Hullabaloo

Monday, July 18, 2005

 
Tangled Up In Yellowcake

Responding to my quip about Rove not being in town to "warn off" 60 Minutes from its embarassing TANG story, Lukery of Wotisitgood4 reminds me in the comments that the TANG story actually knocked off another big story that 60 Minutes had been working on for months: The Niger forgery story.

If you'll recall, after Rathergate 60 Minutes decided to withhold the story entirely. I have been unable to ascertain if it was ever shown, but I know I didn't see it.

Salon magazine saw a tape of the show and reported this:

The importance that CBS placed on the report was evident by its unusual length: It was slated to run a full half hour, double the usual 15 minutes of a single segment. Although months of reporting went into the production, CBS abruptly decided that it would be "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," in the words of a statement that network spokeswoman Kelli Edwards gave the New York Times.

The real reason, of course, was that because of CBS's sloppy reporting on the Bush National Guard story, the network's news executives believed they could no longer report credibly on the heart of the Iraq nuclear issue, involving another set of completely forged documents: those purporting to show that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from the African country Niger.

Salon was given the videotape by CBS News on the condition that we report on it only shortly before it was to air. But after the network effectively spiked its own story (which was reported by Newsweek online and by the New York Times), we sent an e-mail late last week to CBS stating that we believed that the embargo no longer applied. We received no reply and therefore feel free to report.

[...]

Whatever the case, the CBS producers apparently decided to concentrate on what could be nailed down: the Bush administration had, either intentionally or with breathtaking credulity, relied on patently false intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq.

"Two years ago, Americans heard some frightening words from President Bush and his closest advisors," Bradley said in his introduction of the now-shelved report. "Saddam Hussein, they said, could soon have a nuclear bomb. Of course, we now know that wasn't true." Not only did Saddam not have a nuclear program, Bradley said, but "he hadn't for more than 10 years. How could the Bush administration be so wrong about something so important?"

[...]

In his closing, Bradley explains how fiercely the White House fought his report. Administration officials and Republicans in Congress turned down "60 Minutes'" requests for interview. So did former Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican whom Bush has appointed as the new director of the CIA.

"60 Minutes" defied the White House to produce this report. But it could not survive the network's cowardice -- cowardice born of self-inflicted wounds.

What a shame. The TANG story really was old news and the only people who still cared about Vietnam were hardline republicans who were always going to vote for Bush. This story was about a real scandal.

It is interesting, though, that the White House fought this story tooth and nail but didn't say a word when 60 Minutes ran the story about the Killian documents past them. You can understand why these people believe so fervently in God. 60 Minutes killed the serious story about forgeries that would have fed right into the Democrats' story line about Iraq so that they could show a senational story about Bush that was based on forgeries. God was definitely rooting for the Republicans that day.

I wonder if 60 Minutes is recovered enough from their trauma to think about finally running (or rerunning) this story. Or do they still think it's inappropriate?


.
digby 7/18/2005 06:13:00 PM |

 
Case Closed

We can all close shop on Rovegate. The freepers have it all figured out:

Joe Wilson already admitted she was not under cover and:

Plame was not a covert agent. She had not been covert for nine years as she was outed by Aldrich Ames prior to 1994 and then again by the Cubans. She was assigned a desk job as an analyst at that time for her own safety.

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.

Washington Times

She would have had to have been covert in the last five years for Rove to have broken the law, per former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing, who helped draft the 1982 law in question.

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG explained, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Case closed.

So, there you go. The bizarro world version of the Plame case brought to you by the Washington Times and Newsmax.

Oh, and there's one more interesting little bit of speculation that I think we all need to think about. (These freepers are sharp.)

And we're to believe that Judith Miller went to jail to protect Karl Rove?

Really. I am so very interested to know what the Prosecutor knows about Judy Miller that we don't. Is this going to end up with The Plame-Wilsons in jail?

I've read that elsewhere. There really is a theme on the right that Fitzgerald is actually going to indict Joseph Wilson and his wife. This is understandable. In their experience federal prosecutors are all Republican hacks who work hand in glove with Drudge and Lucianne Goldberg. In their view the rule of law says that only Democrats are criminal. (And note the derisive "Plame-Wilson." Does Karl know his people or does Karl know his people?)


And then you have to really love this one:

and I'm sure he'll go right ahead and shut the whole thing down.


And end his lucrative gig?

Fitzgerald's in it for the money.

Remember, this is the base that Karl and Junior have so carefully cultivated and are valued over any other constituency in the country. Doesn't it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up?
digby 7/18/2005 04:30:00 PM |

 
Question On Judy

I'm just curious about something and maybe my readers can help me out. In yesterday's NY Times article it says:

Asked whether New York Times reporter Judith Miller might have provided information about Plame to government sources, George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company told Liptak: "Judy learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. If the suggestion is that she is covering up for her source or some fictitious source, that is preposterous.

Has Miller ever said before that the source she's protecting told her about Valerie Plame? She didn't write a story, she hasn't turned over her notes and she hasn't talked about who or what the prosecutor wants to question her about, to my knowledge.

Certainly, it seems clear that someone else must have told Fitzgerald that Miller was a party to the information, but until now I didn't know she had admitted it or that she had so explicitly said that she was protecting someone who told her about Plame. Am I wrong?




.
digby 7/18/2005 03:41:00 PM |

 
Performance Blog

If you are in New York in August, plan to check out the "Year Of Living Rudely" starring everybody's favorite dirty talker (and my personal inspiration) The Rude Pundit. Guaranteed to blow your mind. Or blow something. Bring cigarettes and bottled water.



.
digby 7/18/2005 01:56:00 PM |

 
Mr Helpful

It occurs to me as I read the pithy Charles Pierce piece I've been yearning for, that it's quite wonderful that Karl Rove makes it a practice to warn reporters off of stories he thinks will embarrass them. I guess he must have been out of town the day CBS submitted its National Guard story to the white house for comment.



.
digby 7/18/2005 11:35:00 AM |

Sunday, July 17, 2005

 
Rove Food

New detail about what Fitzgerald knows from the LA Times:

Prosecutors investigating whether White House officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.

While lower-level White House staff members typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

[...]

Activities aboard Air Force One are also of interest to prosecutors -- including the possible distribution of a State Department memo that mentioned Wilson's wife. Prosecutors are seeking to find out whether anyone who saw the memo learned Plame's identity and passed the information to journalists. Telephone logs from the presidential aircraft have been subpoenaed; among those aboard was former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who has testified before the grand jury.

The source familiar with the investigation said Saturday that prosecutors had obtained a White House call sheet showing that Novak left a message for Fleischer on the afternoon of July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's op-ed article appeared and the day that Fleischer left with the president for Africa. Fleischer declined to comment for this article, but has flatly denied that he was the source of the leak.

Wilson said in an interview Saturday that he had known that Novak was interested in him a week or so before the column appeared. He said that a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an (expletive) and his wife works for the CIA."

[...]

There have been other indications of a concerted White House action against the former envoy. Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus has said that two days before Novak's column, he was told by an "administration official" that the White House was not putting much stock in the Wilson trip to Africa because it was "set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," according to an account of the conversation Pincus wrote for the Summer 2005 issue of Nieman Reports, published by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

Let's suppose you are a straight shooting prosecutor or a grand juror. And let's suppose an extremely powerful and arrogant asshole testifies that he thinks it's perfectly ok to "discredit" his political opponents with derogatory information about them. Let's assume that a whole bunch of people from the White House testify that this arrogant asshole was obsessed with smearing a critic "because he was a Democrat."

Do you think he'd get the benefit of the doubt asbout whether he actually smeared this critic from either the straight shooting prosecutor or the grand juror?

I don't either. If they can nail him they're going to. He's a pig.
digby 7/17/2005 11:45:00 PM |

 
Closing Ranks

Bob Novak, who is now Karl Rove's howling bitch until the day his rotting cadaver finally admits it's dead, says that Ed Gillespie (whom he pointedly calls a protege of Karl Rove) may be the new chief of staff. It appears they are easing Andy Card out.

He has been disloyal in the past:

I made these inquiries in part because last spring, when I spoke to White House chief of staff Andrew Card, he sounded an alarm about the unfettered rise of Rove in the wake of senior adviser Karen Hughes’s resignation: "I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary.

One wonders if Karl may think he's been disloyal more recently. After all, as Weldon Berger has been reminding us, there is still the question of who leaked to the Washington Post that the Plame leak was done "purely and simply for revenge." I always speculated it was Andy, who's not part of the Texas mafia.

In any case, it looks like the hankie twisting, pearl clutching Ed "political hate speech" Gillespie is being brought on to shore up Karl and "send a message." That's what they do. It's only a matter of time before we see Ben Ginsberg on the scene.

When they call in James "divaaaaaahn" Baker, we'll know the jig is up.



.
digby 7/17/2005 08:29:00 PM |

 
Is It Safe?

Via Crooks and Liars, I see that Bob Schieffer takes the president to task for not just hauling in his top aides two years ago and telling them he wanted to know who talked to the press. This is a good question and one which I think the press should be asking every day. But then, Bush has always been a little cagey on this, hasn't he? Why you'd almost think he already knew all about it.

And then there's David Broder who seems to have popped half a viagra this morning and actually condemns the White House for it's ruthless behavior AND takes the press corpse top task for its wimpiness. Father Tim came close to giving Ken Mehman an Al Goring this morning.

The DC establishment has opened one droopy eye and they see that the Republicans might actually be vulnerable. So they pulled their guts from the storage box under the bed and tried them on for size. I wonder if they still fit after all this time?



.
digby 7/17/2005 06:14:00 PM |

 
Another Unhappy Ambassador

I sure hope this guy's wife didn't have any pecadilloes in college or anything because they are going to be after him, for sure.



.
digby 7/17/2005 04:57:00 PM |

 
Memo Minutia


Warning: Extreme parsing of arcane Rovegate evidence follows. Read at the risk of being put to sleep immediately.


Michael at Reading A1 suggests that I've misinterpreted the Fred Barnes piece I wrote about yesterday and that Cheney may have seen an earlier memo from an American diplomat rather than the now infamous June 10, 2003 classified memo that everybody's talking about. He may very well be right. I even questioned whether there even were any earlier memos.

Well, there were, and a whole bunch of them. (See the SSCI Report on Pre-War Intelligence, here.) And there was an American diplomat who debriefed Wilson whose report Cheney very likely saw if he requested information about Wilson's trip --- Barbara Owens-Kirkpatrick, the Ambassador of Niger. It's entirely believable that if the VP wanted to see a report on someone they'd send him the report of an Ambassador. He may have even picked up the phone and called her. In any case, it's certainly true that Cheney could have seen earlier memos and probably did. (We don't know when he saw those memos, but they do exist.) My speculation was probably off base.

Michael sets forth a theory about Cheney's revenge that I find quite persuasive. Along with him and Josh Marshall I would not be in the least bit surprised that this whole thing stemmed from the turf wars that characterized the run up to the invasion. I'm sure they are still fighting them. Negroponte may have to find some of his old friends in the Honduran Army to quell them.

Yesterday, like me, Marshall asked who wrote the June memo and why:

Who requested that the memo be written? Who actually wrote it? Why does it contain the inaccuracies the CIA claims it does? Who were the administration officials who continued to circulate the classified document to conservative news outlets even after Plame's identity was initially revealed? And how did it get into the hands of Jeff Gannon?

I think I have discovered some answers:

The answer to the first question is that we don't know who requested the memo.

The answer to the second question appears to be an INR analyst who is quoted heavily in the SSCI report and seems to be the only real source for the fact that Plame somehow finagled to get Wilson the trip.

In answer to the third, there is a big question as to whether anybody in the administration continued to circulate the memo to conservative news outlets (although they were certainly discussing it with mainstream news outlets.) Rather it appears that the CIA got the impression Jeff Gannon of Talon News had seen the memo (and rightly so, he acted as if he did) when he had in fact seen this article from October of 2003 in the WSJ (sorry can't find working link) which said:

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Ms. Plame, a member of the agency's clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested at the meeting that her husband, Africa expert and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, could be sent to Niger to investigate the reports, according to current and former government officials familiar with the meeting at the CIA's Virginia headquarters. Soon after, midlevel CIA officials decided to send him, say intelligence officials.

Classified memos, like the one describing Ms. Plame's role, have limited circulation and investigators are likely to question all those known to have received it. Intelligence officials haven't denied Ms. Plame was involved in the decision to send Mr. Wilson, but they have said she was not "responsible" for the decision.

Gannon played games for quite a while pretending he was protecting sources and the like but finally he admitted that he was actually referring to the WSJ story. (The CIA was misled by Jeff Gannon into thinking that this classified memo was making the rounds of conservative male prostitutes. You can understand why they were upset. Might as well plaster it all over the Web. In living color.)

They were also likely upset that this memo was being discussed (and in such detail) because it was still classified. (I'll leave it up to the lawyers to figure out whether releasing new details of a classified document that has been preivously leaked contitutes a crime.)

In the end, it appears to me that there is only one primary source of the "Wilson's wife sent him" story and it is a single INR (state department intelligence) analyst. I suspect he is the one who wrote the 2003 memo. The SSCI Report entry on this specific subject begins:

CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activitv.” This was just one day before CPD sent a cable-requesting concurrence with CPD’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him “there’s this crazy report” on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

(This allegedly unbiased SSCI report is big on the scare quotes when describing the Wilsons's testimony.It tries to make a not very subtle case that she was trying to slant the evidence to favor Saddam even before the trip. It's this biased language to which the Democrats on the panel rightly objected in their dissent.)

The Plame memo in question here has been explained as one written about Wilson's qualifications, but not one that suggested he go. The interviews mentioned indicate only two people, the person who said "she offered up his name" and the INR analyst who said the first meeting with Wilson was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him.]" There appears to be no other corroboration although the meeting was full of people. The only other documentation the SSCI report provides is the INR analyst's notes:

On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals DO and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst’s notes indicate that the meeting was “apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

The CIA has disputed in press reports that this analyst could have been at the meeting in which sending Wilson was broached. And that meeting must have been before the one the analyst refers to, since Wilson attended the one he's discussing. I don't know if the analyst had attended any earlier meetings in which Wilson was discussed for the mission, but the report doesn't mention it if he did. I think the press has been confused about this or deliberately misled.

What appears to have happened is that there was an earlier meeting in which it was decided (we don't know how) that Wilson should be sent. Plame introduced her husband at a later meeting with a bunch of people from throughout the intelligence community and then left. The analyst's impression was that she arranged the meeting and he put that in his notes. The rest is history.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. It's still quite possible that Cheney saw Wilson's report. According to the SSCI report, the CIA issued one and sent it up the line specifically because they knew that Cheney had asked about the Niger question. They did not make a special delivery to his office, so there is no way to prove one way or the other if Cheney ever saw it short of subpoenaeing the VP's records --- which I'm sure have long since been "misplaced." There were other reports issued as well, including the one written by this INR analyst called Niger: Sale of Uranium To Iraq Is Unlikely.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Cheney didn't see any reports. It's clear that people were trying to give him information he wanted to see. Wilson's report backed up Owen-Kirkpatrick and others who said Iraq was very unlikely to have been trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Therefore, since it wasn't dispositive in their view on that fact, they may not have wanted to draw Cheney's ire by bringing it up.

One thing that's intriguing, however, is that the CIA told Cheney's briefer on March 5th that a source was coming back from Niger that day who could shed further light on the subject. That source was Joe Wilson. Either the briefer never gave Cheney that heads up or Cheney never followed up with it. Then again, maybe he did.

Whatever the case, Cheney says that he didn't know anything about it until he started to read the anonymous quotes in the newspapers from "a former ambassador" at which point he got a debriefing from an American diplomat. At this same time a memo was requested by somebody about the provenance of Wilson's trip (Wilson was saying it was to answer questions raised by Cheney.) It appears to me that at this point the INR analyst wrote up his notes about his involvement in the trip and those notes became the June 10th memo. And the White House seized on the fact that he said Wilson's wife was involved.

I suspect that's as far as they got. With the modern Republicans, all you have to do is mention that there might be some dirt on somebody's wife and they are all over it like slavering wolves. This would be exactly the kind of smear they'd jump on. This, then, would be their counterattack.

If that's so, the question then becomes, did they ever follow up with anyone to find out Plame's status with the CIA? Did anyone ever even contemplate that she might be in a delicate position there? Did they ever ask anyone at CIA if it was true that she had "arranged" the trip? And then of course there are the pivotal questions of who saw this memo and when --- and who leaked it to whom and when.

That's my theory of how the June 2003 memo came to be. And I'm pretty convinced that it's the real source of this whole thing. Judy Miller may complicate this, but I suspect that if she's a source, she's a cut-out for Libby (to whom we know she spoke during this period) not an original source herself. However, since I know fuck-all about what she knows, I can't really speculate.

Given what we know today from news reports and the SSCI report, this single INR analyst's notes, which people have conflated with a meeting he may never even have attended, seems like the simplest most believable source of this mess.

Update: Clarification on the Plame memo in which she discusses her husbands qualifications. TIME magazine says today:

Or, more personally, was Rove suggesting that Wilson was chosen not for his expertise but because his wife was trying to help him stay in the game? Certainly Rove distorted her role when he claimed she had authorized the trip. "She was not in a position to send Joe Wilson anywhere except to bed without his supper," says Larry Johnson, a Plame classmate at the CIA who later worked on Central American issues for the agency and then moved to the State Department as a counterterrorism officer. According to a declassified July 7, 2004, report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was Plame's boss, the deputy chief of the CIA's counterproliferation division, who authorized the trip. He did so after Plame "offered up" her husband's name for the Niger mission, according to the report. In a Feb. 12, 2002, memo to her boss, Plame wrote that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [Prime Minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

It's highly unlikely that her boss was involved in the classified state department memo that made the rounds because well ... he actually knew she was clandestine.
If he was consulted by the White House on this matter, and told them (as I assume he would) that she was undercover, then they are criminal scumbags for outing her. If they didn't bother to consult they are stupid scumbags for outing her. Either way, they're scumbags.



.
digby 7/17/2005 09:23:00 AM |

 
The Dog Ate My Classified Memo

So it's finally been revealed that Libby and Rove were Cooper's sources. What a coincidence. And both of them "heard" about Wilson's wife sending him on the mission from a reporter. Man oh man, what are the odds? It's even more shocking that the two most powerful political operatives in the White House were so out of the loop because we now know that on the trip to Africa on AF One, for reasons unknown, Rove subordinates Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleischer "prompted clusters of reporters" to look into how Wilson got his job while classified memos on the subject were being faxed back and forth to Condi to prepare her to go on television. Colin Powell was reported to be waving another secret classified memo around the cabin, a memo prepared more than a month earlier, that contained the information that Wilson's wife sent him on the trip.

And yet we are supposed to believe that Karl and Scooter never saw or heard about any of this classified information, but rather heard about it from a reporter. And I'm assuming that Bartlett and Fleischer are supposed to have heard all about this from reporters too, or maybe second hand from Rove or Libby. None of these people in the white house political and press operation who were aware of Wilson's wife's alleged involvement had ever seen the classified document that was all over the place. They just heard the "gossip" and had nothing to do with planting it.

(I had not heard this business about Fleischer and Bartlett throwing out hints to the press corps on the Africa trip. Certainly, the press corps knew it, but I guess they were protecting their super-double deep backround confidential communal gaggles with the White House Press Office by not telling anyone.)

And if we are to believe they all got this information from reporters who told Libby and Rove (who because there exists no political assassin shield law are forced to say they don't recall who they were) we must also then believe that throughout all of these very innocent exchanges of water cooler gossip among the press corps and the White House, neither Rove nor Libby nor anyone else thought to check with the CIA about Plame's actual job in WMD and whether it was appropriate that her job become public. Even Novak now denies that he thought of it and only used the word "operative" by accident. Nobody anywhere had a second thought that there might be a reason not to publicize the identity of someone who works in weapons of mass destruction at the CIA. This is what we are supposed to believe.

It seems more likely to me now that Fitzgerald is building an obstruction and conspiracy case. Unless he's stupid, which no one has ever said he is, he cannot believe these laughable excuses. If he has evidence that ties Novak into it after he shot his mouth off then that's a real cover-up.

And, yes,to answer those readers who think that it's a big waste of time to be talking about Rove in this detail, I think we all know the real story here is that "Karl Rove and others in the White House outed an undercover CIA operative to cover-up their lies about Iraq." I've been saying that for some time. John Podesta said so this morning. Frank Rich wrote it yesterday. Even Monsignor Russert seemed to be seeing the bigger picture when he brought Woodward and Bernstein on to talk about how the Watergate burglary was part of a bigger story of White House corruption. (Woodward is spinning pretty badly, but then what would you expect? He wrote the allegedly definitive story of "Bush at War" and didn't really get the story did he?)

But there is value in parsing the Rove stories in meticulous detail (besides being fun.) It feeds the scandal beast and if you don't feed that beast it dies. So, I'm going to keep writing about both aspects of this story --- the big picture and the detail about Rove --- because that's how you sustain a scandal. See, I learned this at the feet of the Mighty Wurlitzer. You just keep pounding in whatever way you can --- relentless, focused and loud.

And I truly believe that Rove and his antics in this case are symbolic of the whole corrupt political machine that he has built --- and the outing of a CIA agent is symbolic of the reckless desire to invade Iraq and roll over anyone who stood in their way. I think people are starting to get this in their gut.



.
digby 7/17/2005 08:47:00 AM |

Saturday, July 16, 2005

 
War Of The Chickenhawks

Apparently the wingnut braintrust thinks that H.G. Wells is a Hollywood scriptwriter living in Laurel Canyon with a gold retriever and BMW Z8. Jesus, it's almost enough to make me cry.

Amanda links to Fred at Slacktivist as they both try to come to grips with some of the stupidest people on this planet --- the 101st keyboarders --- who seem to think that Spielberg wrote "War of the Worlds" and Michael Moore invented anti-colonialism.

These critics believe that WOTW is an anti-American screed. But they are very confused. Here's why:

To anyone with a brain, the story is anti-colonial so if it can be interpreted as representing events of today, it represents the war in Iraq. The US would be the aliens, right?

The alien invaders arrive. We cannot understand them. Our best technology cannot harm them. They are inscrutable and unstoppable. There is nothing we can do.

Big tough America. Hooyah!

But the keyboarders are complaining about the behavior of the humans:

Right-wing critics of the film complain that Spielberg's hero, played by Tom Cruise, spends most of the movie running away and hiding. But that's the point -- there's nothing else he can do.

But, see, if this is an allegory about Iraq (presciently written a hundred years before it happened) then the humans represent the Iraqis. Which means that if they think the humans are behaving in a cowardly fashion, the Fighting Hellmice must admire the real life Iraqi insurgents who are ferociously fighting back the alien invaders --- the US. The Iraqi "terrorists" are behaving precisely in the manner the Cheeto Brigade insists brave people should behave.

In other words, these chickenhawks are terrorists sympathizers.

However, I don't think the fighting keyboarders understand that the movie is anti-colonial. I think they think it's about 9/11 and the martians are supposed to be al Qaeda. They think it shows America as being weak and afraid because Tom Cruise tries to get away from the aliens.

