Tom Maguire take a closer look at the WaPo wire story.

Mickey Kaus asks,

Why doesn’t ABC News, which everyone agrees is more culpable than WaPo, at least retract and apologize for its Web headline labeling the memo “GOP Talking Points”? Or does ABC not take responsibility for its Web site?

Yesterday’s developments were discussed on a CNN program captured by Jackson’s Junction. It’s a fun little roundup, I must say. Blogs shown or mentioned include Michelle Malkin, In the Agora, Rightpundit and LaShawn Barber.

Behold, a new website that was sent to me from some unknown organization for some unknown reason.

The Conservative Appeal is dedicated to amplifying the voices of our leadership by collecting and redistributing legislative updates to our expansive network of grassroots activists across the state [of Tennessee].

Is this a play off our local hackery, The Commercial Appeal? I’m not sure.

The site says it’s “a public service of districtconnect.com,” which tells us exactly nothing, unless you’re looking for “a custom quote for your specific needs.”

Who isn’t?

The domain registrant is one Reuben Watkins of TeamGOP and Clear Creek Studios in Pikeville, Tenn.

Did I sign up for TeamGOP emails? I don’t remember. Have I ever commented on their blog? I don’t remember doing that, either.

Did they get my email address (not the one listed at right) from some other GOP event? Probably. Do I mind? Not really.

Will I visit it again? Maybe… to see if they’ve put anything here yet.

Or maybe to see if they’ve come up with a reason why Rep. Blackburn couldn’t make it home for Bush’s “conversation on Social Security,” since my question emailed to her office was met with a generic form letter weeks later. Do I expect that? No, I’m not that stupid.

I’ve got some good company, but most of them are musicians, and 27 has always been a little foreboding for that type of people.

This just in: somebody knows me very well. :)

Today…

Joshua Claybourn retracts an earlier post, reveals that his sources work in Sen. Santorum’s office and calls on the media to heed his example:

I publicly apologize for posting unfounded accusations, and I hope ABC News and the Washington Post follow my lead.

La Shawn Barber is sympathetic, Eric Ragle gets preachy and Michelle Malkin offers an idea:

If Claybourn really believes he has been hoaxed, there is nothing preventing him from publishing his sources’ phone numbers.

Also, Howard Kurtz reports:

The Post’s Allen said “the blog interest has been stoked by secondhand accounts” that the paper’s story referred to Republican talking points. “We simply reported that the sheet of paper was distributed to Republican senators and told our readers explicitly that the document was unsigned, making clear it was unofficial,” he said. “We stuck to what we knew to be true and did not call them talking points or a Republican memo…”

If that’s true, the Washington Post should have made the distinction clear and explained that the source who passed the memo to them, ABC, was reporting this wrong. Don’t blame the blogs; we certainly weren’t the first to use the term “GOP Talking Points.”

As Malkin writes,

The Post is less culpable, but its second article about the memo (not the original article co-authored by Mike Allen) implied the memo was drafted and/or circulated by Republicans.

Clear reporting by the Washington Post would have prevented the media swarm that followed, with Good Morning America and Hardball and local editorials all around the country using it to bash Republicans.

Back to the Kurtz quote:

“The document was provided by an official who has a long record of trustworthiness, and this official gave a precise account of the document’s provenance, satisfying us that it was authentic and that it had been used in an attempt to influence Republican senators.” Allen said that under the journalistic ground rules, he could not say whether the source was a Democrat or a Republican.

Let me get this straight. The memo is both “unofficial” and “authentic,” and the source is both “trustworthy” and anonymous…

So we reported this because?

A Democratic Senate official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the party is not publicly discussing the memo’s origin, said: “It’s ridiculous to suggest that these are some talking points concocted by a Democratic staffer. The fact is, these talking points were given to a Democratic member by a Republican senator.” Democratic aides, in turn, gave the memo to reporters, as the New York Times reported last week.

Well that’s a bit more than we’ve been told before, but my anonymous source still says you’re full of crap.

This is a non-story spread by non-entities about a non-official memo to a bunch of know-nothings in the media, and nothing more.

UPDATE: How does that old saying go, “if a tree falls in the woods…?”

So if an error-filled, unsourced, unofficial memo is “passed around in the Senate,” but nobody reads or even receives a copy of it except for Democrat staffers and reporters, does it make a sound?

Apparently it does. Thanks, ABC!

UPDATE: Powerline returns with ““Talking Points Story Goes Up In Smoke” and leaves me wondering something.

Of course, the fact that the memo was distributed to some Republicans, just as it was distributed to some Democrats and some reporters, was never in doubt. The questions are: 1) where did it come from, and 2) was it distributed by Democrats as a dirty trick? On these points, ABC now professes complete agnosticism.

In fact, however, ABC did not report the memo as claimed by Schneider. Both on the web and on television, it was specifically described as a “GOP talking points memo.” That characterization has been picked up and repeated by countless other news organizations and columnists, and ABC’s belated recantation is highly unlikely to be similarly publicized.

If ABC and the Washington Post are now “disavowing any claim that the alleged ‘talking points memo’ was authored by a Republican, let alone that it was some kind of official Republican strategy memo,” why can’t we give it a new name based on their own standard?

Why can’t we call it the “ABC Talking Points Memo”?

ABC distributed the memo; we know that because of the Washington Post report.

ABC read it, distributed it, reported it and posted it to their website.

By ABC’s own standard, it clearly must be an “ABC Talking Points Memo.”

Powerline should have the last word:

An anonymous Democratic Senator tells us that an anonymous Republican Senator gave the document to an anonymous Democratic Congressman, who passed it on to anonymous Democratic aides, who gave it to reporters. That certainly clears up any doubts about the memo! And, oh, by the way, where did the Repuublican Senator supposedly get the memo? From a Democratic staffer? A reporter? A lobbyist? Who knows?

My OTHER senator has an interesting article in today’s Washington Post. It’s a quick read, and worth your time.

One thing he doesn’t mention is election reform. That’s one area where a federal ID might come in handy. That is, provided we don’t start handing out the new federal ID cards to illegal immigrants. But you know we will… just give it time.

No google, no gmail, no amazon, no cnet, no cnn…

but the blogs are up, and Drudge, and the New York Times.

Howard Kurtz adds a paragraph:

John Hinderaker of Powerline has a new piece up, this one in the Weekly Standard, challenging the media reports that Schiavo talking points were distributed to Republican senators. He says I erred in saying that he posted on his blog some comments from an anonymous ABC staffer; Hinderaker says he simply promised not to use the person’s name.

Time to check the Canonist tally:

As of Tuesday, 3/29 at 11:00 AM: 19 offices deny receiving it, 0 acknowledge receiving it, 2 are unaware.

Meanwhile, I’ve been chatting with a reporter who helped spread the story in his local market. I won’t share his name because I haven’t asked permission. He finds ABC/WaPo’s unsourced reporting more credible than links I sent him to the Weekly Standard and Accuracy in Media, though he couldn’t explain exactly why. According to him, if two different reporters write up the same story, it becomes “substantiated.” Also, he insinuates that a moderate Republican leaked the memo to the press, possibly someone whose name “rhymes with McBain.”

Now that I can almost believe. Here’s what he told a reporter after the first Senate vote:

“I hope we’re not … making this human tragedy a political issue,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC’s “This Week.” “We’ve got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about.”

However, McCain’s office denies (via Canonist):

John McCain: Eileen McMenamin, asked the same, said “I saw the Washington Post story…No, I have not seen the memo.” Has she heard of anyone receiving the memo? “No, not at all.”

Hm…