I actually agree with them, although not in quite the same way, I'm afraid. Before I ever knew that Spielberg was re-making WOTW, I saw the crazed reaction of the right wing as being comparable to the hysteria we would see if Martians had landed rather than the intelligent, critical response we would expect a superpower to show in the face of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist losers. Rightwing behavior from the beginning has been one of extreme overreaction --- the "existential threat" the "our oceans no longer protect us," the whole litany of fear inducing lies about Iraq are all manifestations of severe panic. Look at the difference between the way everyone else in the world behaved in the face of terrorist attacks and look at us. It's embarrassing.

I think you can see the movie both as a criticism of the invasion of Iraq and as a criticism of the inchoate frenzy that overtook the right wing after 9/11. Their hysterical reaction betrayed what they would do if a real existential threat emerged --- they'd lose their heads.




.
digby 7/16/2005 10:42:00 AM |

 
Who Read The Memo?

Reader Suzanne D sent me this tantalizing little tid-bit this morning. Last night I wondered who received this 2003 classified State Department Memo and it seems that Fred Barnes answered that question, at least in one respect, back in July of 2003:

Nonetheless, it was reported in the media and repeated by politicians that Cheney had asked the CIA to send someone to Niger to look into the matter. This is untrue. What did happen is that CIA officials, without the knowledge of Cheney or Tenet, dispatched a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to investigate. Columnist Robert Novak has reported that Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, recommended him for the job. Wilson traveled to Niger, interviewed current and former officials, and decided that no deal for uranium had been made with Iraq.

When Wilson returned, he gave an oral report to the CIA. But he didn't meet with Cheney or send him a written report on his trip. Cheney didn't learn of Wilson's trip until he read in the New York Times in May 2003 that an ex-ambassador had been sent. Cheney later received a document from an American diplomat who had debriefed Wilson. It was marked with a warning that the information might be unreliable. Leaders in Niger were not likely to admit to an American envoy that they'd violated United Nations sanctions by selling uranium to Saddam, it suggested.

If this document from an "American diplomat" who had debriefed Wilson is the same classified state department document from June of 2003 we are now talking about, Vice President Dick Cheney was one person who was aware that it was being alleged that "Wilson's wife" had sent him on the trip. Perhaps he didn't receive it until after Wilson's op-ed, but it seems unlikely since that wasn't published until two months after Cheney became aware of Wilson's charges. Is it reasonable to believe that he would have waitied that long to inquire about someone who was saying the intelligence was fixed in Iraq? I seriously doubt it.

If that's the case, then the idea that Libby and Rove didn't see it is preposterous.

I think that the oddest thing about this memo is that it was written in June of 2003. Surely, there were earlier real-time documents that reflect Wilson's debriefing upon his return? Why did they need to create this new memo at all? If Cheney really was unaware of Wilson's trip (and he may very well have been) why didn't they just send over the original debriefing instead of writing a new one?


And here's another piece of information in that article that I hadn't heard before:

Finally, last week, the truth started to emerge. At his press conference with President Bush, Prime Minister Blair said, "In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger." The White House, for its part, had had enough and started what it's calling a "counteroffensive."

The first step was to declassify and release the portion of the NIE entitled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." Iraq, the intelligence document says, has been "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore" in Somalia and Congo as well as Niger. And there's more to come in the campaign for Bush's recovery. Congressional Republicans are joining the fight. The White House has brought back Mary Matalin, the Republican operative and ex-Cheney aide, to manage the media campaign. Maybe it will work. But the truth is, it shouldn't have been necessary at all.

The media campaign she was managing was the media campaign that also happened to smear Wilson. This was the period in which Karl Rove admits to pushing the story all over town --- reportedly claiming it is perfectly legitimate to ferociously discredit (smear) your political critics and use the entire Republican Noise Machine to do it. It appears that Mary Matalin was right in the middle of that.

We haven't seen much of her lately, have we?



.
digby 7/16/2005 09:20:00 AM |

Friday, July 15, 2005

 
Canteloupe Eyes, Judy In Disguise

So, Judy actually met with an unnamed government official on July 8th, the same day Rove spoke with Novak? I don't know what it means, but it sure sounds interesting. Rove to Miller to Novak to Rove? He's known for using cut-outs.

But this, I think, is even more interesting:

In court papers filed earlier this month urging that Ms. Miller be jailed, Mr. Fitzgerald said that "the source in this case has waived confidentiality in writing."

George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, said Ms. Miller would not say who that source was. "She has never received," Mr. Freeman said, "what she considers an unambiguous, unequivocal and uncoerced waiver from anyone with whom she may have spoken."

Mr. Freeman declined to say what efforts, if any, Ms. Miller and her lawyers have made to obtain a satisfactory waiver.

Presumably, like Cooper's, Miller's lawyers don't feel it's a good idea to be contacting her source, if they even know who it is.

This statement from Miller's attorney strikes me as an explicit call for her source to give her an "unambiguous, unequivocal and uncoerced waiver." Maybe Judy isn't enjoying herself as much in jail as she thought she would.

So who's going to ask Karl and Scooter to give Judy this unambiguous, unequivocal and uncoerced waiver? Surely they will be happy to do it, right? Neither of them have anything to hide.

In fact, every person who previously signed a waiver in the matter should be asked to sign this explicit one, even if they never talked to her, in order to give the guilty party some cover so that Judy can testify and the public won't automatically know who she's been protecting. That seems fair, doesn't it?

Maybe Michael Isikoff could suggest this next time he's on TV. It might focus his mind on who's really responsible for Miller being in jail.



Oh and this business about the classified state department memo being the source is quite interesting. I wrote about this earlier in the week but there is a significant detail that's been changed since the early reports about it. It was evidently written in June of 2003, just a month before Wilson's op-ed --- probably at the behest of someone who was reading Nicolas Kristoff's columns about a trip to Africa by an unnamed ex-ambassador. (The story says it was written for Marc Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs, but that may only mean he was the bureaucrat charged with getting a report.) All the original stories had it dated in 2002, which made me assume that it was the original state department report about Wilson's trip, written in real time. It wasn't. It was written a year and a half later based on the memory of a staffer who said he had been present at the meeting, a fact which the CIA disputed.

This memo being written just a month before the op-ed changes the equation. Who wrote it and who requested it? And did anyone in the White House see it before Wilson's op-ed was published? If so, who?

Update: Maybe this is why Miller's lawyers are starting to "ask" that her source give her a special waiver:

Lawyers in the CIA leaks investigation are concerned that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may seek criminal contempt charges against New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a rare move that could significantly lengthen her time in jail.

[...]

While media coverage in recent days has focused on conversations that White House senior adviser Karl Rove had with reporters, two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation.

The two sources -- one who is familiar with Libby's version of events, and the other with Miller's -- said the previously undisclosed conversation occurred a few days before Plame's name appeared in Robert Novak's syndicated column on July 14, 2003. Miller and Libby discussed former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, who had recently alleged that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the source familiar with Libby's version.

But, according to the source, the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up.

.
digby 7/15/2005 09:24:00 PM |

 
Anticipation

Unless something really exciting happens, I'm done for the day. But here's something to look forward to: Matt Cooper is writing an article about his Grand Jury appearance that probably has the White House boyz 'n grlz wetting their pants. I would guess it will come out on Sunday, maybe tomorrow in anticipation of the gasbags.

They are going to try to "Rather" him if says anything damaging. Rove's lawyer already laid the groundwork:

"By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper."

I still think that was probably not the smartest thing they ever did, but they probably thought they could intimidate Matt Cooper. And maybe they did. We'll see.

Swopa has some interesting thoughts on what Cooper might say and how it might affect the case. And if you haven't read Murray Waas' account of how this mysterious "lawyer who has been briefed on the case" came to talk with the NY Times and Washington Post, do so. It's fascinating.


.
digby 7/15/2005 07:34:00 PM |

 
Awwwww

Attaturk has a special gift for Karl. Check it out.




.
digby 7/15/2005 05:50:00 PM |

 
Joe And Dick On The Same Page

September, 2003

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "MEET THE PRESS")

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I had heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular.

I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson -- I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.

Here's what Wilson said in the op-ed on July 6th, that Ken Mehlman and half the Washington Press Corps is characterizing as "Cheney sent me to Africa:"

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

When Karl Rove was talking to Bob Novak on July 8th about Valerie Plame this is what Wilson had actually said. If Karl was "knocking down" a story it was one that he was making up in his head because Cheney himself backed up Wilson's story long after the brouhaha had hit the fan. Nothing in Cheney's statement contradicts what Wilson said, even about the disposition of the report:

I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

All Karl and his hit squad had to do to "knock down" Wilson was say, "Cheney had some questions back in 2002, but he never saw any report on Wilson's trip and was unaware that the CIA had dispatched him. And frankly, after looking into the matter and seeing his report for the first time we can see why it wouldn't have been forwarded to the White House. Ambassador Wilsons himself says that there was nothing earth shattering in it. In retrospect he was on the right track but nobody knew that at the time. Fog of war and all that..."

But no. They couldn't try to be reasonable and put the thing into perspective. They had to immediately smear Wilson with this business about his wife. And a smear it was --- it was the main thrust of Rove's "evidence" in his discussion with Cooper and he admits that he at least confirmed this information to Novak. That's the mark of Rove.


.
digby 7/15/2005 05:01:00 PM |

 
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip up...

Goddamn, no matter what else happens, if this sadist goes down, I'll be happy. General Geoffrey D. Miller aka General Geoff D. Ripper truly is one of the most malevolent pieces of garbage in the US Army and he really should be court martialed. Today it's been revealed the Ripper was actually meeting, apparently in secret, with Wolfowitz and Cambone and lied to congress about it. I am not surprised.

An Army general who has been criticized for his role in the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has contradicted his sworn congressional testimony about contacts with senior Pentagon officials.

Gen. Geoffrey Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip.

But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

"Following our return in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone," Miller said in the Aug. 21, 2004, statement to lawyers for guards accused of prisoner abuse, a transcript of which was obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

"I went over the report that we had developed and gave them a briefing on the intelligence activities, recommendations, and some recommendations on detention operations," Miller added.

Specific interrogation techniques, he said, were not discussed.

Miller's statement about the meeting, if true, suggests that officials at the very top of the Pentagon may have been more involved in monitoring activities at the prison than previously disclosed. Abu Ghraib was later at the center of a scandal surrounding prisoner abuse, which has led to punishments for soldiers.

Here's the thing. After artillery officer Miller showed such pluck and spunk down at Gitmo with his novel interrogation techniques, they sent him to Iraq to see what he could do. See, the Iraqis weren't behaving like the grateful liberated people they were expected to be. He made an evaluation and then sent his "best guys" from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to implement his techniques. We have recently had it confirmed that many of the techniques authorized by Miller at Gitmo were of the same ilk as those captured in the pictures at Abu Ghraib.

And in a bizarro world decision worthy of Wil E Coyote, after the scandal broke they sent Miller in to "straighten things out."

All of this has been known for some time. I wrote back on May 29th, 2004:

It wasn't a bunch of bad apples. It was at the explicit instruction of General Geoffrey D Ripper, who sent in his best leg breakers to teach 'em how to get the job done.

And then, as reports of the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib were coming to light the Bush administration decided that the best way to deal with the problem was to put in charge the same guy who had recommended and implemented the abuse and torture in the first place.

How long will it take for somebody to ask, considering his history at the prison, why in the world General Ripper was brought in after the scandal broke? I'm just asking. He is, after all, an obviously sadistic freak who is one of the causes of the greatest foreign policy PR disaster in American history.

That not hyperbole. Abu Ghraib did us greivous harm around the world and probably helped al Qaeda more than any single act we've done. And General Geoff D Ripper was the go-to guy.

It looks now as if he was doing all this with the express knowledge and permission of Rumsfeld's top brass and presumably Rumsfeld himself. (Remember Rumsfeld weighed in on "interrogation" techniques in some detail --- "why shouldn't they have to stand for longer than four hours, I do!") This is not surprising either.

These guys picked a sadistic amateur to run both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib because his predecessors were insufficiently willing to "take the gloves off." This is in keeping with their over-arching theory about how to fight the War on Terror. It's worked out awfully well.

Today, we know that Bush administration loose lips are sinking ships all over the place, and their zeal to fear monger at home combined with their desire to treat the wogs with maximum ferocity has resulted in the US actively encouraging terrorism. It's a fucking miracle we've escaped another hit, and it's no thanks to anything these clowns have done.



Update: Lest anyone get the idea that I do not condemn the torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib on a moral basis because I did not explicitly say so in this piece, please feel free to check these posts in which I discuss torture in great detail in moral,ethical,practical and strategic terms. I regret not mentioning in this particular post that I think torture is immoral. Consider that oversight corrected.



.
digby 7/15/2005 01:55:00 PM |

 
Toadys

...Mr. Rove and other administration officials had a legitimate interest in rebutting Mr. Wilson's inflated claims -- including the notion that he had been dispatched to Niger at Mr. Cheney's behest. It's in that context, judging from Mr. Cooper's e-mail, that Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame's role. Whether Mr. Rove or others behaved in a way that amounted to criminal, malicious or even merely sleazy behavior will turn on what they knew about Ms. Plame's employment. Were they aware she was a covert agent? Did they recklessly fail to consider that before revealing her involvement? How they learned about Ms. Plame also will matter: Did the information come from government sources or outside parties?

None of that matters. Her cover was blown and Rove participated in it. I don't care if he thought he was saving the world from an invasion from aliens, his act, not his motive should be the primary concern of a white house that is in the middle of what they tell us every day is a global war on terror. He could have had the best reasons in the world, but he either fucked up or he committed a crime, neither of which should be tolerated at his level. We know right now, at this minute, that at a minimum he fucked up.

Do you think that in the private sector if a person in Rove's position of trust and power had "accidentally" told the press about a secret patent or a new formula that he'd be allowed to keep his job? Would he be trusted going forward with information about patents and secret formulas? Why is this so hard to understand? What Rove did may or may not have been a criminal offense. But it definitely was a firing offense.

And what's this bullshit about "Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame's role." "Appears" nothing. He clearly did bring up Ms Plame's role, and for reasons that are very hard to make sense out of. And just today, the WaPo itself reports that Rove admits that he confirmed that fact to Bob Novak. There's no appearance about it. Rove admits it.


Update: MediaMatters has a thorough debuning of all these RNC spin points masquerading as an editorial here.
.
digby 7/15/2005 12:54:00 PM |

 
Spikey's Threat

I woke up this morning thinking about Michael Isikoff, which isn't my favorite thing to think about first thing in the morning. Last night he told Jon Stewart that Pat Fitzgerald had better have something really, really strong to justify this investigation taking the turns its taken. It had better be about something really important --- it had better be about national security. He was quite fierce about it.

I didn't hear the rest because I threw the remote at the TV and it mercifully turned off.

The idea that Michael Isikoff, of all people, is laying down the gauntlet --- warning Fitzgerald that if he's thinking of prosecuting someone for perjury, say, or obstuction of justice, he will lead the chorus denouncing him as an overzealous prosecutor --- is stunning. I don't know what is in the Chardonnay in DC but it's causing a lot of people to have severe problems remembering things --- and seeing themselves in the mirror.

Michael Isikoff was practically Ken Starr's right hand man in the media. He performed at only a slightly less partisan level than Drudge or Steno Sue Schmidt. He admits in his book that he became convinced that the president treated women badly and therefore needed to be exposed. He didn't seem to think that throwing a duly elected president from office for lying about a private matter was overzealous in the least. He was on that bandwagon from the very beginning and one of the guys who drove it.

Michael Isikoff did not go on television and say that the punishment didn't fit the crime or that Starr should have had something really, really important to justify his 70 million dollar investigation. Indeed, he did exactly the opposite.

Isikoff has done good work on this story. He continues to do good work. But apparently he doesn't see outing CIA agents as serious as presidential fellatio. I suspect that holds true for the entire press corpse. They haven't really had the fire in the belly for this one, have they?

Isikoff was a fine help to the Bush administration last night and I hope it makes up for that unfortunate Koran in the toilet business. He set the frame for indictments to be seen as unreasonable if don't show national security was compromised. If Fitzgerald indicts members of the administration for lying or covering their tracks, it will not be taken well by the king of the kewl kidz. I have no doubt that the lemmings of the independent press corpse will fall into line as well, in the unfortunate event that Karl Rove is indicted for perjury or obstruction. After all it's not as if he's anything like that mean bitch Martha Stewart or that cruel lothario Bill Clinton. Those people really deserved it.



Update:

I realize that Isikoff was talking about the heinous, heinous crime of sending poor Judy Miller to jail. But I don't really think that should be the standard by which a prosecutor should decide that only proveable crimes of national security should be investigated.

The point here is that this case is intrinsically about the press. Fitzgerald wasn't conducting a fishing expedition to find out what Judy and Matt might know about a potential crime --- he wanted them to testify because they may have been an element of the crime itself. This is a very important distinction.

It's nice that Mikey and others are such zealous defenders of the freedom of the press. But freedom of the press is a right. Serving our democracy by giving the public the information it needs to govern itself is their responsibility. It is very hard to see how Judy's martyrdom can be seen as a pure unalloyed matter of principle when(as Stewart pointed out) the press' privilege seems to have been used pretty exclusively these last few years to protect their access to powerful government officials who want to use them to spread official lies.

I compare the coverage and attitude of the press covering this investigation to the shrill and breathless reporting of the Clinton years because it's instructive. Never once did Isikoff express reservations about the non-stop partisan character assasination, the invasion of privacy, the perjury trap or the clear overstepping by the prosecutor as he "investigated" whether Bill Clinton lied about sex in a case that had already been dismissed --- all of which were betrayals of principle just as important as the reporter's privilege in my mind. But because this case involves a member of the press caught in a prosecutors net, suddenly he isn't so sanguine about charging people with the crimes of lying or covering-up. That's just not a good enough reason to put one of them on the hot seat. He and all of his brethren salivated at the idea that our democracy would be weakened by the partisan removal of a duly elected president, but let Judy go to jail and the hinges are coming off the nation.

I am reserving judgment on Judy's status in the investigation because I have no facts one way or the other. I suspect it is more complicated than just protecting Karl Rove or someone else, but I don't really know. I do know that she is the type of person who relishes drama, so I have a feeling that this little sojourn in lock-up isn't exactly traumatizing for her. She's already compared herself to soldiers in Iraq (where she wore a military uniform for god's sake!) I'm figuring she'll soon be saying she's like MLK in the Birmingham jail. I think ole Judy can handle doing the time. In fact I think she relishes it.

Mickey and his friends can stop worrying about that part of the case and worry about why this government has lied to the nation repeatedly and blown over 200 billion dollars on an illegal and unnecessary war when terrorists are blowing shit up all over the world. Judy is more than happy to do her time for the principle of the reporter's privilege.


.
digby 7/15/2005 08:50:00 AM |

Thursday, July 14, 2005

 
Short Term Memory Loss

The NY Times is reporting than an anonymous Rove defender who has been briefed on the case (by Rove?) says that Novak was the one who told Karl Plame's name and informed him of "the circumstances" in which her husband traveled to Africa --- at which point we are supposed to believe Karl suddenly remembered that he'd heard some of this from other journalists and confirmed the story to Novak by saying either "I heard that too" or "oh, you know about it."

I can certainly understand why Fitzgerald might have been suspicious of this tale --- especially when he read that Novak's first comment on the matter was:

"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

According to this article "they" refers to an unknown source and ... Karl Rove.

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer

Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: 'I heard that, too.'

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's 'wife had suggested sending him' to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.

It's late and I'm tired so I'm not going to look it up, but didn't I also hear a bunch of people saying over the last few days that Rove didn't know Plame's name when he spoke with Cooper? This conversation took place three days earlier. Not that it matters because he "identified" her as Wilson's wife, but it's interesting anyway.


Update: from the WaPo:

The lawyer, who has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors, said President Bush's deputy chief of staff has told investigators that he first learned about the operative from a journalist and that he later learned her name from Novak.

Rove has said he does not recall who the journalist was who first told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, or when the conversation occurred, the lawyer said.

.
digby 7/14/2005 10:25:00 PM |

 
Get To Work, Kewl Kidz

Dan Froomkin nicely linked to my post from yesterday asking why Rove hadn't saved the country some time and money and made sure that Cooper knew he didn't have to keep his confidence. He says:

But here's what that makes me think: if reporters want to help get New York Times reporter Judith Miller out of jail, let's contact every conceivable person who might have been her source, and ask them (or their lawyers): if for some reason Judy Miller were in jail thinking that she's protecting you, would that be a mistake? Would you tell that to her lawyer?

Let's start with Rove, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams, Cheney national security adviser John Hannah, counselor Dan Bartlett, press secretary Scott McClellan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer -- and every other person's name who has ever even remotely been attached to this story in the past.

What have we got to lose? Is anyone with me, or shall I get going myself.

I think that's a terrific idea. Certainly you'd think Judy's pals in the press corps would want to do her this service. Help her out kidz.



.
digby 7/14/2005 06:30:00 PM |

 
Let's Talk About Sex

I'm getting dizzy with the hypocrisy:

Think Progress has this:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had these kind words to share last night on Hannity & Colmes:

If you can prove a case against Karl Rove, let the legal system do it, otherwise just shut up, because you’re ruining a guy’s reputation before anything has happened.

Let the legal system work, eh?

... I would like to speak a few minutes to what I believe is the unshakable, undeniable truth. And much of it is about sex.

[...]

The most chilling thing was, for a period of time, the president was setting stories in motion that were lies. Those stories found themselves in the press to attack a young lady who could potentially be a witness against him.

To me, that is very much like Watergate. That shows character inconsistent with being president, and every member of Congress should look at that episode and decide, is this truly about sex? Is Bill Clinton doing the right thing by continuing to make us have to pursue this, have to prove to a legal certainty he lied? The president's fate is in his own hands. Mr. President, you have one more chance. Don't bite your lip; reconcile yourself with the law.

It's just a good thing Rovegate isn't about the vitally important issue of consensual sex between two adults because Goober and his Mayberry Machiavelli crew would be forced to talk about it in numbing detail for months on end before the facts are in.

Luckily, instead of it being a case about a woman blowing the president, this is only about the white house blowing a CIA agent's cover for political purposes in a time of war. We really should have more respect for the reputation of the person who the facts clearly show right now to be either an ignoramus or a thug. How rude.


Update: From Evan in the comments:

Bumper sticker par excellence

WHO DO YOU HAVE TO BLOW TO GET A
PRESIDENT IMPEACHED AROUND HERE?!

I'm getting one.



.
digby 7/14/2005 05:38:00 PM |

 
Rebel With A Cause

Via Atrios:

Ken Mehlman: A leak is when you ask a reporter to write a story. He was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story.

So why did Bob Novak write the same story, virtually verbatim, that Rove told Cooper? Was he rebelling against the Republican establishment? Refusing to be cowed by political operatives? Unable to take a hint? What?


.
digby 7/14/2005 05:10:00 PM |

 
Gobsmacked

Newshounds reports on Ann Coulter's soon to be legendary performance on Hannity and Colmes last night:

Alan Colmes started off the interview by asking an excellent question:

"If Karl Rove wasn't revealing something secret, why did he have to speak on double super secret background?"

For a moment, it looked like Coulter might have been genuinely reluctant to talk to a liberal (as the title of her last book claims she is) but I think it was more likely that she had a moment of panic at not having a good answer. After a pause, she began to speak slowly, as if she were trying to think of the right words as she went along.

Because you don't generally read in the press - you know - I think it was all - you didn't see Karl Rove, I think, being quoted on a lot of these things - but I think the point was, um, Clown Wilson was going around implying that he had been sent by the CIA and reported to Dick Cheney's office... I mean, it's amazing if you go back and read these articles now, he uses these - you know - sort of Clintonian legally accurate phrases...

She must not have had her coffee. She's usually a little bit swifter than this.

And "Clown" Wilson? Man, these guys are rattled.



.
digby 7/14/2005 04:46:00 PM |

 
Still Wrong, Always Wrong

Kevin Drum's got some interesting stuff up today. He is one of the blogosphere's resident experts on the Plame story --- he was the go-to guy when it broke and he seems to to remember a lot of details I've forgotton (or never knew.)

He reminds us today (via Mickey Kaus) of this Howard Fineman analysis from 2003 in which Fineman speculates that the leak was really an attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as being part of a "pro-Saddam" CIA cabal. Here's the relevant excerpt:

I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.

I think this may very well have played into at least some of the participants' thinking at the time although since they've never made this explicit in the smear, I think it may have been meant more for beltway kids and the wingnut choir than for broad public consumption. This is inside baseball stuff.

The big players in this turf war are the neocons and Dick Cheney, who is only sort of an honorary neocon. He and Rummy are more simple craven power mongers. (He doesn't give a shit about democracy which the neocons sorta, kinda do, even though they think we should create it by force, which is incoherent.) Anyway, it's imnportant to remember that within this administration are a whole bunch of people who think that the CIA is made up of a bunch of hippies who don't understand How The World Works.

What's interesting about them is that they have always been wrong about everything. If there was no other reason not to back the war in Iraq, it was that it was being pushed by people who have either hugely overestimated every single threat this country has faced for the last 30 years or gotten the nature of the threat completely upside down.

Lawrence Korb wrote a piece about this subject in August of 2004, called "Time To Bench Team B":

The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence miss the real problem facing the intelligence community. The real problem is not organization or culture, but the Team B concept which began in 1976, and the real villains are those hardliners who refuse to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals about the threats facing the country.

[...]

To be sure, the intelligence community has made misjudgments. That is to be expected. But given the fact that the intelligence community has been second-guessed and publicly embarrassed when it tried to present unbiased objective assessments of threats from the Soviets, China, and rogue nations, it is not surprising that it caved in on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. While there was no formal Team B pressure, the hardliners were now back in power.

And from the Soviet threat to China to rogue states to Iraq, the neocons and hardliners were wrong each and every time. And they weren't just wrong on some details, they massively, abundently wrong about everything. Korb discusses one particular fact in his piece that I think illuminates their rather insane view about terrorism:

In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling's book, "The Terror Network," which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups' terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting "revolutionary violence worldwide."

Since they never adjust to changing circumstances or admit any new evidence that doesn't fit their preconcieved notions, this was still the framework they were working from when bin Laden came on the scene. It's why the neocon nutcase Laurie Mylroie was able to convince people in the highest reaches of the Republican intelligensia that Saddam had something to do with bin Laden, even though there was never a scintilla of evidence to back it up. They simply could not,and cannot to this day, come to grips with the fact that their view of how terrorism works --- through "rogue states" and totalitarian sponsorship --- is simply wrong.

When Clare Sterling's book came out CIA director William Casey was said to have told his people, "read Claire Sterling's book and forget this mush. I paid $13.95 for this and it told me more than you bastards who I pay $50,000 a year." Wolfowitz and Feith are said to have told their staff in the Pentagon to read Laurie Mylroie's book about Saddam and al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies" quotes Wolfowitz as saying: "You give Bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

This, then, is simply how they think. It's as Rob Cordry says, "the facts are biased." (That's the state of mind that led neocon Judith Miller to make her bizarre incomprehensible comment "I was proved fucking right!") They truly believe that even though they have been completely wrong about everything for the past thirty years that it just can't be so.

And no matter what, in their minds the the CIA is always trying to screw them.

So the political environment in which Valeria Plame was outed was virtually hallucinogenic. There may have really been some part of certain members of the Bush administration's dysfunctional lizard brains that really thought in July of 2003 that the CIA had been trying to set them up and used Joe Wilson to do it.

But it's not July of 2003 now, is it? It's two years later and we know for a fact that the analysts, including Wilson, who said the Niger deal was bullshit were right and we know that the analysts who doubted the evidence about Saddam's WMD were right too.

Not that this will stop the Team B neocons from insisting that "they were proved fucking right." They really are delusional and they always have been.


Karl Rove, however, is a lot of things, but delusional isn't one of them. He just put out the hit on Plame and Wilson to shut down the questions Wilson was raising. He was taking care of business. But others in the administration may have made a good case, at least in their own beautiful minds, that they were the victims. God knows these people love to be victims.

I don't know if you saw Wilson on the Today show, but I thought he acquitted himself very well --- mainly because he kept on the topic of the larger Iraq lies. I really think this is a key to making people understand this story.

There is a confluence of events right now with the bad news on the ground in Iraq, the Downing Street memos, the London bombings and Rovegate flaring up that are beginning to filter into the body politic. A new conventional wisdom is being written. I think that people are putting these things together which is why you are seeing the preciputous dip in the president's approval ratings. It's not that people know, or even want to know, the details. Only junkies like me (and you) get this into it. But the ground has shifted and people are understanding that something went terribly wrong.

The president's right hand man exposing a covert CIA agent for political puposes perfectly symbolizes the entire fetid mess.


Update: Looks like Rush got the memo. According to Bradblog:

Rush's final words at the end of the show (referring to the Press Conference scheduled by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to happen shortly): "Chuck Shumer is Joe Wilson's 'handler' in this agency plot to bring down the President."

Are the dittoheads buying this?


.
digby 7/14/2005 03:02:00 PM |

 
No Longer A Beer Buddy

Finally, it's not just honesty where Bush is taking a hit. Only 50 percent of those polled gave him high ratings for being easygoing and likeable, down from 57 in January; 43 percent gave him high ratings for being smart, down from 50; 40 percent gave him high ratings for being compassionate enough to understand average people, down from 47; and only 29 percent gave him high ratings for being willing to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own, down from 33.

I'm not the greatest judge in the world because I've always thought he was a dominating, unlikeable, dumb, arrogant intolerant asshole. A bunch oif people thought he'd be fun to hang around with, though, and it's a big reason why he got re-elected. Without his personal popularity, what has he really got?

The good news is that this should finally kill off the "enormously popular" president meme that refused to die. I'm sure Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert are in mourning today.



.
digby 7/14/2005 12:26:00 PM |

 
Bookmark This

From Bloomberg:

Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers



.
digby 7/14/2005 12:06:00 PM |

 
The Source


It's nice to be able to fit another piece into the Rovegate puzzle. This Kos diary by PollyUSA is an excellent rundown of the original source of the Plame information --- a classified state department document from 2002 that was then circulated all over Washington after Novak's column ran. Clearly, most people following the case closely already know this because it's all in the public record. I hadn't connected the dots even though I've written about this document in a couple of different contexts.

In a nutshell:

There is a leaked classified state department document from 2002 in play in this case. It is widely considered to be the likely source of the information that Plame worked for the CIA.

It says that Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the job.

It was leaked to a bunch of news organizations during 2003 and is a piece of evidence in the Senate commission report.

This is the same document that was on the Africa trip with Colin Powell and the president.

The CIA has publicly disputed the accuracy of the memo, saying that the author of the memo could not have been at the meeting and therefore didn't know what he was talking about.


PollyUSA rounded up a number of newpaper articles that discussed this document but here are just a couple of them:

WSJ October 17, 2003:

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

WaPo December 26th 2003:

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

It is a crime to leak classified information, so this may well be an element of Fitzgerald's case. In an interesting sidenote, it was this document that JD Guckert referenced when he interviewed Wilson and it got him a visit from the FBI. (After preening about confidential sources for a while, Guckert eventually said that he'd read about the document in the Wall Street Journal.)His story confirms that the FBI was following up on this document and that means it probably was still classified when Guckert wrote about it in October 2003, however.

I have a couple of thoughts about this.

In order to stay out of legal and political trouble, members of Bush administration simply have to claim that they didn't know Valerie Plame was undercover. So, if this classified report is the source of the leak and it only says "Wilson's wife suggested he go on the mission" with no mention of her status, then it appears that not one person who saw that document --- whether it was Colin Powell on Air Force One or whether it was Cheney and Libby with the entire Iraq Group holding their hand towels in the mens room ----- not one bothered to raise a flag about this CIA "employee's" status before Rove et al blabbed the story all over town. If they are innocent of purposefully outing a CIA Agent this is what we must believe.

I don't have a top security clearance and I don't work in Washington and I am as far out of the war planning for this country as you can get. Yet I know that I would have wondered whether it might be a matter of national security to tell the press that someone was a CIA employee. Anybody who watches "Alias" would know that for gawd's sake. We are supposed to believe that top presidential advisors took the information from one state department document and ran with it without ever checking the details.

Could be. Nobody ever thought the president would personally authorize the break in of the Democratic National Committee, but he did.


Second, the CIA has disputed the characterization of Plame's role in getting her husband the assignment. I don't know or care whether she did or not --- it's a red herring. But nonetheless, it's worth pointing out that is has been challenged by the CIA from the beginning. From Newsday July 22, 2003:

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

I think we've figured it out.

But what's interesting about that is that this classified document that people consider the source of the leak was written in 2002. I'm assuming it was part of a report on what Wilson's findings, although I have no proof of that. And I don't know who wrote this memo (although it's certain that some members of the press do, since they've seen it) but he or she has been described as an analyst at the INR --- the state dept intelligence division. I have to wonder what was the purpose of putting in this little tid-bit about Plame in the first place?

It would be nice to know who wrote it if only to prove or disprove the speculation that Bolton's cabal was involved. If he was, then this is a whole new ballgame. I would be very tempted to think that Bolton had spiked Wilson's report from the get. On the other hand, Bolton and his minions apparently have not been called to the Grand Jury so perhaps that's unlikely. If I had to guess, I'd say this tid-bit about Wilson's wife was a throw away line that caught Rove and Libby's attention as a possible way to feminize Wilson.

I'm speculating that when they got wind that Wilson was going to spill the beans they looked for dirt.(Wilson says he was told that when the yellowcake story was falling apart in March the VP's office ordered a "work-up" on him.)This classified state department document contained the information that Wilson's wife got him the job. The character assassins decided that this was their weapon --- Wilson's CIA employee wife got him the job for either nepotistic, partisan or treasonous reasons. Maybe something else. (Maybe all three if you ask John Gibson.) And the optics of it were that Wilson was an effeminate loser whose wife had to find work for him ("little wifey got it for him.") It sure sounds like a Rove special.

And at the end of the day, the simple truth remains: they either knew she was undercover and outed her with malice aforethought or they were so stupid and sloppy that they never bothered to find out what her status was. Which explains why they are so intent upon making people believe that Plame wasn't undercover. It's their only decent defense.

I'm also reminded today of Murray Waas' account of Roves testimony to the FBI:

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

Everytime I read that I'm amazed. If that is true it is a truly damning confession of character assassination by the man who is the president's most trusted advisor. Regardless of any actual crime being committed, I think that if the American people knew this a large majority would demand that Rove be dismissed. He basically admits that smearing opponents is something he does with the help of the entire Republican infrastructure. We know this stuff exists in politics, some on both sides. But to insist it's "legitimate" and admit freely that you do it is something else.

But I mention it here because that passage contains something that may or may not be legally problematic for Rove. It depends upon his precise words, which we don't have:

Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.

I suppose it depends on what the definition of "circulate" is, if he even used that word at all. But, generally speaking, if he insisted that he hadn't been talking about Plame before Novak's column, he lied to the FBI. We know he spoke with Cooper.

And then there's the classified document being passed around to every wingnut in town.

Rove is in an unpleasant box. He's claimed that his aggressive smear campaign to to leak and disseminate derogatory information about Bush's critics through partisan channels was completely legitimate --- but that he didn't know that Plame was undercover or that this document was classified. I hope for his sake that's not actually his defense. I've long said he's no genius, but nobody will believe he's that stupid. I doubt Patrick Fitzgerald is that stupid either.



Hat tip to Grand Moff Texan in the comments.


.
digby 7/14/2005 07:19:00 AM |

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

 
Connecting The Dots With Invisible Ink

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog to find that I'm more than a little glad to finally see General Geoffrey Miller finally exposed for the sadistic incompetent that he is --- even a little bit. Apparently, he might be "reprimanded" for his sadistic tactics at Gitmo. But maybe not. I sure hope it doesn't go that far because I'm sure it would really, really hurt his feelings. Testimony today before the Senate Armed Services Committee says that practices condoned by Miller (and approved by the pentagon) at Gitmo went too far:

Investigators described their findings before the Senate Armed Services Commttee Wednesday. They were looking into allegations by FBI agents who say they witnessed abusive interrogation techniques at the Guantanamo prison for terrorist suspects.

The chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, described the interrogation techniques used on Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

It was learned later that he had tried to enter the U.S. in August 2001 but was turned away by an immigration agent at the Orlando, Fla., airport. Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, was in the airport at the same time, officials have said.

Schmidt said that to get him to talk, interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it. They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator, Schmidt added, and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog.

Still, he said, "No torture occurred."

He was kept in solitary confinement for 160 days. Interrogations went on for 18 to 20 hours a day, for 48 out of 54 days. Apparently, however, this wasn't torture because "torture involves inflicting physical pain or withholding food, water or medical care, none of which took place."

Well, sure. Being forcibly "strip-searched" is a walk in the park. I would imagine that anybody who is captured by the enemy ought to be mighty careful going forward. If this is true, guards putting their fingers in orifices to break them isn't actually torture. In fact, under this definition, sexual assault may not be torture at all since it might not feature the appropriate level of physical pain.

There is one teensy little problem with this AP story, however:

Miller, a subject of criticism by human rights groups, took command of the prison camp at Guantanamo in late 2002 with a mandate to get more and better information from prisoners. He later went to Iraq to oversee detainee operations there. He is now stationed at the Pentagon in a position unrelated to prisoners.

True. Except he was the guy who was sent to Abu Ghraib with the express orders to use his fabulous Gitmo techniques on Iraqis, who at the time, nobody was considering terrorists. We know what happened after he got there. It's a fairly significant part of this story, I would think. Expecially since at least half of the techniques described in this report were the exact same "abuses" perpetrated by the low life bad apples on the night shift at Abu Ghriab! We've got pictures, ferchristsakes, doesn't anybody remember that? How in the hell did Lynde and her friends just happen to come up with exactly the same college hijinks that were used on a top level prisoner in Gitmo???

We're told that these techniques eventually resulted in the "20th hijacker" offering "useful" information. Perhaps. But I have to reserve judgement since virtually everyone involved has been lying their asses off from the beginning. Especially that sadist Geoffrey D Ripper, the artillery officer turned interrogation expert, who will undoubtedly skate on this whole thing.

Too bad about America's reputation, though. It sure does make it tough to see the moral clarity through all the whitewash.



.
digby 7/13/2005 05:53:00 PM |

 
Firing Offense #456

Matt Coopers lawyer said today:

For the last year or so, Matt has been a subpoenaed witness in a grand jury investigation.I advised him and he accepted the advice that he should not have private conversations with other people who may be witnesses in the grand jury proceeding. I was concerned about the perception. I was concerned about what Mr. Fitzgerald might think. And so it was on my advice that he did not personally contact his source.

For me to contact Mr. Rove's lawyer at the time, prior to the time that Mr. Rove had been identified as Matt's source, would have
actually been a breach of confidentiality. My conversation with Mr.
Rove was not privileged and would not have been privileged -- with Mr. Rove's attorney.

There was no indication that we had that Mr. Rove or his lawyer
were interested in receiving such a request. And it was really only
in the last few days, when Mr. Luskin started making some of his
comments, especially the one that I just quoted to you that was in the Wall Street Journal that led us to feel that we were on firm footing picking up the phone and calling and saying, "Based on your public comments, we would ask for an express and personal...," and that's what we did.

Rove could have made it clear, though legal channels, during the solid year that Fitzgerald was litigating this, that he didn't expect Cooper to keep his confidence, if that's what he was doing. He obviously knew that there was a battle royale going on between Time magazine and the special prosecutor and he knew that he'd spoken to Cooper. He could have let it be known that if Cooper was going to all this trouble over him, he needn't bother.

Rove's lawyer has been bloviating all week --- and the RNC shills are repeating it like a mantra --- that Rove had waived the privilege long ago and had nothing to hide. But he was willing, apparently, to let Cooper go to jail without lifting a finger to clarify that fact. I wouldn't call that "fully cooperating with the investigation," which is what both Scotty and Junior have been emphasizing is the prime directive.

He let Fitzgerald spend millions of taxpayer dollars to get Cooper to testify. He certainly had no legal obligation to help. But his boss, the president, did say that he wanted his staff to fully cooperate. Rove knew very well that Cooper was way out on a limb, and it was probably because of him, and he said nothing. And now he's acting like he was a big hero.

He should be fired for that too. And asked to pay back the money that was spent by the prosecutor getting Cooper and TIME to reveal their source when all Rove had to do was make it clear through his lawyer that if Cooper was holding out because of him, he didn't need to.



.
digby 7/13/2005 05:31:00 PM |

 
Mehlman on Matthews

I think the RNC has made a mistake in going back into the original Wilson smear. Chris Matthews just showed footage of Cheney on Press The Meat. He was talking about how he'd personally been interested in the Niger story. It seems to back up Wilson. And the last thing they want is to have Cheney's mug all over this story.

They also are making a mistake by pounding the fact that the entire leadership of the Democratic party including Kerry and Clinton are calling for Rove to resign. Mehlman even seemed a little gobsmacked by it. The problem is that almost everybody in the country believes that Democrats are the last people on the planet to go out on a limb. Without realizing it, Mehlman is being hoist by his own petard. Somebody just turned to me and said, "Jesus, if they're saying it, he must be toast."

Calling Democrats wimps for 20 years has its effects. It means that when they actually do say something people automatically assume that they aren't acting out of political courage. They assume that there is no risk involved.

Mehlman also said that everyone knows that Karl Rove has the highest ethical standards. Hahahahahaha. To quote the Clenis --- that dog won't hunt. Once again, they are hoist by their own petard. You can't go around telling everyone who'll listen that Karl Rove is a cross between Sun Tzu and Machiavelli for years on end and then suddenly portray him as a simple, straight shooting public servant. Only the most ardent neanderthals are going to buy this. Certainly not one member of the press will.

This was a very weak performance. They aren't on their "A" game.

Oh and the new NBC Wall Street Journal Poll is out and it ain't good news for Bush. Check this out:

Bush honesty rating drops to lowest point

[...]

Only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

Drumbeat.


Update: here's a better link to the WSJ poll.
.
digby 7/13/2005 04:07:00 PM |

 
"It Turns Out Little Wifey Did It"

If anyone would like to see the full manifestation of the Rove smear against Plame and her pathetic, henpecked husband in all it's glory, you only need to watch the video (via Crooks and Liars) of John Gibson's insane rant yesterday.

Newshounds has the transcript. Here's just a little taste:

You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you? That's exactly what happened, as they say in the news biz, inquiring minds now want to know how the heck did this happen? Well, it turns out little wifey did it.

[...]

So why should Rove get a medal?

Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq - she was married to him - and sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies. Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spymasters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it.

Yeah. Senior white house advisor and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was an interepid whistleblower, putting himself on the line exposing government wrongdoing when he outed Plame. He is the Daniel Ellsberg of the Bush administration bravely risking all to let the people know what its government was doing.

My head hurts.

Newshounds came up with something else quite interesting about Gibson's schizoid ramblings, however:

Notes: This is something I haven't done before; I compared the transcript posted on FoxNews.com with what he actually said, reading along. The discrepancies are interesting:

website: conclusions from a Senate investigation
actual: conclusions from a joint investigation of Congress

website: Well, turns out the wife did it.
actual: Well, it turns out little wifey did it.

website: Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's policies. Sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies.
actual: Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq - she was married to him - and sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies.

website: That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should own up to it.
actual: That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it.

website: Rove should get a medal if he did what he says he didn't.
actual: Rove should get a medal even if he did do what he says he didn't do.

Somebody didn't think Gibson's statement was quite the thing so they doctored it. But hey, they never said they told the truth, only that they were fair and balanced. Which isn't true either.


Oh, and be sure to check out this extension of that theme from today's Wall Street Journal: Karl Rove, Whistleblower.


Thanks to reader Four Legs Good for the tip.


.
digby 7/13/2005 02:38:00 PM |

 
Wild In Beantown

Does anyone find it at all ironic that Rick Santorum is blaming Boston for the priest molestation scandal? Has he ever heard the phrase "banned in Boston?" Does he know where it comes from?

From the late 19th century until the mid-20th century, the phrase "Banned in Boston" was used to describe a literary work, motion picture, play, or other work prohibited from distribution or exhibition. During this time, Boston city officials took it upon themselves to "ban" anything that they found to be salacious, immoral, or offensive: theatrical shows were run out of town, books confiscated, and motion pictures were prevented from being shown—sometimes stopped in mid-showing after an official had "seen enough". This movement had several effects. One was that Boston, arguably the cultural center of the United States since its founding, now came across as less sophisticated than many lesser cities without such stringent censorship practices. Another is that the phrase "banned in Boston" began to be associated in the popular mind with something sexy and lurid; many distributors of such works were happy when they were banned in Boston, as it gave them more appeal elsewhere; many distributors also advertised that their products had been banned in Boston when in fact they had not to increase their appeal.

It hasn't actually changed all that much. I love Boston, but a free-wheeling sexual libertine town it ain't.

In fact, if we were to accept Rick Santorum's silly cause and effect it would probably make more sense to say that it was the repressive sexual attitudes of Boston combined with the unnatural state of celibacy that "caused" the priests to molest countless children.

This is, of course, completely ridiculous. But it actually makes more sense than Santorum's armchair sociology, which isn't saying much. It would also make more sense to say that the priests' bodies had been taken over by demons. Which I'm sure Santorum also believes. Liberal demons, naturally. Is there any other kind?



.
digby 7/13/2005 02:00:00 PM |

 
Judy, Judy, Judy

Gene Lyons writes in to point out this little tid-bit about our good friend Judith Miller. One of the things missed in all the paeans to Judy's martyrdom to the confidential source is that the Jeanne D'arc of the Gray Lady had been known to burn her sources without a second thought if it suits her. Seems Judy has some shifting standards when it comes to betraying the reporter's privilege:

In April, Miller interviewed an expert from the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington on background, then made up a quote and attributed it to the person, who she then named.

It infuriated colleagues and a senior editor, but it only merited a small editors' note on April 9: "An article on Saturday about the search by United States forces for chemical, biological and radiation weapons in Iraq included a comment attributed to Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert at the [Stimson] Center, a research institute in Washington. Ms. Smithson was depicted as suggesting that Bush administration officials might be less certain of finding such weapons now than before the war. She was quoted as saying that 'they may be trying to dampen expectations because they are worried they won't find anything significant.' In fact the comments were paraphrases of a remark Ms. Smithson made in an e-mail exchange for the Times's background information, on the condition that she would not be quoted by name. Attempts to reach her before publication were unsuccessful. Thus the comments should not have been treated as quotations or attributed to her."

This is actually what Miller did: the interview was conducted by e-mail, Miller added that "if I don't hear back from you I'll assume it's OK to use." Not hearing back, she used it. But the scientist didn't check her e-mail further that day.

In fairness, it may be that this confidential source didn't explicitly say she wanted to be on "super-double-secret-deep" backround and Karl Rove evidently did. So it was probably her own fault for thinking she could rely on "backround" alone to keep Judy from making up quotes and spilling her name all over the New York Times. She should have known better. And, after all, this source was questioning the evidence for WMD and Judy couldn't really sanction that. Indeed, one might even wonder if she burned this source on purpose.

So, before we get all gooey about Judy's great sacrifice in fighting for the reporter's privilege, maybe we need to ask whether or not she believes in it in the first place. The evidence suggests that she doesn't.

So why is she in jail?



.
digby 7/13/2005 12:55:00 PM |

 
Clearing The Cobwebs

A friend of mine asked me to give her a synopsis of Rovegate in easy to understand, non-insider language. Perhaps you will find it interesting too:

In his op-ed on July 6th,2003, Wilson gave a straighforward account of who he is and why he went on this fact-finding trip to Niger. He says "I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report." He does not say that Cheney had sent him personally on the mission. He reports that he found no evidence that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

He says that he assumes from working in the government for many years that his report had been forwarded through channels. When he heard the president use the claim about African uranium in the SOTU, he became alarmed and asked the State department about it. He accepted that the excuse that the president might have been talking about a different African country than Niger until he later learned that Niger was specifically mentioned quite recently in official documents. He concludes at this time, based upon the fact that he had personally been involved in debunking this claim, that the administration had been "fixing" intelligence.

The administration was now for the first time explicitly and openly being accused of knowingly using false information to sell the war. And since Wilson had specifically named the Vice president as having been the one to request additional information that led to his trip, the White House was involved at a very high level. The administration claims that this was not true, that in spite of a series of mishaps, there was no concerted or conscious effort to mislead the country about the intelligence. And whatever mistakes were made were the result of shoddy intelligence work, not the "fixing" or "sexing up" of the evidence. When the Niger episode became public, they decided that it was time for George Tenet to admit that he had screwed this particular case up and they arranged for him to make a public statement to that effect.

The White House response to Wilson's piece is that Cheney never asked for the information in the first place. And they said they had no idea about Wilson's evidence because his trip was a low level nepotistic boondoggle arranged by his wife, a CIA "employee." Karl Rove and others spoke to several reporters to that effect (They now claim, since Matthew Cooper's e-mail was leaked that it was only in order to "warn them off" taking Wilson seriously.) Robert Novak --- an extremely unlikely columnist for the white house to feel they had to warn off Wilson --- was the first to put this into print on July 13th.

When it came out, exposing Valerie Plame as an undercover operative, Wilson believed that it was an act of retaliation and a signal to anyone else who might be thinking of coming forward. Novak was quoted shortly after the column ran saying: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." (He has since said that he used the term "operative" inappropriately, although he has used that word very precisely throughout his career to mean "undercover.")In the days after the column appeared there were reports that the administration was actively pushing the column, claiming that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

I have no idea if Joe Wilson's wife or the ghost of Ronald Reagan was involved in sending him on that trip and I don't care. It's irrelevant and it's always been irrelevant and they were either incredibly malevolent or incredibly negligent in settling on using her as the best way to discredit Wilson. But as I wrote earlier, I think it was a P.R. decision, and it has the mark of Rove all over it. Thuggishness is his hallmark. Any chance they have to portray a male opponent as a milksop, they do it. I think the "wife" being involved in getting her husband a job was central to their calculations.

I don't know if Cheney read his report but considering what we now know, I don't find it credible that he didn't. He has been proven to have been immersed in the pre-war intelligence, particularly the claim that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program. That was his baby. But Wilson didn't claim in the op-ed that Cheney knew, only that he assumed his report had been circulated. And since he'd been told that the trip itself was a result of Cheney's question he assumed that it had filtered up to Cheney.

That is what sent the administration into overdrive --- Wilson merely mentioning Cheney in the context of fixing the intelligence. Quite a panicked reaction, don't you think?

The White House response to Joe Wilson's report was that it was something cooked up in the bowels of the CIA by his (gasp) wife and it was not very compelling and nobody paid any attention to it, even there, and they never sent the information back to the White House anyway.

If it weren't for the fact that Wilson's conclusions about the uranium were right, you might even believe their tale. If it weren't for the fact that Dick Cheney was knee deep in the intelligence, even personally spending time at the CIA, leaning over the shoulders of desk officers, you might believe it. If it weren't for the fact that the aluminum tubes "evidence" was shown to be false, the drone plane "evidence" was shown to be laughable and the mobile labs "evidence" was shown to be non-existent you might even believe it. If it weren't for the fact that the meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqis was proven false, that we had chances to take out Zarquawi and refused and that the inspectors were at the very moment of the SOTU reporting that they were not finding any stockpiles, we might even believe it. If it weren 't for the fact that the Downing Street Memos show definitively that the US knew its intelligence was weak and decided to "fix" it we might even believe it.

If we'd found even one scintilla of evidence that Saddam had the stockpiles, the programs or the means to make weapons of mass destruction, we might even believe it.

Unfortunately for the White House, there have been so many revelations now aside from the "16 words" that they no longer can claim credibility on this issue. It is quite clear to any sentient being that they manipulated, misled and outright lied about the intelligence. Joe Wilson knew back in 2003 that something was wrong. He had been involved in one particular part of the intelligence gathering and he knew the facts were being misrepresented. He spoke out. And the white house responded by portraying him as a partisan loser whose report was so low level that nobody ever saw it. In the course of that they also exposed his wife's covert status, likely endangering national security.

If we knew then what we know now, would there be any question as to who should get the benefit of the doubt about this?

And knowing what we've always known about how the Rove operation works, is there really any question that they were smearing Wilson in the press and were thoroughly capable of outing an undercover operative in retaliation for attacking the white house? It occurs to me that all this talk about Valerie Plame these last few days --- how she wasn't "credible" as an NOC, how she was a "desk jockey," how her cover was thin etc --- I'm beginning to wonder if they weren't retaliating against her as much as him. If she was involved in the meeting in which it was decided to send Joe Wilson to Niger I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to teach her a little lesson too. It's what Tony Soprano would do.

Remember. It doesn't matter who sent Wilson on the trip. What matters is that his questions in that op-ed, the questions they didn't want anyone asking --- have been answered. As the drip, drip drip of new evidence comes to the fore, we become more sure, not less, that the administration took this country to war on false pretenses. That's what they are trying to hide.

Here's the conclusion of Wilson's piece that started this whole thing:

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

I have a little assignment for all my readers today. I think it's important that you all re-read these two things:

Joe Wilson's op-ed of July 6, 2003
Bob Novak's column of July 13, 2003

I think you'll find it amazingly bracing to see in stark relief the two columns at the heart of this. You'll see why it's so absurd that they tried to make these questions about Joe Wilson's wife so central to the story. The story is about Dick Cheney. And they knew it.

If he hadn't defaulted to his patented South Carolina smear tactics, Karl would be in a much safer place today.


.
digby 7/13/2005 08:48:00 AM |

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

 
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished


It was that rat bastard Cooper:

"By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

Oooh. That's dangerous stuff there. It may not be the smartest thing in the world for Karl Rove's lawyer to be disparaging Matt Cooper on the day before he testifies, do you think? They only know what one e-mail says and they have no idea what Cooper is going to say. Bizarre.

There's more:

According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

Gosh, is it ever too bad that whoever talked to Bob Novak didn't make it just as clear in their conversation (after they were done answering questions about welfare reform or maybe the latest news on stem cell research, of course) that they were only giving him this information to keep him from "going out on a limb."

Old Bob must be getting senile because he went right out and wrote a whole damned column about it, mentioning senior white house officials and everything. Man I'll bet whoever spoke to Bob is in the doghouse now, huh?

Here they were just trying to make sure the old duffer didn't embarrass himself by writing any supportive columns about Wilson (which you know he was planning to do) and look what happened. Now everybody thinks just because they had a few casual conversations on the run with a couple of reporters (only to to warn them off, of course) that this was a calculated effort to get the story out. What are the odds that two such different reporters would both get the story wrong in essentially the same way? Talk about bad luck. Do they all have egg on their faces or what?

Looks to me as if Bob Novak was a rat bastard too. Will he go down with the ship?


Update: Via &y in the comments, Murray Waas, who seems to have some good sources on this matter, has an update today on Novak:

Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter.

[...]

Novak had claimed to the investigators that the Bush administration officials with whom he spoke did not identify Plame as a covert operative, and that use of the word "operative" was his formulation and not theirs, according to those familiar with Novak's accounts to the investigators.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and at least two other Bush administration officials have told federal investigators that they had spoken to reporters about Plame, but that they did not know at the time that she was a covert operative with the CIA, the same sources told me.

And, as has now been widely reported, an email turned over last week by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper to investigators shows that Cooper spoke to Rove just prior to Novak's column. The notes indicate that Rove told him that Plame worked for the CIA, and that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, obtained an assignment from the CIA, on her recommendation, to go to the African nation of Niger to investigate allegations that the then-Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was attempting to covertly purchase uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

When Wilson made known that the Niger allegations were untrue, but were still cited by President Bush to make the case to go to war with Iraq, Rove and other administration officials mounted a campaign to discredit Wilson by claiming that he obtained the assignment only because of his wife.

[...]

Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA "operative" due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe.

That skepticism has been one of several reasons that the special prosecutor has pressed so hard for the testimony of Time magazine's Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

[...]

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.

Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.

.
digby 7/12/2005 05:14:00 PM |

 
Call Me Talk Radio

...only in print.

Atrios says that certain people remain concerned that corporate entities or politicans will infiltrate the web and pour big money into it to influence politics. As if the amount of money that MSNBC is flushing down the toilet each night on Tucker Carlson isn't pouring big money into television to influence politics. What, is Tucker an unbiased "journalist?"

And what do they plan to do about guys like Sean Hannity, who appears regularly at campaign rallies speaking on behalf of big shot republicans. Is he an activist subject to regulation on his web site, but a member of the media on his radio show?

It's awfully hard to know where to draw these lines, isn't it? But let's not let that stop us. It makes perfect sense to draw it by regulating the web, the one place where there is at least a small chance that a regular person, or a group of citizens, can compete with the huge money that already dominates the media --- which is exempted from regulation. Awesome, awesome logic. I guess we can content ourselves with calling in to Rush and hoping he lets us on the air.

After all, someday some rich person might find a way to influence the political system by putting lots on money into a web site somewhere that will be so grand that all the other voices are drowned out by its incredible incredibleness. I can hardly wait. Will it dispense cash? Blow jobs? Because that's what it's going to take to make "production values" be the difference on the internet. God speed to the person who figures out how to make that work. I suspect he or she will not waste his or her time on political talk, however. There are much bigger fish to fry once you crack that nut.


Truly, this is an asinine debate.



.
digby 7/12/2005 03:17:00 PM |

 
Beat Me Hurt Me

For all those who are still breathless with appreciation at the White House press corpses performance yesterday, a commenter reminded me of this incident as an illustration of how the White House and the Press Corps normally interact. I remember writing about it at the time:

The story not told was that the president of the United States was acting like a 15 year old trash talking punk in the above mentioned restaurant and refused repeatedly to answer any of the questions posed by reporters by throwing his weight around and making stupid, juvenile jokes for about 15 minutes.

Maybe he was drunk, I don't know. But he was certainly an asshole to David Gregory and Terry Moran, the two most tenacious questioners yesterday. In that little show of manhood, he's calling both reporters "Stretch," which he apparently think is hilarious:

Remarks by the President to the Press Pool
Nothin' Fancy Cafe
Roswell, New Mexico

11:25 A.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.

Q Mr. President, how are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.

Q What would you like?

THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.

Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.

THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch — what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?

Q Right behind you, whatever you order.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?

Q But Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?

Q Ribs.

THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.

Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?

Q An answer.

Q Can we buy some questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people — they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.

Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.

You should have seen the footage. It was unbelievable. Gregory and Moran looked like a couple of idiots. I'm sure they remember.

And then there was this one when Gregory addressed a question to Jacques Chirac in French:

NBC's David Gregory, unwisely pushing Bush to explain "why it is you think there are such strong sentiments in Europe against you and your administration," had the bad taste to ask President Chirac—in French, of all languages—if he also wanted to comment.

"Very good," shot back a very petulant Bush, "The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental."

When Gregory offered to go on in French, Bush was determined to squelch the bilingual upstart: "I'm impressed—que bueno. Now I'm literate in two languages." At the end of the press conference, the President of the United States called to Gregory: "As soon as you get in front of a camera, you start showing off."

Richard Reeves reported:

It turned out that what set him off was Gregory's turning to the French leader. Later Bush told Chirac: "I'll call on the Americans."

What Gregory said later was: "Well, that's it for my career."

Bush owns all the Americans, you see. It's the ownership society thing.

If these guys are turning on lil' Scotty McClellan now that Rove is injured and bleeding that's nice. But let's not kid ourselves that they haven't allowed themselves to be treated like freshmen frat pledges for the last four and half years. It hasn't been pretty to watch.



.
digby 7/12/2005 01:08:00 PM |

 
Focus

For the last couple of days I've been saying that the GOP's new excuse is that Karl Rove was just setting the record straight about that lyin' Joe Wilson. Deborah Orrin prattled about it last night on Hardball. Here are the official RNC talking points and my suggested answers::

Cooper’s Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:

“[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A ‘Big Warning’ Not To ‘Get Too Far Out On Wilson.’ Rove Told Cooper That Wilson’s Trip Had Not Been Authorized By ‘DCIA’ - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney.” (Michael Isikoff, "Matt Cooper’s Source," Newsweek, 7/18/05)

Inaccuracies? You mean Bush's 16 words in the SOTU were right after all? Wow.

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn’t Know Who Sent Him:

Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

* Joe Wilson: “What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

* Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

So, because Wilson says that he was told Cheney had requested a report and Cheney says he never met Wilson, that means that Joseph Wilson's report was wrong?

Why did the White House keep saying that there were WMD in Iraq when there haven't been any found? Was it Joe Wilson who got everything wrong or was it the administration?

Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger, But Documentation Showed She Proposed His Name:

Wilson Claims His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA To Discuss Report. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” JOE WILSON: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)

* But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division, or CPD,] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

So the white house revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover Cia agent working in the field of weapons of mass destruction because they thought she sent her husband on the trip. Was that really good judgment do you think? And, anyway, does this mean that Saddam did try to buy uranium after all? What did his wife sending him have to do with that anyway?

Wilson’s Report On Niger Had “Thin” Evidence And Did Not Change Conclusions Of Analysts And Other Reports:

Officials Said Evidence Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions, raising questions about his veracity and the agency’s reasons for sending him in the first place. They told reporters that Wilson’s evidence was thin, said his homework was shoddy and suggested that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA only because his wife had nominated him for the job.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

* “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (IN) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04

)

Aha. So now we're getting somewhere. So Saddam was trying to buy that uranium. Wasn't he? For his nuclear program. That doesn't exist.

Didn't I hear something about the documents being forgeries and the administration admitting that they shouldn't have included the "16 words" in the SOTU speech? Are you taking that all back now? Wilson's report was wrong but it was right?

Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO) And Orrin Hatch (R-UT) All Stated, “On At Least Two Occasions [Wilson] Admitted That He Had No Direct Knowledge To Support Some Of His Claims And That He Was Drawing On Either Unrelated Past Experiences Or No Information At All.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

* “The Former Ambassador, Either By Design Or Through Ignorance, Gave The American People And, For That Matter, The World A Version Of Events That Was Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated, And Misleading.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

* “[J]oe Wilson Told Anyone Who Would Listen That The President Had Lied To The American People, That The Vice President Had Lied And That He Had ‘Debunked’ The Claim That Iraq Was Seeking Uranium From Africa … Not Only Did He NOT ‘Debunk’ The Claim, He Actually Gave Some Intelligence Analysts Even More Reason To Believe That It May Be True.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Oh, That must be the bipartisan commission everybody's quoting. When did Bond, Hatch or Roberts become a Democrat?



I'm actually only half kidding on this. If the talkers would think about it, the best thing they can do is constantly shift this back to the very salient fact that what Wilson said was true. Wilson said Saddam didn't try to buy the uranium and that he (Wilson) told the CIA he didn't try to buy the uranium. And he wasn't the only one who disbelieved the story. So did George Tenet hiumself who insisted it be pulled from Bush's first big speech in Cincinnatti. Then, months later, after even more evidence was available that it was bullshit, Bush went ahead said Saddam DID try to buy the uranium in the big State of the Union speech. He was forced to retract that statement a couple months later. Wilson was right.

All the rest of this is inside baseball mumbo jumbo designed to discredit Wilson after the fact because he criticized the administration.

Let's not forget. What Wilson criticized the administration for was putting the Niger uranium business into the State of the Union speech when he knew they were aware that it was bullshit. And let's not forget --- it was bullshit.

And where are those WMD, anyway?


Here is an informative article on the commission in Wikipedia. It's being challenged for neutrality by wingnuts because, as Rob Cordry says, "The facts are biased, Jon."

Just in case anyone's wondering about the status of this bipartisan commission's look at whether the administration may have cooked the intelligence, there's this:

At the time of the report's release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope that "phase two" of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."

On March 10, 2005, during a question-and-answer session after a speech he had given at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said of the failure to complete phase two, "[T]hat is basically on the back burner." Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), vice chairman of the Committee, made a statement later that day in which he said, "The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment... While the completion of phase two is long overdue, the committee has continued this important work, and I expect that we will finish the review in the very near future."

In a statement regarding the release of the report of the presidential WMD commission on March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote, "I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

On April 10, 2005, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press program. In repsonse to a question about the completion of phase two of the investigation, Roberts said, "I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important."

Moderator Tim Russert then asked Senator Rockefeller if he believed phase two would be completed, and he replied, "I hope so. Pat and I have agreed to do it. We've shaken hands on it, and we agreed to do it after the elections so it wouldn't be any sort of sense of a political attack. I mean that was my view; it shouldn't be viewed that way."

As of July, 2005, phase two of the Committee's investigation had not yet been completed.

digby 7/12/2005 11:37:00 AM |

 
My Bad

Bob Somerby takes John Aravosis and me to task today for some good reasons. He says:

Liberals and Dems simply can’t afford to play the dim games of the kooky-con right. But all across the liberal web, we find the virus spreading—a virus in which every bit of reasoning, no matter how daft, is accepted as seminal brilliance as long as it “proves” King Karl’s guilt. Yesterday, we were amazed when the sagacious Digby praised this post from John Aravosis:


ARAVOSIS (7/11/05): Perhaps it's legally relevant if Rove "knew" Plame was undercover or not, but it's not relevant in terms of him keeping his job. Rove intentionally outed a CIA agent working on WMD, it is irrelevant whether he did or didn't know if she was an undercover agent. First off, he knew she wasn't THAT public about her identity or there'd have been no need to "out" here—everyone would have known her already.

Aravosis makes some excellent points in his longer post. But that paragraph, which Digby featured, makes almost no sense at all. The last sentence is completely absurd. The second sentence isn’t much better.

The point I was making, and that I think Aravosis was making, is really captured in the first sentence: "It doesn't matter if Rove 'knew' Plame was undercover or not, it's not relevant in terms of him keeping his job." If I had it to do over again I would leave it at that.

The issue I was concerned with was that political and legal culpability aren't the same thing, not so much that King Karl was guilty of outing Plame. The newsweak article proved that Rove disclosed to a reporter on deep backround that Joseph Wilson's wife was with the CIA, working on weapons of mass destruction. That was a reckless thing for a top White House official to do if he did not know her status --- and possibly illegal if he did. We don't know if he committed a crime, but we do know that what he did was at least negligent. Valerie Plame WAS an undercover operative whose cover was blown when white house officials leaked the fact that she worked with the CIA to the press. He should resign for having done that, regardless of his motives or knowledge of her undercover status. It's the act, not the intent, that should govern whether he remains in the White House with a top security clearance.

I admit that John's paragraph was not the clearest thing he's ever written, or that I ever endorsed. I suspect that we were both a little bit overexcited and mentally fatigued. (Aravosis at least has the excuse that he'd been crammed like a sardine on airplanes all week --- I'm just overdosing on schaudenfreude.) The larger point, however, remains valid.

But Somerby's not an ass for pointing this out. It's what he does. If you can't take the heat, y'know...



.
digby 7/12/2005 10:34:00 AM |

 
"A" Game

In the same NY Times article refenced below, there's this:

"Knowing Rove, he's still having eight different policy meetings and sticking to his game plan," said one veteran Republican strategist in Washington who often works with the White House. "But this issue now is looming, and as they peel away another layer of the onion, there's a lot of consternation. Rove needs to be on his A game now, not huddled with lawyers and press people."

A senior Congressional Republican aide said most members of Congress were still waiting to learn more about Mr. Rove's involvement and to assess whether more disclosures about his role were likely.

"The only fear here is where does this go," the aide said. "We can't know."

Getting Rove off his A game is almost worth as much as getting him out. He's man known for his surly temperament in the best of times and this has been a bad second term so far for the GOP maestro. Social Security, his "legacy" project, is dead in the water. Iraq is a quagmire. Schiavo was a huge mistake and the SCOTUS battles ahead need his personal attention --- the religious right is his very special constituency. Bush's ratings are in the toilet. This, he did not need.

So, we will see whether The Magician is capable of handling the spotlight and all the pressure --- at a time when you can be sure that his little Prince is very, very unhappy with his performance. Junior may remain loyal, but never think that it has to do with real personal loyalty. It has to do with never being willing to admit to a mistake. Bush will make Karl's life a living hell. Do you think he really likes the guy who's called "Bush's Brain?" Does Karl strike anyone as a "W" kinda guy?

No, Karl is now under the worst kind of pressure imaginable. We're not going to see his "A" game.

And as for "where does this go?" I think it's time to start asking why George W. Bush, from the very beginning of this saga, has been saying things like "he'll be taken care of" instead of "he'll be fired." His careful statements strong imply that he's known from the start that someone important to him was the leaker.Otherwise, he would do his cowboy routine and issue a steely eyed threat (making Peggy Noonan moan in ecstacy.) If so, the question would be, did Rove confess after the fact or was Bush in on it from the beginning? WDTPKAWDHKI.

Michael Isikoff's hinting yesterday about a classified file being the source of the leak is certainly tantalizing in that regard.

ISIKOFF: But the problem that people in the White House, Rove among them, may have is how did they know that Valerie Plame, or Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? What we do know is there was a classified State Department report that said this, that was taken by Secretary of State Powell with him on the trip to Africa that President Bush was then on, and many senior White House aides were on.

That classified State Department report appears to have been -- or may well have been the source for the information that Rove and others were then dishing out to reporters. And if that's the case, there still may be -- we don't know yet, but there still may be an instance where classified information was provided to reporters.

The Grand Jury subpoenaed the phone records of Air Force One during that period. Who knows what they found? But if they found something, it's come quite close to Colin Powell --- and Bush himself. Air Force One isn't that big.


Here's the Newsweak story from last year about Powell's grand jury appearance:

Powell's appearance on July 16 is the latest sign the probe being conducted by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is highly active and broader than has been publicly known. Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger—a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status. At the time, White House officials were seeking to discredit Wilson, who had become a public critic of the Bush administration. There's no indication Powell is a subject of the probe; the department official said the secretary never talked to Novak about the Plame matter.

.
digby 7/12/2005 08:34:00 AM |

 
Dumb Defense #236

In today's NY Times piece, there's this, which I've heard bandied about quite a bit in the right blogosphere:

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

It is highly doubtful that the special prosecutor would convene a grand jury and investigate the White House for two years without first determining whether there was any potential crime to investigate since determining her status was the easiest element of the case --- finding out who did it and whether they knew she was undercover, which is obviously what he's been doing, is the difficult part. It's hard to believe that he'd send a journalist to jail and interview the president only to come up later and admit she wasn't actually an undercover agent after all, so fuggedaboudit. And it's pretty clear that the judges who have reviewed the classified documents in the contempt cases agree, by the way. They all say the case concerns a breach of national security.

One might also assume that since the CIA sent the damn referral to the justice department that they considered her undercover too! Who else is going to make that determination --- Highpockets?

By the way, has there ever been a scandal in which Republican shill Victoria Toensing is not a media ready expert on the underlying crime?


.
digby 7/12/2005 07:56:00 AM |

Monday, July 11, 2005

 
Stonewall Twins

Scott:

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I’m just not going to do that.

Bob:

And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

.
digby 7/11/2005 10:29:00 PM |

 
Patsies

I am a big fan of Garance Franke-Ruta, but I think this is funny:

If there is one thing that reporters hate, it's being played for patsies. McClellan has publicly humiliated some of the most prominent reporters in the country by persistently feeding them information that has now been revealed to be false, and I'm pretty darn sure that they are not going to grant him any favors and extend him the benefit of the doubt in the future.

I'm glad to know that they feel huniliated by being persistently fed information that has been revealed to be false, but it certainly isn't unprecedented. It's not unprecedented by a long shot. In fact, they have been just such patsies for years.

I suspect that the real reason they acted up today is they have been treated like shit by George W Bush's administration and one of their own is sitting in jail. That's not the same thing. But I'll take it.


.
digby 7/11/2005 09:41:00 PM |

 
Feels Good

Rep. Louise Slaughter is pistol. She's got a petition going to demand President Bush fire Karl Rove. If you feel like you want to do something, dammit, go sign it.



.
digby 7/11/2005 09:25:00 PM |

 
On Message

Via Froomkin:

Powerline:

"The media feeding frenzy will, indeed, be massive. But absent a serious claim of a statutory violation or perjury, it's questionable whether anyone apart from liberal bloggers and other pre-existing Bush haters will partake in the media's dog food. This isn't a top presidential aide accepting an expensive gift, or engaging in lewd sexual conduct. It's a top aide providing truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government."

You might wonder why he did it on double secret backround if it was all on the up and up, but whatever. Highpockets and pals got the memo.

This is, of course, precisely the opposite of the truth, as one would expect from Bush apologists with serious projection problems. While it's true that this isn't about taking expensive gifts (Dukester call your office) or engaging in lewd sexual conduct which I agree is always an appropriate reqason to call in the feds --- this is in fact a case of a top aide providing false information to journalists in response to truths told to expose the administration's lies. This is upside-downism at its finest.

The exceedingly unpleasant Deborah Orin just framed this exactly the same way on Matthews. Poor Karl, he was just trying to correct the record on that liar Joe Wilson, who has been completely discredited --- even saying that his report actually backed up the claims about the yellowcake rather than refuted it. Matthews interjected, wondering why the White House has taken this long to produce that explanation and openly pondering whether it was all connected to the larger Iraq lies, specifically naming Cheney. Unfortunately, Dionne merely tried to deflect the Wilson calumny and said that this was about Rove, not Wilson.

He should have gone for the bigger question. Democrats need to develop some conventional wisdom about this right away and they need to filter it into the punditocrisy. Oddly, Chris Matthews has it right.

Update: Arthur has a stinging set-down of the Powerline boys here. I neglected to add the sickening coup de grace to the the above entry:

Valerie Plame isn’t very convincing as a covert agent of the United States, although she did fairly well as an agent of her husband and the president’s other enemies.

Apparently these pathetic geeks haven't even ever seen a James Bond Movie. I'm sure they turn away at the "lewd sexual" parts and read passages from the Bible.


.
digby 7/11/2005 04:34:00 PM |

 
Drumbeat

Just heard the CNN anchor say "are his days numbered in the White House?" referring to our favorite turdblossom.

This is a very good thing, my friends. Once they start asking that, it's hard to turn things around. Bill Clinton did, but Karl Rove is no Bill Clinton.



.
digby 7/11/2005 04:01:00 PM |

 
Still Covering For Dick

Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

Right. Rove was "protecting" Cooper from making a mistake and believing Wilson when he said Cheney knew the yellowcake story was bogus; it was really all "Slam Dunk" Tenet's fault, remember? All they really meant to say was that it was "the CIA" that requested the Wilson trip. Making it sound like Wilson was some kind of emasculated wimp whose macho spy wife had to get him work was just for fun.

(Using the wife is one of their oldest tricks, from the canuck letter (a Don Segretti special --- one of Karl Rove's mentors) to Cindy McCain's drug problems. They try to get their marks to overreact to attacks on their wives. The mafia does this too.)

I expect the white house to continue to say that they were only trying to knock down an incorrect story that Cheney knew about the Niger Report and in the course of that they accidentally let the cat out of the bag. Remember, they told us that nobody in the white house had any idea that this Niger stuff was bogus because Condi forgot to check her in-box, Steven Hadley developed amnesia and medal-of-freedom-whore George Tenet forgot to read his draft of the SOTU speech. The whole staff was just a bunch of wacky butterfingers who made the same mistake over and over again. That's what we were all supposed to believe.

Remember this?

I can tell you, I either didn't see the memo, I don't remember seeing the memo, the fact is it was a set of clearance comments, it was three and a half months before the State of the Union.

Q: Should you have seen the memo?

A: Well, the memo came over. It was a clearance memo. It had a set of comments about the [Oct. 7 Cincinnati] speech. [The yellowcake reference] had already been taken out of the speech, from my point of view and from the point of view of Steve Hadley. Steve Hadley runs the clearance process. And when Director Tenet says something takes something out of a speech, we take it out. We don't really even ask for an explanation. If the DCI, the director of Central Intelligence, is not going to stand by something, if he doesn't think that he has confidence in it, we're not going to put that into a presidential speech. We have no desire to have the president use information that is anything but the information in which we have the best confidence, the greatest confidence.

And so when Director Tenet said take it out of the speech, I think people simply took it out of the speech and didn't think any more about why we had taken it out of the speech.

Convincing, no? That was the national Security Advisor, Condi Rice. Good thing she's been promoted. Tim Noah at Slate dealt with this nonsense two years ago:

Both Rice and Hadley state that they had already removed the offending line from the Cincinnati speech when Tenet sent them a memo urging them to remove it. Tenet had already told Hadley by phone to take it out, and Hadley had complied. If, as Rice says, it's axiomatic that when the CIA director wants something out of a presidential speech, it comes out, Tenet would have known there was no danger that his complaint - the way Rice makes it sound, it was more like a command - would go unheeded. So why did Tenet - a man who is so busy fighting the war on terrorism that three months later he didn't have time to read an advance draft of the State of the Union, an oversight that made him Yellowcakegate's Fall Guy No. 1 - write a superfluous memo?

Because, Chatterbox believes, it wasn't superfluous. Tenet knew that his complaint was not a command and that somebody at the White House still needed convincing. But who would have the standing to tell the CIA director to go jump in the lake? Surely not Fall Guy No. 2, the National Security Council's nonproliferation expert, Robert Joseph. Surely not Fall Guy No. 3, the NSC's deputy, Steve Hadley. And surely not even Fall Person No. 4, Condi Rice, who'd have to be insane to lie, on national television, about dissing Tenet. (Tenet, she surely knows, is superb at exacting revenge.)

Chatterbox therefore posits the existence of a Fall Guy No. 5, Vice President Dick Cheney. The one person in the White House who has no patience for addressing the Yellowcakegate mystery at all and who questions the patriotism of anybody who does.

This is really where the rubber meets the road on this story. Cheney had become engaged in a virtual fantasy about Saddam's nuclear capability before and even after the war when it became clear that there was none. He is almost certainly the guy who put the yellowcake back in the speech. And his personal assassin, Scooter Libby, is knee deep in the Plame outing.

The Niger episode was one of the first windows into the Iraq lies and Wilson directly implicated Cheney. That's why they were panicking and that's why they mishandled this smear job so badly.

The reality is that it doesn't matter if Cheney received a full briefing on Wilson's findings because it's patently obvious that he and Tenet and Rice and a whole bunch of other people (likely including the president if he wasn't too busy tending to his scrapes and bruises) all knew it was bullshit and put it in the SOTU anyway. They doctored it up with "the British have learned" or whatever it was and that's turned out to be crap too. Rove and his pals can try to pretend that they were knocking down an erroneous story by impugning Wilson's allegedly partisan motives, (and, oopsie, "accidentally" outing a CIA agent) but it doesn't make sense in light of what we already know.

They were knocking down a true story, which is an entirely different thing.

The WaPo article ends with this, which is really laughable:

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Then why in the hell didn't he just openly admit that he'd spoken to Cooper instead of having TIME litigate this mess for months on end, have the government spend god knows how many millions and leave poor Matt Cooper thinking until the very last minute that he was going to have to do jail time to protect him?

If Rove didn't expect Cooper to keep his confidence all he ever had to do was explicitly tell Cooper that he had no problem with him testifying to what he'd said. Cooper kept the confidence because he was sure that his journalistic reputation would be smeared (by Rove presumably) if he accepted the "global waiver" --- I suspect because he knew that what he had to say was revealing. Perhaps others, like Walter PIncus, either didn't have that information or weren't worried about Rove's retaliation. We don't know for sure. But in Cooper's case we know absolutely that when Rove personally released him he agreed to cooperate with the prosecutor. Rove could have done that at any time in the last two years. He didn't.

I seem to remember a lot of bloviating a while back that said that the president should have admitted to extra-marital blowjobs in order to spare the country the expense of pursuing the case. I think most people can understand why it's not any of the government's (or the country's) business what consenting adults do alone together and that it's worth fighting for the principle that investigating such people's sex lives is off limits.

This, however, is something very different. The principle at stake for Rove, if not the reporters, is the right to use the press for his own purposes and be protected by the reporters privilege. Rove could have saved the country a bunch of money and bunch of time by simply admitting publicly that he'd talked to Cooper. If he isn't guilty of committing this crime it wouldn't have mattered a year ago any more than it mattered last week.

He should resign for smearing Wilson and outing his wife (whether inadvertantly or not) merely because Wilson exposed the fact that the government knew the yellowcake story was bullshit. Wilson was right.

And he should also resign for having the chutzpah to release Matt Cooper from his obligation at the very last minute, after sitting back and allowing the government to spend its resources for years getting him to do it.

I'm glad to see that Harry Reid has weighed in:

“I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.”


And MoveOn is launching a campaign demanding Rove's resignation but they are taking the next step as well and asking "what did the president know and when did he know it?" This is what partisan groups should do. They should make the pivot to the president first. It re-positions the Rove question further to the center.

The liklihood that Rove will actually resign is still quite small although it's growing. But the liklihood that this will become a major distraction for him and the administration is getting bigger by the day. Let's see how well these guys can compartmentalize, shall we?

Update: Tim Noah says "Turdblossom Must Go"

Update II: Just caught the gaggle over on Crooks and Liars. Scotty had a rough day. One gets the feeling that the White House press corps may have been waiting for this opening for some time. I especially emjoyed it when someone asked him if he'd gotten his own lawyer. Ouch.

Update III: Missed the NY Times piece on Cooper this morning. Looks like Karl was more than willing to see Cooper go to jail rather than talk. It was his lawyer who shot his mouth off and gave Cooper the opportunity to claim he'd been released. Nice.
Nonetheless, the point remains. Rove could have "cleaned this up" as Gergen just put it on Lou Dobbs' show, very simply a long time ago if he wanted to. He didn't and there's a reason for that. If it turns out it was about blow-jobs I'll back his right to keep his mouth shut. Otherwise, he's got some splainin' to do. After he resigns.


.
digby 7/11/2005 12:31:00 PM |

Sunday, July 10, 2005

 
He Should Resign

John is absolutely right about this. It makes no difference for our purposes whether Rove is legally culpable because he did or did not know that Plame was undercover. He was a very, very, very high level official in the White House and he shouldn't have been telling anyone anything about CIA agents for political reasons, particularly ones he knew worked in the field of weapons of mass destruction, period. He may have broken the law; the investigation will proceed apace whether we think he did or not. But regardless, the fact is that Rove conducted a smear operation in which a CIA agent was outed.

Aravosis says:

Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of this over a year ago. Why then did we have to waste all this money on a special prosecutor and a grand jury if Rove knew from day one that he was the guy who leaked Plame's identity? If Rove was so innocent, why didn't he just come forward immediately and say "yeah, it was me, but I didn't realize she was undercover"? Did he tell the president it was him? And if so, why didn't the president go public and put this investigation to an end? Or did Rove refuse the president's request and NOT come forward a year ago? And if so, what is he still doing working in the white House?

Perhaps it's legally relevant if Rove "knew" Plame was undercover or not, but it's not relevant in terms of him keeping his job. Rove intentionally outed a CIA agent working on WMD, it is irrelevant whether he did or didn't know if she was an undercover agent. First off, he knew she wasn't THAT public about her identity or there'd have been no need to "out" here - everyone would have known her already.

All of us and all of the Democrats should be screaming bloody murder for what we know he did --- and we should be demanding his resignation.

I realize that Bush is not going to fall over weeping when we do this, and the press will probably somnambulently tip-toe until roused, but it begins the drumbeat and it puts pressure on the White House. We are about to enter a huge fight over two Seats on the Supreme Court. Anything to put them off their game is a good thing.

And there is no reason that Rove should not be forced to resign over this. If it were any other White House we would naturally assume it would happen. But I think that for some reason everyone, wingnuts and moonbats alike are invested in the idea that Rove is omnipotent. He's not. He's a cheap thug. And while it may be true that if he is forced to resign he will still be able to advise the president, it's also true that the president would not have his single most necessary and loyal lieutenant by his side every day. Rove is the most malevolent force in the Republican party. He's building a criminal Republican machine --- that's his legacy. It's vitally important that we stop him if he can. Wringing our hands and saying nothing will ever happen because he's Superman is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The dirtiest most devious president in history was brought down by his own paranoia and sloppiness. Karl Rove is no more omnipotent than he was.



.
digby 7/10/2005 12:22:00 PM |

 
Push Back

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that since the Republicans have cancelled all congressional oversight of the executive branch that they are turning their attention to the judiciary. After all, what else do they have to do? K Street writes legislation, the leadership tells them how to vote --- they have to flex their egos somewhere.

I thought that the judicial "activism" the wingnuts were so exercised about regarded judges who refuse to change the law to accomodate religious nuts as they try to enforce their sharia on the public. But, apparently not.

Congressman Sensenbrenner of Illinois Wisconsin is involving himself in an obscure drug case by outright telling the federal appeals court to change their opinion:

In an extraordinary move, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee privately demanded last month that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago change its decision in a narcotics case because he didn't believe a drug courier got a harsh enough prison term.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a five-page letter dated June 23 to Chief Judge Joel Flaum, asserted that a June 16 decision by a three-judge appeals court panel was wrong.

He demanded "a prompt response" as to what steps Flaum would take "to rectify the panel's actions" in a case where a drug courier in a Chicago police corruption case received a 97-month prison sentence instead of the at least 120 months required by a drug-conspiracy statute.

"Despite the panel's unambiguous determination that the 97-month sentence was illegal, it appears to ... justify the sanctioning of both the illegal sentence and its own failure to [increase the sentence] by stating `[that the panel's decision] not to take a cross-appeal [ensures] that the [courier's] sentence cannot be increased.' The panel cites no authority for this bizarre proposition and I am aware of none," wrote Sensenbrenner, who cited a 1992 ruling as precedent for his argument that the longer prison term should have been imposed.

[...]

Apperson, who is chief counsel of a House Judiciary subcommittee, argues that Sensenbrenner is simply exercising his judicial oversight responsibilities. But some legal experts believe the action by the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is an attorney, is a violation of House ethics rules, which prohibit communicating privately with judges on legal matters, as well as court rules that bar such contact with judges without contacting all parties.

Further, the letter may be an intrusion on the Constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine, or, at least, the latest encroachment by Congress upon the judiciary, analysts said.

David Zlotnick, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island and an expert on federal sentencing law, said, "I think it's completely inappropriate for a congressman to send a letter to a court telling them to change a ruling."

Contrary to court rules, Sensenbrenner's letter was not sent to Rivera's appellate attorney, Steve Shobat, who received a copy only after the letter was placed in the official court file.

"To try to influence a pending case is totally inappropriate," Shobat said. "My client had a very small role in this case, and to think that she is the focus of the head of the House Judiciary Committee? It is intimidating."

Intimidating to whom? Aside from general right wing dickishness, why do you suppose Sensenbrenner would use a rather low level drug case like this one to challenge the separation of powers?

Naturally, the nut graf comes at the very end of the article. Hold on to your hats:

At sentencing, U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning imposed the 97-month term, citing a 1993 court ruling that allowed that the drug quantity that relates to an individual be taken into account in imposing a sentence less than the minimum required.

At the time, federal prosecutor Brian Netols told Manning, "I think that would be the appropriate sentence."

Shobat appealed, contending the sentence still was too high. The U.S. attorney's office did not appeal the sentence as a violation of the 120-month minimum.

The three-judge panel on the case, Frank Easterbrook, Ilana Diamond Rovner and Diane Wood, issued its opinion, written by Easterbrook, stating that the sentence should have been 120 months.

"By deciding not to [challenge the 97-month sentence], the United States has ensured that Rivera's sentence cannot be increased," the opinion states.

Apperson said the committee learned of the decision after being contacted the day of the ruling by "a citizen who I assume had seen it on the court's Web site."

After Sensenbrenner's letter was placed in the court file, the three-judge panel issued a revised final paragraph of its decision that added a citation explaining why it was not legal to change Rivera's sentence and why the precedent cited by Sensenbrenner was wrong.


Sensenbrenner also wrote a letter to Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, demanding that the decision be appealed further and that he investigate why the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago did not appeal Rivera's sentence.

Bryan Sierra, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said Sensenbrenner's letter was being reviewed. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to comment.

This is about Patrick Fitzgerald. If he's got the full force of the GOP machine on his back, let's hope he believes in the Chicago Way.



Hat tip to sharp commenter Samela


Update: Fitzgerald is an interesting guy. If you haven't read this WaPo bio, check it out. He sounds like a pretty straight shooter. And a pretty scary prosecutor. I wonder if there is a plan afoot to pull an Archibald Cox. They've learned their lesson, though; this time they'd fire him for "cause."



.
digby 7/10/2005 10:52:00 AM |

 
Alert

It is vitally important that you click this link.


.
digby 7/10/2005 09:21:00 AM |

Saturday, July 09, 2005

 
Roadkill

From David Corn:

...tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger.

To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove--despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA"--did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine--over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material.

This new evidence could place Rove in serious political, if not legal, jeopardy (or, at least it should).

I think we may be getting close to a time where Karl Rove is going to decide to spend more time with his family. Bush is too politically weak to finesse this and the story comes awfully close to the Iraq lies to try to brazen it out.

I want to know the truth,' president tells reporters

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 Posted: 1:46 AM EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush said Tuesday he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into who revealed the classified identity of a CIA operative.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

Bush said he has told his administration to cooperate fully with the investigation and asked anyone with knowledge of the case to come forward.

In the summer of 2003 Karl Rove thought he could get away with anything.

hubris \HYOO-bruhs\, noun:
Overbearing pride or presumption.


Update:

Here's the story.

... NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "

[...]

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Uh. Bullshit. It was an effort to keep TIME from publishing things that turned out to be true. The big question that was swirling wasn't who sent Wilson on the trip, for gawds sake. It was whether they knew the Niger documents were forgeries and spread it around anyway. Karl's little phone call was an effort to cover-up the fact that the administration had lied its ass off making the case for war --- Valerie Plame was a pawn they used to try to taint Wilson as some kind of hen-pecked househusband when he exposed an element of their bogus evidence. Regardless of whether Rove knew she was an NOC, and this doesn't prove it one way or the other, it proves he was a scumbag who was engineering a cover-up. One thing we know for sure is that Wilson was right.


Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq.



.
digby 7/09/2005 10:39:00 PM |

 
The Answer

My wing-nut e-mailer weighs in with a solution:

We could keep playing the capitalist odds hoping it is our neighbors who get killed next or, very simply, we could demand that the enemy surrender. We would simply announce to the Muslim world that their support for OBL ( 52% of Muslims in London were not willing to condemn the 9/11 bombings in NYC) and his ideology has earned them the following ultimatum: change your ways and turn over OBL in one month or there will be a crater one mile wide round outside of Medina, with Gumbad-e-Khizra being precisely at ground zero. If at that point you still feel smart about following OBL toward some 5th Century mad dog Caliphate we will eliminate Mecca one terrorizing month or so later, at which point you can pray 5 times a day in the direction of the Pakistan/Afganistan border where your great savior OBL is living like a scared slimy rat in a hole.

It is so odd isn't it, they know they can pick us off a few at a time and we will be too civilized to crush them in an instant, or is it that they know they can pick a few of us off at a time and we will be too selfish, calculating, and materialistic to risk boldly crushing them? Regardless of what they know about us though this war may eventually make us decide what we know about ourselves.

The old "nuke 'em into the stone age" never fails to give them a woody.

I wonder if he realizes that there are a lot of fetuses in Mecca and Medina?


Update: Via Kevin at Catch, I see we have a wingnut blogger on the scene who goes by the name of "Atlas" (for Atlas Shrugged, natch.) She posts on Jackson's Junction. She's much more thoughtful than the e-mailer above, plus she posts a glamor shot of herself with each entry (that you can click for higher res!) Here's a taste:

War Must be Declared on those Against us

Pamela aka Atlas says BASTA! Enough hand holding, appeasing, talking "their"talk..........

THE BUSH DOCTRINE................either you're with us or against us

I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran. The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us.

.
digby 7/09/2005 04:15:00 PM |

 
Ferchristsake

After returning from the summit on Friday, Bush visited the British Embassy in Washington and signed a book of condolence and laid a wreath in front of the ambassador's residence.

Bush said the London attacks were a reminder of the "evil" of the Sept. 11 attacks and underscored that the United States and its allies were fighting a "global war on terror."

"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said.

.
digby 7/09/2005 03:10:00 PM |

 
Rights Of Passage


Wolcott writes:

Atrios asks: "Anyone else notice just how excited it seems to make certain members of our mediocracy?"

"It" being terrorism--the attacks in London and the prospect of similar attacks here.

I've noticed, big time. In fact, it seems like way more than "certain members"--with the sane exceptions of Michael Scheuer and Larry Johnson, nearly every guest and pundit on cable is trying to find their spot in the banshee chorus. When all of these "terror experts"--many of them affiliated with rightwing think tanks--pontificate and speculate (based on no real information) about who the perpetrators were and the nature of the long struggle we're in, they look and sound keyed-up, keen with anticipation, eager to entertain the worst.

No kidding. They're like a bunch of coke addicts trying desperately to re-capture that first great high that made them feel omnipotent. ("May the Lion come roaring back!")

9/11 was a very dramatic act of terrorism, a made for TV spectacle that horrifed and riveted the world for days. Many of these people threw themselves into the fantasy that this "war on terrorism" was the gravest threat the world has ever known (MAD be damned) and that they were somehow at the center of this conflict, destined to be heroes of the age. There were even those who said overtly that the greatest generation were a bunch of free-loading socialists compared to the freedom fighting liberators of today. It was obvious from the get that there were deeper psychological issues at play.

I suspect that among those who have not had to fight a war there are always a few who regret not being able to prove themselves on the battlefield. War does seem hardwired into the human experience; the battle cry is a pretty primal thing. So, I can understand the excitement of the twenty somethings like Pat Tilman who joined up after 9/11, driven by a strong desire to test his mettle and physical courage. (Hell, that was the reason Oliver Stone joined up in Vietnam, Kerry too --- it has little to do with politics.)Young men being excited about war is nothing new --- and having their illusions shattered by the reality of it is nothing new either. The literature of the ages can attest to this.

That is not what we are dealing with here, however. We are dealing with a group of right wing glory seekers who chose long ago to eschew putting themselves on the line in favor of tough talk and empty posturing --- the Vietnam chickenhawks and their recently hatched offspring of the new Global War On Terrorism. These are men (mostly) driven by the desire to prove their manhood but who refuse to actually test their physical courage. Neither are they able to prove their virility as they are held hostage by prudish theocrats and their own shortcomings. So they adopt the pose of warrior but never actually place themselves under fire. This is a psychologically difficult position to uphold. Bullshitting yourself is never without a cost.

And I think there is an even deeper layer to this as well and one which is vital to understanding why the right wing baby boomers and their political offspring are so pathologically irrational about dealing with terrorism. Vietnam, as we were all just mercilessly reminded in the presidential election, was the crucible of the baby boom generation, perhaps the crucible of America as a mature world power.

The war provided two very distinct tribal pathways to manhood. One was to join "the revolution" which included the perk of having equally revolutionary women at their sides, freely joining in sexual as well as political adventure as part of the broader cultural revolution. (The 60's leftist got laid. A lot.) And he was also deeply engaged in the major issue of his age, the war in Vietnam, in a way that was not, at the time, seen as cowardly, but rather quite threatening. His masculine image encompassed both sides of the male archetypal coin --- he was both virile and heroic.

The other pathway to prove your manhood was to test your physical courage in battle. There was an actual bloody fight going on in Vietnam, after all. Plenty of young men volunteered and plenty more were drafted. And despite the fact that it may be illogical on some level to say that if you support a war you must fight it, certainly if your self-image is that of a warrior, tradition requires that you put yourself in the line of fire to prove your courage if the opportunity presents itself. You simply cannot be a warrior if you are not willing to fight. This, I think, is deeply understood by people at a primitive level and all cultures have some version of it deeply embedded in the DNA. It's not just the willingness to die it also involves the willingness to kill. Men who went to Vietnam and faced their fears of killing and dying, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, put themselves to this test.

And then there were the chickenhawks. They were neither part of the revolution nor did they take the obvious step of volunteering to fight the war they supported. In fact, due to the draft, they allowed others to fight and die in their place despite the fact that they believed heartily that the best response to communism was to aggressively fight it "over there" so we wouldn't have to fight it here. These were empty boys, unwilling to put themselves on the line at the moment of truth, yet they held the masculine virtues as the highest form of human experience and have portrayed themselves ever since as tough, uncompromising manly men while portraying liberals as weak and effeminate. (Bill Clinton was able to thwart this image because of his reputation as a womanizer. You simply couldn't say he was effeminate.)

Now it must be pointed out that there were many men, and many more women, who didn't buy into any of this "manhood" stuff and felt no need to join in tribal rituals or bloody wars to prove anything. Most of those men, however, didn't aspire to political leadership. Among the revolutionaries, the warriors and the chickenhawks, there were many who did. Indeed, these manhood rituals are more often than not a requirement for leadership. (Perhaps having more women in power will finally change that.)

The only political aspirants among those three groups who failed to meet the test of their generation were the chickenhawks. And our problem today is that they are the ones in charge of the government as we face a national security threat. These unfulfilled men still have something to prove.

And, I suspect because their leadership of the "conservative" movement has infected the new generation, we are seeing much of the same pathology among younger warhawks as well. This is why we hear the shrill war cries of inchoate bloodlust from these quarters every time the terrorists strike. It's a primal scream of inner confusion and self-loathing. These are people whose highest aspirations and deepest longings are wrapped up in their masculinity, and yet they are flaccid failures. They are in a state of arrested development, never having faced their fears, never becoming men, remaining boys standing in the corner of the darkened hallway watching Bill Clinton emerge from a co-ed's dorm room to lead a rousing all night strategy session --- and sitting in the bus station on the way home for Christmas vacation as Chuck Hagel and John Kerry in uniform, looking stalwart and strong, clap each other on the back in brotherly solidarity and prepare to see what they are really made of. They have never been part of anything but an effete political movement in which the stakes go no higher than repeal of the death tax.

So, now we are facing a new crucible, one which the fighting keyboarders insist is an existential fight for everything we believe in. And you once again have campus Republicans sputtering about how their bake sales support the troops, trotting out their manly beer drinking as a stand-in for meeting the test of manhood their own belief system requires. Indeed, in a typical twist of reality, they claim that they are the new campus revolutionaries --- as they support the power structure in every way and insist that traditional values be enforced. I have no idea if they are getting laid, but their hyper-reliance on frat boy hyperbole to prove their masculinity to one another makes me doubt it. And so the weakness of one generation is passed on to the next.

Wolcott concludes his piece wondering how the warhawks can reconcile their alleged admiration for the British "stiff upper lip," with their own hysterical overreaction to the threat of terrorism:

The curious thing is that so many of the rightward bloggers and Fox Newswers who are hailing the Brits for their quiet stoicism and pluck don't seem to realize they're issuing an implicit rebuke to themselves and their fellow Americans. They're saying, in effect, "You've got to admire the Brits for showing calm and quiet perserverence after these explosions--they don't get all hysterical, overdramatic, and overreactive the way we Americans do." They don't seem to realize the example shown by Londoners might be a lesson to them, a model they might follow instead of playing laptop Pattons at full volume every time they feel a rousing post coming on.

Playing laptop Pattons at full volume, supporting the president and the entire power structure of the government is their only way of proving to themselves that they are warriors. They are damaged by their own contradictory past and as a result they cannot see their way through the haze of emotional turmoil to seek out and find real solutions to the problem of terrorism. They lash out with trash talk and threats and constant references to their own resolve because they are afraid. They've always been afraid.



.
digby 7/09/2005 10:27:00 AM |

Friday, July 08, 2005

 
Put A Bork In It

The Carpetbagger Report asks Since when did Bork become a martyr? --- and links to Jonathan Chait's column in the LA Times that explains why Bork actually was a completely unacceptable wingnut. Nowadays, of course, he's seen as the Joan of Arc if the right wing freakshow, but the truth is that he makes even Scalia look halfway reasonable. I recall him saying on Larry King one night during the Clinton panty raid that the president could be impeached for committing a depraved act --- oral sex. He's nutty as a fruitcake.

When I was researching something else recently I came across this little known fact (at least to me) and I wonder if anyone out ther can verify it. Maybe it's common knowledge and I missed it --- wouldn't be the first time.

According to Wikipedia:

In the years after the Saturday Night Massacre, a well-known joke said that "borking" was "firing a man for doing exactly what he was hired to do" (i.e. Judge Bork had "borked" Archibald Cox, whose job had been to investigate criminal activities in the Nixon White House). After Bork's confirmation hearings, however, a new meaning was given to Bork's name: to be borked is to have one's presidential appointment defeated by the U.S. Senate.

I knew, of course, that Bork fired Cox and I knew he was reviled for it by all but the most rabid Nixon defenders. But I never heard that called Borking. If it's true, and the Republicans have managed to completely change the meaning of that term, then you really have to hand it to them. And Borkie owes them his immortal soul.



..
digby 7/08/2005 03:47:00 PM |

 
Thinking Ahead


"We know that after September the 11th, our country must think differently. We must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize."

Three weeks before London's bus and subway bombings, a Senate committee voted to slash spending on mass transit security in the United States, a decision sure to be reversed when Congress returns next week.

[...]


In a stroke of bad timing, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted last month to slash money for rail and transit security grants to state and local government by a third from the $150 million devoted to them this year. As of May, none of the money had been distributed by the Homeland Security Department.

I don't know, money's pretty tight. We've got a useless war costing us a billion a week and we have to take the threat of having to pay taxes on your multi-million dollar estate seriously, before it materializes. There's not a lot of extra scratch around for protecting the most obvious terrorist targets. Maybe we could station some prayer teams around the subways and bus lines.



.
digby 7/08/2005 03:04:00 PM |

 
Send Him To The Naughty Chair

I'm tired of these Democrats acting like they won the election. Somebody needs to stand up and say, "When you win the election, you pick the nominees. Until then, shut up! Just shut up! Just go away! Bury yourselves in your rat holes and don't come out until you win an election. When you win an election, you can put all these socialist wackos, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, all over the court, but until then, SHUT UP! You are really irritating me."

I'm guessing Rush is under some stress these days and I don't blame him. As much as I hate him, I am very much against prosecutors having the right to fish around in your medical records. I believe strongly in a right to privacy. Just like the socialists Ginsburg and Breyer. And unlike the Real Americans Scalia and Thomas.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rush thinks he should have a right to privacy, too. I wonder if he wants the One And Only True Party to ask prospective nominees about their views on that subject or if he just believes that Dear Leader knows what's best? He should probably get on the Dick-phone and say something because I don't think the right to privacy is a big item on the GOP agenda. In fact, it's highly likely that the new and improved wingnut supreme court is going to make it much more possible to put Rush in jail. There's a silver lining to everything, I suppose.

I'm hearing this "shut up until you win an election" theme a lot and not just on the issue of confirming judges. Evidently, there is some belief on the right that if you gain a majority it means that you are not to be opposed. Which makes me wonder why we have a legislature at all. The last I heard all citizens have a right to representation to speak and oppose and do what they believe is in the interests of their constituents. For the more that 60 years that the Republicans were completely out of power or had to share it, they spoke up quite eloquently in opposition. I don't recall the cries for them to "crawl back into their ratholes" until they won an election.

It's an interesting insight into the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the modern Republican party. Evidently a majority means that you shouldn't even have to hear the opposition, much less take their input into consideration. It's quite obvious that Rush is frustrated that even when he wins he doesn't get to rule with total dominance. In fact, he seems more angry now than when The One True party was sharing power. It's a remarkably immature and privileged worldview that says you should not only get your own way in all things but that you should get it without any effort at all.

And it's creepy how preternaturally sure they seem that they will never lose another election. Either that or Rush is just a gasbag who has some neurotic need to articulate every half baked misfired synapse that passes through his cerebral cortex. And that's pretty creepy, too.



.
digby 7/08/2005 01:41:00 PM |

 
*ouch*

The PM was sipping tea at 10.30am when it was confirmed by his chief of staff Jonathan Powell that terrorists had hit London with force.

Mr Blair was given a chilling telephone briefing by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who had just chaired a security meeting in a bomb-proof bunker under Downing Street.

Visibly-shaken, the PM went back to finish a session with G8 leaders but left early to make a live TV statement, vowing never to surrender to terrorists.

The contrast with President Bush's reaction to the news about the September 11 attacks could not have been more stark.

After planes slammed into the twin towers the world saw an aide whisper the news to Mr Bush who reacted with wide-eyed panic.

The President was bundled on to his jet and kept away from Washington and New York while Vice-President Dick Cheney took shelter in a secret bunker.

But yesterday Mr Blair was strong and defiant and flew back to London to take charge of the crisis.

I especially like the "bundled on his jet" part. Where he showed resolve, of course.



.
digby 7/08/2005 01:33:00 PM |

Thursday, July 07, 2005

 
Rovedirt

A new story focusing on Rove in the WaPo:

Questions Remain on the Leaker and the Law

There's a lot of interesting info, most of which we who have been following the story know, but which has not been put all together in a mainstream story. It's quite provocative.

But here's one little tid-bit I'm not actually sure about:

Fitzgerald long has made a distinction in his investigation between conversations held before Novak's column was publicly available (it was moved to his newspaper clients on July 11, 2003) and after, on the assumption that once Plame's name was in the public domain, there was no criminal liability for administration officials to discuss it. Which may be one reason it could be difficult to obtain indictments.

We don't actually know if this is true. There has been speculation that the law may not actually say that. From Josh Marshall 3/24/04:

A couple weeks back a legal memo fell into my hands from the sky. And it suggests that even the facts Rove has apparently admitted to put him in clear legal jeopardy.

[...]

The essential argument is that the law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, does more than simply prohibit a governmental official with access to classified information from divulging the identities of covert operatives. The interpretation of the law contained in the memo holds that a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it.

I won't try to explain it anymore than that. The memo is only a few pages long and I've marked the key passages.

There is one point the author of the memo doesn't raise. My layman's reading of the memo suggests to me that it would be critical to ascertain whether Rove learned of Plame's identity before the Novak article appeared or whether he learned of it for the first time when he read Novak's column.

If the latter, then I'm not sure the argument contained in the memo holds up.

Here's the memo(pdf). Read it for yourself.

If its true that Rove could be held liable for making Plame "fair game" after Novak's column, if he learned of her status before the column, then Arianna's reported speculation among the cognescenti last night about a "meeting between Rove and Libby" makes sense, regardless of whether Rove was the original leaker..

In any case, I don't think it's actually been determined that Rove could not be prosecuted for spreading the tale after Novak's column. Everybody is just assuming that because it's "out there" that government officials continuing to spread classified information is not a crime. That may not actually be so.

It's possible that Rove's arrogance may get him in big trouble:

Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

I discovered the Marshall post via this very helpful timeline put out by American Progress Action Report
digby 7/07/2005 10:23:00 PM |

 
Faith Based Law Enforcement

The crippling reach of methamphetamine abuse has become the nation's leading drug problem affecting local law enforcement agencies, according to a survey of 500 sheriff's departments in 45 states.

More than half of the sheriffs interviewed for a National Association of Counties survey released Tuesday said they considered meth the most serious problem facing their departments.

"We're finding out that this is a bigger problem than we thought," said Larry Naake, executive director of the association. "Folks at the state and federal level need to know about this."

About 90 percent of those interviewed reported increases in meth-related arrests in their counties over the past three years, packing jails in the Midwest and elsewhere.

The arrests also have swamped other county-level agencies that assist with caring for children whose parents have become addicted and with cleaning up toxic chemicals left behind by meth cookers.

The report comes soon after the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy restated its stance that marijuana remains the nation's most substantial drug problem. Federal estimates show there are 15 million marijuana users compared with the 1 million that may use meth.

Dave Murray, a policy analyst for the White House, said he understands that the meth problem moving through the nation is serious and substantial. But he disagrees that it has become an epidemic.

"This thing is burning, and because it's burning, we're going to put it out," he said. "But we can't turn our back on other threats."

That is a very, very stupid choice of words for a drug policy analyst to use:

At a conference on the scourge of methamphetamine, one item on the agenda was a tour of a seemingly unlikely place: a burn unit.

Legislators, doctors, social workers and law officials — including the federal government’s second highest-ranking drug czar — walked the halls of Vanderbilt University Medical Center regional burn center, where seven of the 20 patients were injured by fires and explosions in clandestine meth labs.

Vanderbilt doctors told Joseph Keefe, deputy director of the Office on National Drug Control Policy, and the other participants that meth cases are increasingly common and are driving up state medical expenditures. The costs of treating critically injured burn victims typically exceed $10,000 a day each — and most meth patients don’t have health insurance.

“As bad as this may sound, as a burn doctor I almost wish another drug, one less volatile that doesn’t regularly explode during the manufacturing process, would come down the pike to overtake the popularity of meth,” said the center’s director, Dr. Jeff Guy.

Standing in the doorway of one patient’s room Tuesday, Guy told Keefe that the man had spent 45 days in a hospital from an October meth blast and “has gone out and blown himself up again.”

Meanwhile the scourge of marijuana addiction has created a national shortage of Ben and Jerry's Chunky Monkey ice cream.



.
digby 7/07/2005 09:32:00 PM |

 
Intellectual Compost


This is fascinating. Ben Adler asked a bunch of leading conservative intellectuals whether they believed in evolution. As far as I can tell only about half of them have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, and only one is definitively honest in my opinion: Charles Krauthamer, if you can believe that. Richard Brookheiser and William F Buckley get honorable mentions.

Remember, these are highly educated people. The problem is not that they may believe in God or have a religious view of the origins of the universe. That is quite easily explained. It's the weaselly, mushy way they try to divert the question elsewhere or explain what they know is a ridiculous position. It's as if they are all terribly afraid that James Dobson might read TNR and berate them for not having a religiously correct fundamentalist view. William Kristol, as always, is the slickest guy around.

William Kristol, The Weekly Standard

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I don't discuss personal opinions. ... I'm familiar with what's obviously true about it as well as what's problematic. ... I'm not a scientist. ... It's like me asking you whether you believe in the Big Bang."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I managed to have my children go through the Fairfax, Virginia schools without ever looking at one of their science textbooks."



Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I've never understood how an eye evolves."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "Put me down for the intelligent design people."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "The real problem here is that you shouldn't have government-run schools. ... Given that we have to spend all our time crushing the capital gains tax I don't have much time for this issue."



David Frum, American Enterprise Institute and National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I do believe in evolution."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. ... Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. ... I don't believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle."



Stephen Moore, Free Enterprise Fund

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I believe in parts of it but I think there are holes in the evolutionary theory."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I generally agree with said critique."

Whether intelligent design or a similar critique should be taught in public schools: "I think people should be taught ... that there are various theories about how man was created."

Whether schools should leave open the possibility that man was created by God in his present form: "Of course, yes, definitely."



Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Sure."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I think it's interesting. ... I think it's wrong. I think it's God-in-the-gaps theorizing. But I'm not hostile to it the way other people are because I don't, while I think evolution is real, I don't think any specific--there are a lot of unknowns left in evolution theory and criticizing evolution from different areas doesn't really bother me, just as long as you're not going to say the world was created in six days or something."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't think you should teach religious conclusions as science and I don't think you should teach science as religion. ... I see nothing [wrong] with having teachers pay some attention to the sensitivities of other people in the room. I think if that means you're more careful about some issues than others that's fine. People are careful about race and gender; I don't see why all of a sudden we can't be diplomatic on these issues when it comes to religion."



Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Of course."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "At most, interesting."

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: "The idea that [intelligent design] should be taught as a competing theory to evolution is ridiculous. ... The entire structure of modern biology, and every branch of it [is] built around evolution and to teach anything but evolution would be a tremendous disservice to scientific education. If you wanna have one lecture at the end of your year on evolutionary biology, on intelligent design as a way to understand evolution, that's fine. But the idea that there are these two competing scientific schools is ridiculous."



William Buckley, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I'd have to write that down. ... I'd have to say something more carefully than I can over the telephone. I'm a Christian."

Whether schools should raise the possibility that the original genetic code was written by an intelligent designer: "Well, surely, yeah, absolutely."

Whether schools should raise the possibility--but not in biology classes--that man was created by God in his present form? : "Yes, sure, absolutely."

Which classes that should be discussed in: "History, etymology."



John Tierney, The New York Times (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I believe that the theory of evolution has great explanatory powers."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I haven't really studied the arguments for intelligent design, so I'm loath to say much about it except that I'm skeptical."



James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I could not speak fluently on the subject but I know what the basic argument is."

Whether schools should teach intelligent design or similar critiques of evolution in biology classes: "I guess I would say they probably shouldn't be taught in biology classes; they probably should be taught in philosophy classes if there is such a thing. It seems to me, and again I don't speak with any authority on this, that the hypothesis ... that the universe is somehow inherently intelligent is not a scientific hypothesis. Because how do you prove it or disprove it? And really the question is how do you disprove it, because a scientific hypothesis has to be capable of being falsified. So while there may be holes in Darwinian theory, while there's obviously a lot we don't know, and perhaps Darwinian theory could be wrong altogether, I think whether or not the universe is designed is just a question outside the realm of science."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "It probably should be taught, if it's going to be taught, in a more thoroughgoing way, a more rigorous way that explains what a scientific theory is. ... You know, my general impression is that high school instruction in general is not all that rigorous. ... I think one possible way of solving this problem is by--if you can't teach it in a rigorous way, if the schools aren't up to that, and if it's going to be a political hot potato in the way it is, and we have schools that are politically run, one possible solution might be just take it out of the curriculum altogether. I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I think it's something that policy makers might think about. I'd rather see it taught in a rigorous and serious way, but as a realistic matter that may be expecting too much of our government schools."



Norman Podhoretz, Commentary (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "It's impossible to answer that question with a simple yes or no."



Richard Brookhiser, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "It doesn't seem like good science to me."

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: "No."



Pat Buchanan, The American Conservative

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Do I believe in absolute evolution? No. I don't believe that evolution can explain the creation of matter. ... Do I believe in Darwinian evolution? The answer is no."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "Do I believe in a Darwinian evolutionary process which can be inspired by a creator? Yeah, that's a real possibility. I don't believe evolution can explain the creation of matter. I don't believe it can explain the intelligent design in the universe. I just don't believe it can explain the tremendous complexity of the human being when you get down to DNA and you get down to atomic particles, and molecules, atomic particles, subatomic particles, which we're only beginning to understand right now. I think to say it all happened by accident or by chance or simply evolved, I just don't believe it."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "Evolution [has] been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force--it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify polices which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American student should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don't think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. ... How do you answer a kid who says, 'Where did we all come from?' Do you say, 'We all evolved'? I think that's a theory. ... Now the biblical story of creation should be taught to children, not as dogma but every child should know first of all the famous biblical stories because they have had a tremendous influence as well. ... I don't think it should be taught as religion to kids who don't wanna learn it. ... I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say, 'Look the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.' ... You should leave the teaching of religion to a voluntary classes in my judgment and only those who wish to attend."



Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I think God's responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it. ... I think God is probably clever enough to think up evolution. ... It's plausible to me that God designed evolution; I don't know why that's outside the realm. It's not in my view."

On the possibility that God created man in his present form: "I don't know if He created man in his present form. ... I don't discount it at all. I don't know the answer. I would put it this way: The one thing I feel confident saying I'm certain of is that God created everything there is."

On the possibility that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes: "I don't know. It wouldn't rock my world if it were true. It doesn't sound proved to me. But, yeah I'm willing to believe it, sure."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't have a problem with public schools or any schools teaching evolution. I guess I would have a problem if a school or a science teacher asserted that we know how life began, because we don't so far as I know, do we? ... If science teachers are teaching that we know things that in fact we don't know, then I'm against that. That's a lie. But if they are merely describing the state of knowledge in 2005 then I don't have problem with that. If they are saying, 'Most scientists believe this,' and most scientists believe it, then it's an accurate statement. What bothers me is the suggestion that we know things we don't know. That's just another form of religion it seems to me."



Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "To the extent that I am familiar with it, and that's not very much, I guess what I think is this: The intelligent designers are correct insofar as they are reacting against a view of evolution which holds that it can't have been guided by God in any way--can't even have sort of been set in motion by God to achieve particular results and that no step in the process is guided by God. But they seem to give too little attention to the possibility that God could have set up an evolutionary process."

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: "I guess my own inclination would be to teach evolution in the public schools. I don't think that you ought to make a federal case out of it though."



David Brooks, The New York Times (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I believe in the theory of evolution."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I've never really studied the issue or learned much about ID, so I'm afraid I couldn't add anything intelligent to the discussion."

And these are the people who railed against campus political correctness.

What do you suppose it's like to be intellectually held hostage by people who you know for a fact are dead wrong on something? It must be excruciating.





.
digby 7/07/2005 07:48:00 PM |

 
Big Man

"I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room," Bush said. "Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists."

I'm sure everyone feels much beter knowing that the leaders of the G8 impressed the president with how much like him they are. Lord knows he's impressed with himself.



Update: Via Kevin at Catch: How can he speak with his mouth so full?

FLASHBACK TO SEPTEMBER 11 [John Podhoretz]
Tony Blair's shellshocked appearance during his initial statement earlier this morning offers the best rebuttal yet to the sleazy Michael Moore-style attack on President Bush's behavior on the morning of September 11. It would have been a disaster for Bush to have spoken as the choked-up Blair was. This is intended as no criticism of Blair, who was clearly under a far different sort of burden at the G-8 than Bush was sitting in a classroom in Sarasota. But Blair is not the leader of the free world, Bush is, and had he seemed unable to collect himself -- as would surely have been the case in that first hour after Andy Card told him about the attack on America -- I can't imagine what the day would have been like. Not that the president's first words on 9.11, an hour after the attacks, were strong and focused. But they were more controlled.

Reading My Pet Goat while the WTC was under attack was a show of "resolve."

.
digby 7/07/2005 03:28:00 PM |

 
Roaring Back

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

"I wonder if this attack will be in some ways a reverse Pearl Harbor, when Britain rouses itself to a fuller commitment to the war that was already underway elsewhere, the way America finally threw its full weight behind Britain in 1941. Britain, of course, has already been deeply involved, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this war has now struck home - in one of the most diverse and liberal and dynamic cities in the world. May the lion roar back."

I would dearly love to know exactly what this "roaring back" would entail. Britain has already been, as he points out, roaring in Afghanistan. And it has been roaring in Iraq. It has roared in tandem and on command to everything the Bush administration asked of it.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Who should the coalition of the willing attack in retaliation for this? Where should we invade? How do the Brits go about "rousing itself to a fuller committment" ... and to what?

They helped us gin up phony evidence to invade Iraq and were with us all the way. They helped us invade Afghanistan to topple the government that supports al Qaeda. They have turned a blind eye to abduction, rendition, imprisonment and torture of suspected terrorists. They support our decision employ the most coldhearted realpolitik imaginable in propping up friendly dictators in places like Uzbekistan and necessary military dictators in Pakistan.

What exactly is the macho, codpiece wielding "roaring back" plan this time? What, pray tell, is our next military move in the global war on terror?


Update: I see that Matt Yglesias is already on this. He quotes Sub-commandante Rich Lowry of the 101st keyboarders:

There should be retaliation. Find a terror camp somewhere and hit it. Terrorists should, for these purposes, be treated as one nation, and all should be held responsible for any one attack."

I think we are a little bit past that, don't you? We've already held an entire country that had nothing to do with terrorism responsible, invaded it and occupy it today. Simple missile attacks against some unassociated terorist camp sounds positively Clintonian.

No, if our response to terrorism is to continue to try to impress these terrorists with our big swinging machismo we have raised the stakes quite a bit after our little Iraq adventure. It hasn't worked out very well as a showcase for our Imperial dominance. The only way to up the ante now is to invade a strong military country that had nothing to do with the attacks and attempt to kick their asses to show what will happen if anybody fucks with us. Russia maybe? Maybe that would "send the message" that we are too tough for terrorists to mess with. That is assuming we can do it without fucking it up, of course. Unfortunately, our track record in this regard isn't so hot.

We might need to rethink the "retaliation" against uninvolved parties plan. It hasn't exactly been a winner so far.


JohnS in the comments writes:

Here's a quote from one of Sullivan's emailers suggesting a fairly reasonable form that the "roaring" could take:

Londoners (Brits) will fight back. That is obvious. Always have always will. One thing I've got to disagree with you on is that there will be a push for policy change but not for the reason Galloway and others suggest. Brits will demand that we hand over the calm south to Iraqis and move troops (in particular SAS) to Afghanistan. There are some people in the mountains that we need to settle a score with.

I don't think anybody could argue with that. Like most traitorous liberal america-haters I've always thought it was logical to actually go after the perpetrators instead of locking up cab drivers in cuba and invading other countries for no apparent reason. If Britain decides that they havd to go and finish the job we screwed up in Afghanistan --- and pull out of Iraq to do it --- I don't find that unreasonable.

But this whole question reminds me of this interesting little tid-bit from Juan Cole's recent article in Salon:

When British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Washington on Sept. 20, 2001, he was alarmed. If Blair had consulted MI6 about the relative merits of the Afghanistan and Iraq options, we can only imagine what well-informed British intelligence officers in Pakistan were cabling London about the dangers of leaving bin Laden and al-Qaida in place while plunging into a potential quagmire in Iraq. Fears that London was a major al-Qaida target would have underlined the risks to the United Kingdom of an "Iraq first" policy in Washington.

Meyer told Vanity Fair, "Blair came with a very strong message -- don't get distracted; the priorities were al-Qaida, Afghanistan, the Taliban." He must have been terrified that the Bush administration would abandon London to al-Qaida while pursuing the great white whale of Iraq. But he managed to help persuade Bush. Meyer reports, "Bush said, 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'" Meyer also said, in spring 2004, that it was clear "that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions." In short, Meyer strongly implies that Blair persuaded Bush to make war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan first by promising him British support for a later Iraq campaign.

Sadly, we didn't actually finish the job in Afghanistan did we? And Blair got punked.

Of course, it's important to point out that this terrorist attack may have had nothing whatsoever to do with Afghanistan. This genie is out of the bottle and it may very well have been a home grown operation with minimal direction or guidance from the "top brass" of al Qaeda. Which is why we really, really need to shut down the bloodlust right now and start thinking. The fact that this is called a 'war" does not mean that there is an appropriate military solution. Unfortunately, that may lead to other equally ineffective and toxic solutions.

Ironically, Sullivans' quote above was (confusingly)in response to an excerpt from this post by Johann Hari. The piece to which he refers is about the fact that the bombs were exploded in arab neighborhoods. Sullivan fails to quote this last part of Hari's piece and it's the most important point:

But another fight began yesterday: to defend our civil liberties – and especially those of the decent, democratic Muslim majority – in an age of terror. I headed for the East London Mosque – a few minutes’ walk away from the bomb in Aldgate – to watch afternoon prayers. Chairman Mohammed Bari said, “Only yesterday, we celebrated getting the Olympics for our city and our country. But a terrible thing happened in our country this morning… Whoever has done this is a friend of no-one and certainly not a friend of Muslims. The whole world will be watching us now. We must give a message of peace.” Everybody in attendance agreed; many headed off to the Royal London Hospital to give blood. But they were afraid the message would not get out: several people were expecting attacks on the mosque tonight.

Since the "retaliation" against other countries have not quelled the terrorist danger, as we knew it wouldn't, I will not be surprised if we begin to see the fighting keyboarders begin looking closer to home.



.
digby 7/07/2005 02:52:00 PM |

 
Brave People

Londoners are no strangers to terrorism.

London terror attacks of the past 25 years


In the past 25 years London has been rocked by regular attacks, mostly by Irish republican groups but today's bombing is by far the most bloody with at least 33 people killed and hundreds injured.

The last attack was a car bomb in Ealing Broadway on August 3, 2001. The explosion, blamed on the Real IRA splinter group, caused no fatalities but injured seven people on a street full of restaurants and pubs.

Earlier in the same year, there were three separate attacks by the Real IRA. In mid-April and then early May, two small incendiary devices exploded at exactly the same spot outside a postal depot in Hendon, North London. No one was injured in the first attack but one passer-by was hurt in the second.

A month earlier, a bomb exploded outside the BBC Television Centre in Wood Lane, West London. The device, which was planted inside a black cab, detonated as bomb disposal experts attempted to carry out a controlled explosion. One person suffered minor injuries in the attack and the landmark building was badly damaged.

In September 2000 the Real IRA fired an anti-tank rocket at MI6’s headquarters in Vauxhall Cross, South London, causing damage to the intelligence service building but no injuries.

In the summer of 2000, bomb disposal experts performed two controlled explosions on a device planted on the Tube line near Ealing Broadway underground station. The incident was just a month after an unsuccessful attempt to blow up Hammersmith Bridge.

These attacks were the first by Irish republicans since the IRA renewed its ceasefire in July 1997.

London was not free of terrorism in the intervening years because in May and June of 1999 the capital’s ethnic and gay communities were hit by three nail bomb attacks.

Dozens were injured and three people were killed in the space of two weeks when neo-Nazi extremist David Copeland planted the devices in Brick Lane, Brixton and Soho.

Before the nail bomb attacks, London had not suffered a terrorist incident since the IRA attempted to blow up Hammersmith Bridge for the first time in April 1996.

The bomb contained 32lb of Semtex making it the largest high-explosive device ever planted on the British mainland but only the detonator went off saving possibly hundreds of lives.

Two months earlier, in an incident similar to today’s explosion in Russell Square, Edward O’Brien, a member of the IRA, was killed when the bomb he was transporting exploded prematurely on a bus in the Aldwych in central London. The bus driver, another passenger and eight passers by were hurt in the explosion.

The incident came just a week after the IRA spectacularly ended its ceasefire with a massive bomb attack on Canary Wharf in east London’s Docklands area in February 1996.

Two local newsagents were killed in the attack and more than 100 injured. The bomb caused more than £85 million of damage.

Two years earlier the IRA launched a series of mortar rockets at Heathrow airport. The three separate assults, which occurred within the space of a week, caused widespread disruption but nobody was killed.

In the previous three years, between February 1991 and February 1994 the IRA launched 30 separate attacks in and around London. The most high profile was a mortar attack against Number 10, Downing Street when Prime Minister John Major was in residence. One of the rockets exploded in the garden injuring one person.

The most deadly attack was in April 1992 when a car bomb near the Baltic Exchange in the Financial District killed three people and injured 80 others.

In the 1980s, there were nine IRA attacks on London, the most deadly being the bombing of Harrods in December 1983. Three police officers and three civilians were killed and 90 people injured.

The 1980s also saw two other high-profile terrorist attacks on the capital. In 1984 WPC Yvonne Fletcher was killed and ten people injured after shots were fired from the Libyan People's Bureau in central London.

WPC Fletcher had been helping control a small demonstration outside the embassy when she received the fatal stomach wound.

Three years earlier six gunmen held 26 people hostage at the Iranian embassy in London. After a six-day standoff, the SAS stormed the building killing five of the hostage takers and arresting one other. All bar three of the captives were freed unharmed. One died and two were injured in the cross-fire.

We need to remember that terrorism wasn't invented on 9/11. Londoners have been putting up with this sick fear and horror for a long time. They are survivors.


.
digby 7/07/2005 02:40:00 PM |

 
Thickening

More interesting stuff on Plamegate from TalkLeft and O'Donnell. Both point to one interesting piece of evidence in the court documents that indicates Fitzgerald is actually pursuing a serious crime rather than some sort of "send a message" perjury rap. O'Donnell first gives all the reasons why it's hard to prove that Rove broke the law and then says this:

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues' order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges "in the light of reason and experience." Tatel actually found that reason and experience "support recognition of a privilege for reporters' confidential sources." But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to "the gravity of the suspected crime."

Judge Tatel's opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to "[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor's] voluminous classified filings."

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case "which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent." Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters' shield law -- but in the end, he couldn't bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he "might have" let Cooper and Miller off the hook "[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security."

Tatel's colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor's secret filings as he is. One simply said "Special Counsel's showing decides the case."

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

Talkleft had brought up these documents earlier and pointed to this passage, which I agree is quite telling. Apparently Cooper had at some point used the excuse that he wasn't culpable because he had exposed the fact that the White House was outing Plame in his article. Here is what Judge Tatel wrote in his concurring opinion:

In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

It's possible that they are only talking about perjury or lying to the FBI a la Martha Stewart. But O'Donnell is right that it's hard to believe that a judge who is inclined to create a federal shield law would find this case so particularly distasteful that he refuses to use this precedent to do it. That passage above indicates quite clearly that, based upon the evidence he's seen, the leak itself was criminal.


.
digby 7/07/2005 12:44:00 PM |

 
Squealer

I think that David Corn may have nailed the Robert Novak conundrum.

That brings me to my best guess of what did happen: Novak told Fitzgerald a story that helps his sources. It went something like this:

Yes, Mr. Fitzgerald, Bush Aide X and Bush Aide Y both told me that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and that they suspected she had sent Joseph Wilson on his now-infamous trip to Niger where he determined it was highly unlikely that Iraq had been shopping there for uranium to be used in a nuclear weapons program. But neither one of these two fine Americans told me that she was an undercover operative at the CIA. If you will again look at what I wrote, I referred to her as an "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." I never reported she was in a secret position. In fact, the use of the word "operative"—which I suppose could connote a clandestine position but does not necessarily do so—was mine alone. These sources merely said to me she was employed at the CIA. As a newspaper columnist, I used the most evocative term I could think of at the time. I take full responsibility for that.

And to make everything neat and tidy, Bush Aide X and Bush Aide Y each essentially said the same thing to Fitzgerald:

I heard hallway chatter that Valerie Plame was at the CIA and that she had something to do with Wilson's trip to Niger. I passed this on to Novak and Time magazine. I was never aware that she was working undercover or that by sharing this gossip I would be disclosing confidential information that identified a covert official. After all, as you know, Mr. Fitzgerald, not every CIA employee is a clandestine official.

Voila. No crime. A thuggish act of political retribution that destroyed a CIA officer's career and undermined national security, yes. But no crime.

He goes on to then explain why Fitzgerald, who may have seen phone records or heard other testimony that made him suspicious, wanted to "verify" this little scenario with Cooper and Plame who clearly had contact with someone in the white house during this period..

Robert Novak would lie for his sources in a minute. He's that much of hack. And the thing is, this is exactly what he said on the air shortly after the controversy began. He claimed that it all depends on what the meaning of "operative" is.

What's interesting here is that Fitzgerald obviously doesn't believe him.



.
digby 7/07/2005 11:02:00 AM |

 
The End Of The Rationale

So, we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq --- and London --- so we won't have to fight them here?

I think the flypaper's lost its stick.



Update: Kevin wishes that the blogosphere could not politicise this for just one day, out of respect for the dead, which I understand. I struggled with whether I should write this post for those very reasons.

But I don't think we have the luxury of doing that, sadly, because the Bush administration has made exploiting terrorism their primary mode of governance and because of that we continue to see horrific scenes like today. Bush and his spokesmen are wasting no time is spinning this terrible event to their advantage once again.

I would like to see this as simple tit-for-tat political one upsmanship because it would mean that it wasn't all that important. But Bush's incompetence IS all that important and we can't afford to let him crawl over the backs of any more dead people to boost his political fortunes.




.
digby 7/07/2005 10:30:00 AM |

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

 
It's Out There

Arianna has the hot gossip on Plamegate and it's very intriguing:

Chatter about the Rove story has come to dominate the downtime at the Aspen Institute’s five-day Ideas Festival. Whenever participants are not in sessions, they’re gathering in small groups and dissecting, analyzing, and speculating about the outcome of this surprisingly slow-breaking scandal.

One such discussion took place just after David Gergen had finished a conversation with Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, which has sold 25 million copies in hardback! A cluster of high-powered media insiders quickly switched over to “The Gossip-Driven Reality.” The well-informed suppositions were flying faster than the peloton at the Tour de France. I can tell you what was said, I just can’t tell you who was saying it (Just look at it as an anonymous twist on the HuffPost BozBlog).

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs -- and whether it will spell the end of Rove -- is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble -- especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig… one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.

Other than intent, the other big legal question raised was: will Rove be able to get away with claiming that he did not know Plame was an undercover agent?

We all know what happened after Rove placed those calls. The question is, what will happen now?

I don't know if Arianna just slipped that in about the State department being the source of the information on Plame, but if that's considered a known fact among the cogniscenti then we may well be looking at Bolton or one of his Jesse Helmsian minions. And this notion of a meeting between Libby and Rove is also very interesting. I'll be curious to see if anything more about that emerges as the lid comes off the insider DC gossip, which seems to be happening despite the mainstream media's apparent wariness. (And lord only knows what Judith Miller's role in all this is.) Arianna continues:

From the way they’ve acted so far, the mainstream media would rather this scandal just go away (bloggers take note).

Just look at the way Newsweek handled the Rove-outed-Plame story in this week’s edition. The editors obviously knew they had a hot story and could have pushed it hard. Instead, it’s clear that they lawyered it within an inch of its life -- a bunch of legal eagles with faint hearts removing any juice and most of the meat from it.

As one of the Aspen wags put it: “Once Newsweek flushed the Koran down the toilet, you can bet they’ll think twenty times before they pull down the handle again.”

On the other hand, Norah O'Donnell is reported to have said today on MSNBC (via The Daou Report):

"This has the potential of being a HUGE scandal in Bush's second term. This involves several senior members of the White House staff. This case has been on the verge of blowing up for several months now but this story COULD BE HUGE."

Arianna makes a very good point when she says that bloggers should take note of the fact that the mainstream media seems very uncomfortable with this story. Perhaps it is just because they are gunshy after the Rather and Eason Jordan scalpings and they've become confused because this story features them in an unflattering and bewildering light. They aren't exactly profiles in courage in the best of times.

It is, therefore, a good time for the blogs to keep pushing. I believe that we were part of the reason that the DSMs finally gained some traction --- enough to make the administration nervous anyway --- and I think we can have an effect on this story as well. Nobody should ever forget that Drudge was fed quite a bit of his information during the Clinton scandals by journalists who were trying to find a way to get the story into the ether so they could say "it's out there."

This is a strange case. The administration used the press to spread a smear and is now counting on their integrity to keep quiet. But these very same people set the precedent of funneling gossip and innunedo through alternative media in order to promote scandal and give the media an excuse to report it. Integrity is no longer necessary in order to keep one's resume respectable. The model they created may just do them in.

One of the things we have to remember is that putting pressure on the White House is an end unto itself. When they are off their game they cannot fuck things up with as much precision. They are already having to deal with a restive right wing --- and because of that it is very much to our advantage to keep Karl in the crosshairs. The religious freaks are his babies. I've never gotten the impresion that he's particularly cool under pressure.

More importantly, perhaps, we might just have a remote chance to force this guy's resignation if the heat becomes too much, regardless of the frog marching fantasy we are all harboring. You never know where these scandals are going to go. They often take on a life of their own. And Arianna draws our attention to one potential pressure point --- Scotty:

This is all the more significant because of the role McClellan may eventually play in Rove’s fate. As Newsweek reported and I blogged about, when this story began heating up, McClellan went out of his way to defend Rove -- saying that he’d been “assured” that Rove was not involved in the leaking.

“Rove will have no compunction about lying through his teeth to save himself, counting on the fact that Cooper’s e-mails are, apparently, not cut and dried,” one of the group said. And it doesn’t hurt that Rove’s underlings would rather fall on their swords than tell the truth... which, in the Bush White House, is seen as selling out. All of which would leave McClellan to “take one for the team and eat major crow about all the assurances he’d given the press.” Of course, if they continue to avoid asking him about it, he may not even have to do that.

I've often said that if you want to kill the snake you have to cut off its head. The Republicans, in my opinion, are a three headed hydra -- DeLay, Rove and Norquist. All three of them are being chased by scandal. We should be asking ourselves what the Republicans would be doing if the situation were reversed. I think we know the answer.



.
digby 7/06/2005 11:21:00 PM |

 
Logline

Joseph Wilson writing over on TPM cafe about Judith Miller's incarcertaion frames the issue correctly.

It's about accountability and cover up:

President Bush’s refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special Counsel has brought us to this point. Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security.

The press is masturbating over the Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper issues but this is the way partisans should talk about this debate. This is the story we need to tell every chance we get.



.
digby 7/06/2005 04:06:00 PM |

 
Syncope For The Devil

This is just weird. When are people going to start asking why the president falls down all the time? It isn't normal.

Scott confirmed that POTUS collided with a police officer during his bike ride. He was about 45 minutes into his ride, Scott said, when the accident occurred. The officer was in a security detail on the grounds of Gleneagles. The President slid on the paved surface, suffering scrapes on his hands and arms that later required treatment and bandaging by his White House physician. The officer was taken to a local hospital as a precaution, Scott said. The extent of his harm wasn't immediately clear, although he might have an ankle injury. The president had been riding -- speed undetermined -- on the road.

Does anyone remember this one from 1999? It's dangerous to people's health to be in the vicinity of Captain Klutz:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential front-runner, sustained minor injuries to his right leg and hip Monday when he dived to avoid a truck trailer that overturned near his jogging path.Bush was treated at the scene and later traveled to New Hampshire for a scheduled campaign swing, said Linda Edwards, Bush's press secretary.Bush said he felt fine. "If I needed to I could go out and run three miles," he said after arriving at the Berlin Airport in Milan, N.H.Staff Sgt. Roscoe Hughey, a 39-year-old Texas Department of Public Safety agent who was accompanying Bush on a bicycle, received bruises to his left side, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said. He was treated at the Brackenridge Hospital emergency room and released about four hours later, said hospital spokeswoman Stephanie Elsea.Bush was running on the hike-and-bike trail around Town Lake downtown when the accident occurred about 12:06 p.m., according to Ms. Edwards and the Austin Police Department.A truck pulling a dumpster-like trailer was traveling on the street that parallels the jogging trail when it overturned. Debris -- including chunks of concrete and wood -- were dumped across the jogging path."I was at the end of a three-mile run when I heard the noise, looked back, saw it start to tip and my instincts were to dive," Bush said by telephone from New Hampshire.He said he scraped his right leg and hip when he dived behind a bridge support, but was not struck by debris from the truck."I've got a significant strawberry," Bush said.He said he was pleased to learn that Hughey was not seriously injured."I'm very lucky and so is the DPS agent. I was very concerned about him," Bush said.

Or this one:

President Bush took a spill during a Saturday afternoon bike ride on his ranch, suffering bruises and cuts that were visible later on his face just two days before he was to deliver a major prime-time speech on his Iraq policy.

The president was nearing the end of a 17-mile ride on his mountain bike, accompanied by a Secret Service agent, a military aide and his personal physician, Richard Tubb, who treated him at the scene, said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

And then there was the pretzel.

He scraped himself up again today according to the article so we can probably expect to see another round of this. Am I the only one who thinks it's downright strange that a president has been scraped up and bruised three separate times in five years?
digby 7/06/2005 01:59:00 PM |

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

 
Can This Marriage Be Saved?

In the post below I criticized the attitude I saw among liberals toward unions on The TPM Labor site. I wish that instead of characterizing the attitudes of the new Yorkers who criticized the stadium deal I had let the posters on the thread speak for themselves:

My question is what have the unions done for me lately? Union membership is waning. Fewer and fewer workers are members of Unions, and I have to question their utility in the modern economy.

A union is certainly useful when you have large numbers of poorly educated and unsophisticated manual laborers who may be subject to economic coercion in the form of employer-determined wages. But what good is a union when the laborers involved are individuals with a bachelors degree or graduate work who do mental work, i.e. not physically taxing work, all day and receive relatively high compensation and benefits?

I'm all for reforming workplace association laws. We need to provide people the freedom to engage in such activities if they see fit. I just don't think they will.

You should also consider that unions can't possibly claim to be universally progressive or liberal. A significant portion of union members are Republicans. And unions alone won't deliver the votes necessary to put Democrats back in the White House or in control in the Senate.

[...]

We aren't living in the economy of the 1930s or 40s or 50s, or even the 1980s. Our society is different now, and employment often requires more skill than the ability to swing a hammer. In the early part of the 20th century, jobs didn't demand much more--the labor 'market' was broader and employers could easily force down wages. While there are plenty of manual laborers out there still, we must recognize that many college educated workers have the ability to demand more from their employers due to the simple fact that they have more skills and there aren't as many people who can do that work.

If anything we need to invest in adult education and worker training in order to make more laborers fungible so that they can trade up in employment. Give people the skills necessary to have a better job, and they will make more money.

Why are unions necessary to do that?

[...]

Free Trade facilitates the evolution by applying competitive pressures that force different economies to focus on industries in which they have a comparative advantage. Industries where they lack such an advantage suffer and many people are laid off. But the productivity gains are enormous, and this enhances growth and, in the long run, employment.

Certain workers, however, do loss jobs. Therefore, labor unions oppose free trade. Unions oppose the general will of society in favor of parochial interests. Teacher unions demand tenure for bad teachers and rigid pay structures that discourage our best and brightest from becoming teachers.

I support workers rights to collectively bargain and join unions. But I'm very suspicious of the demands they make of government. And I don't think you can ride labor to electoral victory without supporting them on thinks like the jets' stadium, protectionism, and tenure, which I'm unwilling to do.

[...]

What's the advantage to the community, to the government, to the company itself of unionized labor? Is it true that wages pushed up by union membership will stifle job growth? If not, why? If so, who suffers from this and how can unions work to remedy it? Call this a concession to the capitalist pigs if you like, but that's the current climate, and it ain't likely to roll back to the 40's and 50's.

[...]

"At the height of their power, unions were unable to match the negotiating power of a non-unionized knowledge worker acting alone, and so the belief that unions are effective at achieving their goals is in doubt."

[...]

I don't see, and didn't hear, any argument for how a progressive or liberal could have supported this stadium project on its merits.

But you know what? The construction unions were solidly behind it, for obvious reasons -- their own jobs. They threw their support behind Bloomberg and threatened any pol who wouldn't go along. And so, you see, these unions were interested in only one thing: their own pockets. Broader progressive politics be damned.

I don't think this was an isolated incident. At least, my impression of unions is, they often are looking only for what's in the immediate pecuniary interests of their members, and what's in the immediate power interests of the union bosses. I don't think I'm alone in that impression, either. If I'm wrong, I hope that you'll educate me otherwise, and that's one of the reasons why I look forward to your joining this blog. But to the extent I'm right, then I think it's unions who are as much to blame as anyone else for their exclusion -- if they can't see the broader forest rather than the trees of their own pocketbooks, they're not entitled to be considered part of a broader progressive movement.

You can actually feel the condescension dripping from those voices.

I am, as a general rule, against all these stadium boondoggles and I assume that the Jets deal was as fucked up as they all are. I certainly take the word of New Yorkers like Steve Gilliard that the unions were unhelpful to the community and uninterested in the greater concerns of the residents. It does not, however, surprise me that at certain times there are going to be clashes between unions and other Democrats just as there are clashes between religious folks and secularists or pacifists and hawks, workers and environmentalists. Coalitions sometimes have competing interests. That doesn't mean that unions aren't "entitled" to be part of a broader progressive movement.

That attitude is absolutely lethal. Working people often think about their pocketbooks above the broader progressive movement. They have to. They don't have a lot of money. And if people aren't "entitled" to be part of the broader progressive movement because they worry about their jobs over other concerns then we have a very serious problem, indeed. The idea that unions'promotion of the "pecuniary interests" of their members somehow makes them greedy is to play right into the hands of WalMart and other corporations that consider cheap labor the backbone of their business plans.

Last year, here in southern California we had a long and painful grocery worker strike. It came about because Wall Street was demanding that the national chains involved lower their labor costs for bigger profits at the same time that WalMart was attempting to move into the area and undercut them. The workers were in danger of losing much of their health care and seeing entry level workers denied much of the job protections and benefits they had for themselves. There weren't a lot of easy answers.

When the workers went on strike a surprising thing happened. Customers abandoned those stores and shopped in much more expensive ones that were uninvolved with the strike. It cost a little bit of coin to do that and quite a bit of inconvenience. The clerks that we usually saw everyday stocking the produce section were walking picket lines on the sidewalk and we all honked and cheered as we drove past. It went on for several months. But maybe it was because we interact with these folks all the time or that they are middle class workers, but customers actually seemed to see the human side of this union and most of us supported them. And it was a beautiful thing.

Contrary to what some of those posters I quote above seem to think, grocery clerks and hotel maids and construction workers and teachers and cops are not obsolete. They are still quite necessary to civilization, even here in the first world USA, and as long as people have attitudes such as those expressed in that thread, unions are more important than ever.

Furthermore, as I wrote below, political parties need outside institutional support. The republicans very wisely worked the conservative evangelical churches and have turned them into an electoral machine. The K Street lobbyists are more powerful and numerous than ever before, basically turning the government into an arm of big business. If we do not embrace labor, we are sunk. You cannot get out the vote with blogs.

The Republicans have been very successful lately at convincing people that their economic interest lies with the owners and the most important thing that government does is control the culture's moral climate. That's awfully convenient for the people who make all the profits isn't it? But it isn't actually true and we have been failing, big time, to make the right arguments to convince these people which side their bread is really buttered on. I remember hearing a guy say on Rush one day that he was really rooting for his boss to get a tax cut because that meant he might get a raise. Rush, of the 250 million dollar contract, applauded his good sense. Clearly, we are failing to properly argue for these people's interests if that is what they are reduced to believing.

Nathan Newman says in his article to which the above comments are linked:

You can talk about a range of issues -- whether child care or health care or whatever -- and the bottom line is they cost families money. And conservatives have a simple message: they'll cut your taxes so middle class families can afford more of all of it.

Once upon a time, progressives had an even simpler alternative. Support workers rights to demand higher wages and they'll have even more money and benefits for everything they need to take care of their families.

I know we are supposed to appeal to people's better natures and all, but really, that's only a part of the picture. You also need to offer people a better deal than the other guy. For many working people, unions offer a better deal. For all working people, unions raise the bar on wages, benefits and workplace safety. If we want to win elections we'd better start realizing that.


.
digby 7/05/2005 10:58:00 PM |

 
Which Side Are You On, Boys?

There's an interesting internecine debate over onTPM's Labor Blog about whether the Democrats should actually give a damn about labor. I'm not kidding.

There's quite a bit of back and forth about "what has labor done for me lately" (presumably besides clean your house, fix your food, build your buildings and raise your kids.) And there's quite a bit about how labor seems to, you know, challenge the proper role of the meritocracy and what have you.

Why should Democrats support labor? I've got one word for you.

Arnold.

If you want to know what happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, it's that he fucked with the public employees unions and they've fucked him back. Hard.

Here's Arnold's answer to the challenge:

During the course of the short call one of Schwarzenegger's media advisors outlined the team's plan to create a "phenomenon of anger" that would turn voters against employee unions, which have sharply criticized the governor for his budget cuts to education and health care programs.

A representative from Wells Fargo advised the governor's team to focus its ire on public employee unions to avoid angering labor unions for private industry, and a representative from Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. urged the governor to announce his support for a ballot initiative that would make it harder for unions to use member dues to support legislative lobbying.

These are middle class American workers who have not, contrary to Republican lies, become lazy, fat and opportunistic with their huge salaries that pay oh, 50k a year. These are cops, firemen, nurses and teachers who are trying to work in increasingly difficult circumstances without any hope of ever getting rich. Indeed, many of these people chose their jobs because they actually give a damn. And they tend to support Democrats for a reason --- because Democrats support them. You don't have to have a Phd from MIT to understand how this thing works.

And by the way, this plan of Arnold's to create a "phenomenon of anger" so far has only driven him further into a ditch. People are angry all right. They're angry at him.

The change of fortune for Governor Schwarzenegger is broad-based. Perhaps not surprisingly, 83% of Democrats and 88% of Liberals say they are not inclined to support his reelection bid. But solid majorities of non-partisans and other party identifiers (61%), and ideological moderates (60%) now say they are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger’s reelection bid. Close to one quarter (23%) of Republicans, and almost a third of Conservatives (30%), admit they are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger in 2006. Women are more opposed to Schwarzenegger’s reelection than men (63% of women not inclined to support his reelection, 51% of men), and Latinos are strongly opposed as well (72% not inclined to support him).

From what I gathered in the TPM Cafe thread, a lot of new Yorkers are awfully disappointed in labor's position on the new stadium. Apparently, needing work is just not a good enough reason to inconvenience the residents with traffic and parking problems. It was a slap in the face to the fine liberals who support their tawdry pecuniary concerns and it won't be soon forgotten. O la dee da.

Maybe Democrats in the blue enclaves (like mine here in LA also) forget what it takes to put together a winning coalition, but somebody obviously needs to remind them, quickly. Labor is the only existing liberal institution that we have that can be mobilized for issues and voting. I love the netroots as much as the next person, but let's face facts. We're a long way from being able to rival the evangelical lock step machine that the right has built over the last 25 years. Even the unions are a pale imitation of what they used to be --- but let's not throw the baby out with bath water. The institution of labor unions is one of our best and most useful constituencies. To even contemplate the idea that we should abandon the working class to ivy league Republican blather about meritocrisy and expect workers to care about rich people's traffic congestion over their own ability to put food on the table is incredibly myopic.

And I won't even go in to the clear moral obligation we have to fight for those at the bottom end of the income scale --- many of whom in places like Los Angeles are gaining a modicum of dignity and financial security through the hard work of unions who are organizing the service industry --- the single biggest employer of poor people in this country, many of whom are women and immigrants. (Ask yourself why the restaurant industry is one of the biggest Republican contributors out there.) And interestingly, when they become unionized, they also become politically active. They vote.

No political party can afford to abandon a huge slice of workers because those workers need things that the rich don't care about. Like financial security, for instance. Republicans are offering them a phony dream and a place in the afterlife. It's our job to offer them something a little bit more tangible right here on earth.


.
digby 7/05/2005 02:15:00 PM |

 
Nothing Left To Lose

I'm getting a lot of traffic today from Professor Bainbridge who calls me a freaking out liberal and Patterico who calls me a fringe leftist for being angry that the Dems apparently got punked (again) by the Gang of 14 compromise.

First I should point out to Patterico that when I referred to "all the executions and war crimes" in regards to Gonzales, I was talking about the unusually large number of executions he summarized in a paragraph or two for his boy to sign off on between naps, when he was Governor of Texas. The war crimes are the white house counsel advisories saying that the president didn't have to follow the law during wartime, the abrogating of the Geneva Conventions and the fact that he agreed that "interrogation methods" that didn't rise to "the level of pain accompanied by organ failure or death" were not torture, among other things. Just wanted to clear that up. I suspect that Mr Gonzales will be one of those guys who won't find it very healthy to travel to countries that have war crimes laws when he gets old, if you know what I mean.

I do think both of my critics have a fair complaint about me, though. I am, in fact, a crazed fringe leftist, freaking out liberal. In fact, I am dangerous. And I was hotheaded when I wrote that post, mostly because it was all too predictable that we would get had in that deal once the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse got confirmed --- which set the bar for "extraordinary circumstances." Professior Bainbridge sees the deal as a good one for the Republicans and indeed it was.

I'm really not all that surprised that the Gang of 14 let some extremists on the federal appeals courts. After all, Republicans actually believe that because Landslide Bush barely won an election that Clarence Thomas must, therefore, be a mainstream supreme court justice. And the "centrist" Dems figured that if they gave in on that, the right would not insist upon an extreme conservative on the Supreme Court. Now they are stuck. But that's fine. I knew it would be so.

What Patterico fails to understand is that I want that nuclear option, I need that nuclear option. I'm fucking dying to have that fight. We so-called freaking out liberals have been pushed to the wall. We're accused of being traitors at every turn, of wanting to give terrorists therapy, of being unamerican. People are making millions selling books saying that everything I believe in is treason. There are pick-ups all over the country that have "liberal hunting licence" bumper stickers on them. Being called a "fringe leftist" these days is actually kind of cute. How about terrorist sympathizer? Now there's a descriptive insult with some meat on it!

I am the last person who is afraid of Bill Frist going nuclear. Like a cornered animal, I've got nothing to lose. In fact, it's my fondest wish. If we could score a knock-out on Bush we might actually open some eyes in this country. And even if we don't, so what? When you go out of your way to rub your rivals noses in the dirt,particularly when they comprise an army as big as yours, don't be surprised when they start to see mutually assured destruction as an alternative.



.
digby 7/05/2005 11:28:00 AM |

 
It's Their World

We just live in it. Might I just point out that when a political party openly admits to routinely using derision and ridicule, when they repeatedly insult, demean and deride their political opponents, and particularly when they hold the nation hostage for months with hearings and debates about semen stains, fellatio and cigar dildos for political purposes, they have given up any claim to "dignity and respect?" They wanted to play hardball. Now we play hardball.

Just as an illustration, take a look at the "insider's poll" (pdf) by National Journal in which members of congress are polled for their opinions. This one is about setting a timetable for Iraq withdrawal. Unsurprisingly, all Republicans in the poll were against it and so were the vast majority of Democrats. Where the difference lies is in the anonymous commentary. Quite a few of the Republicans talk like thugs. Here are a couple of examples of the kind of thing that the republican "insiders" say:

"Setting a timetable would be irresponsible. No wonder the dems are pushing it."


“Even the Democrats know this is a dumb idea. They are just so politically opportunistic that they are willing to put their short-term partisan interest ahead of the long-term national interest. Timetables merely reinforce the enemy’s belief that America’s political elite lacks the will to win a protracted struggle against a determined and vicious enemy."

“The constant barrage of anti-Americanism by our own politicians is unconscionable and serves to aid the enemy. We are at war, not setting a convenient schedule for self-serving political purposes.”

The Democrats do not naturally engage in this ad hominem and do not constantly question the patriotism, motives or loyalty of the administration when they criticize the war.

These are not ralk radio show hosts saying this crap. These are members of the House and Senate. This, apparently, is just how they think. So, please spare me any calls for "respect." The Republican Party gave that up a long time ago when they decided to send people who think and act like teen-age gangbangers to Washington.

Update: Of course it's helpful to remember that many of these officials' constituents are people who sport "Liberal Hunting Licenses" on the back of their pick-ups. Remember to laugh at stuff like this or you'll be accused of not having a sense of humor. If you can get out a chuckle with a boot stepping on your throat, that is.



.
digby 7/05/2005 09:26:00 AM |

Monday, July 04, 2005

 

digby 7/04/2005 12:44:00 PM |

 
All American Dissent

As I read yet another one of these vacuous and ill-informed reactionary screeds that inevitably turn up every independence day, I find that as the years go by they make me more patriotic rather than less. It's comforting to know, I suppose, that some things never change. It's even more comforting to know that things do.

I don't subscribe to the chauvanistic notion that says we must hail America as the greatest country the world has ever known, despite the fact that I love America as much as I love my family. And that's mainly because, as with family, I don't see that as actually being much of a compliment considering all the countries the world has ever known. Talk about faint praise. The problem in my mind is not one of country, culture, religion or ethnic identity; it's one of species. The human species to be exact. There can be no "greatest" country as long as a country is comprised of imperfect and flawed human beings. That doesn't mean I don't love it. But I see it with my eyes wide open.

If we're lucky, we muddle along, taking two steps forward, one step back and eventually make some progress. And to that extent, America has done pretty well, particularly seeing as we started out with the greatest hypocrisy imaginable --- a country whose essence is defined by the concept of freedom was founded as a slave nation. If people want to say we are exceptional, that's one of the most exceptional things about us, that's for sure.

But, there is one thing that has been present from the very beginning and it's the thing that has saved us and will continue to save us. It is the freedom of speech. It often comes under seige during war and from the beginning there has been tension about what level of dissent was acceptable. But perhaps because we were a country formed out of a revolution, there is always a surprisingly strong attachment in the body politic to tolerance of free speech, even if it doesn't feel like it at the time.

Today, Ellen Goodman describes those of us who are against Bush's policies in iraq as the "silenced majority," made mute by the political correctness and intimidation that often emerges during wartime. She is right that the majority of those who oppose Bush on the war feel tremendous pressure --- and there is, as yet, not much cultural approbation for public dissent on the subject. But we should not be afraid. If this country has ever stood for anything it's this. And there have been times worse than this in which people who had much to fear took a stand.

Perhaps the most famous speech by an African American before MLK's classic "I Have A Dream" speech was Frederick Douglass' fourth of July speech of 1852. Talk about politically incorrect. He not only pointed out the incongruity of a slave owning nation celebrating freedom, he did it in no uncertain terms. And he spoke at a time when the country was moving toward violence and in a culture that was racist to the bone. But it didn't shut him up. And the government allowed him to speak. I'll excerpt the speech beginning with its most famous passage:

...At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....

Yes, Frederick Douglas was one of the "blame America First" crowd for sure. And rightly so. The shocking hypocrisy of a freedom loving country that had to fight a civil war to free its own slaves is so mind-bogglingly ironic that to even suggest that America is or was ever perfect is absurd.

But, among many things, we did do one thing very, very right and it's enshrining in the Constitution the right of dissenters like Frederick Douglass (at the time only in the north, to be sure) to speak so frankly about America. Dissent has been this country's savior. If this country is great, it is because we believe that it is the inalienable right, if not the duty, of all Americans to push her to be better than she is.

Read Douglass' entire speech to remind yourself that there have always been dissenters in this country who were willing to call it as they see it. But also read it to absorb Douglas' conclusion. He was right then and he's right now:

...Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. -- Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.

The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. 'Ethiopia, shall, stretch. out her hand unto Ood." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o'er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom's reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end,
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant's presence cower;
But to all manhood's stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his Prison-house, to thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I'll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive --
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate'er the peril or the cost,
Be driven

The heart of the American liberal on the fourth of July is always full with the knowledge that there ain't no stopping progress. We'll keep speaking out and step by step, inch by inch, we will get there. Happy 4th everyone.


.
digby 7/04/2005 11:20:00 AM |

Sunday, July 03, 2005

 
Who Could Have Ever Predicted This?

Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday.

With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop.

GOP leaders, sensing the Democrats' bind, expressed confidence yesterday that the Senate will confirm Bush's eventual nominee, no matter how ideologically rigid. "I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Under the "Gang of 14" accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee's ideological views constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify a filibuster.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.

"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."

Yes, they were just as thick and stupid as we thought. Once they confirmed the wingnut freakshow, they lowered the bar to confirm all wingnut freakshows.

I suppose that they may have made some sort of informal agreement as to what constitutes a circumstance more "extraordinary" than this, but I don't know how much trust I would put in such a thing. If Brown, Owen and Pryor are confirmed, the bar has been set very, very low. It's hard to imagine how Bush could come up with anyone even less qualified or philosophically unacceptable than that, but they seem to be able to find the worst judicial freaks in the country so maybe they've been holding out on us. It also pays to remember that Earl Warren wasn't even a judge before he became Chief Justice. Bush could name James Dobson if he wanted to.

I wouldn't be surprised if he picked him. I'm not sure what it will take to make Democrats understand that making a deal with Republicans is akin to stabbing themselves in the back. It never fails.

Truthfully, I think Bush is going to nominate Gonzales, which would be sort of unremarkable under these circumstances if it weren't for all the executions and the war crimes. Of course the crazies are all saying he's too liberal --- and they'll probably succeed in convincing the dipshit gang of 14 that they got Bush to nominate a moderate. In the end, of course, it's all about rewarding Bush's cronies --- which is, after all, his central governing philosophy. And the nutballs will fall in line and be very happy when he turns out to be somewhere to the right of Clarence Thomas and Pinochet.

And let's not forget that Rehnquist is hanging by a thread so they'll get another bite of the apple by which time the Gang of 14 will have convinced themselves that they've saved the republic by turning the Supreme Court into a federalist society circle jerk.



.
digby 7/03/2005 09:48:00 PM |

 
Telling The Right Story

Atrios questions the WaPo's skepticism (in its article quoting Rove's lawyer Luskin) and points to Lawrence O'Donnell's follow-up post today on The Huffington Report in which he subtly says that Luskin is full of shit.

I don't know that I'd characterize Luskin as a liar, however. He doesn't know exactly what Rove told the grand jury because defense lawyers aren't allowed in there. He knows what his client told him. He also has absolutely no idea what Cooper's notes really say --- and neither does Karl Rove.

Unless there is something really off the wall developing, it seems pretty obvious that the reason that Fitzgerald wanted to talk to Cooper and Miller is to verify that what Rove said was true, whatever it was --- and it's also reasonable to believe that Fitzgerald has some substantial reasons to think it might not be. The law pretty specifically requires prosecutors to exhaust all other possibilities before a judge cites a reporter with contempt for refusing to reveal sources. Fitzgerald knows full well what a hot potato this is. He's not fucking with Time magazine, the NY Times and Karl Rove for his health. He has reason to believe that Matt Cooper and Judith Miller have something to tell him or he wouldn't have gone this far.

I hesitate to bring this up, but it's relevant to this case. From Peter Tiersma, law professor at Loyola University and expert on the language of the law:

One of the famous (or infamous) scenes from the impeachment proceedings is Clinton's remark about the meaning of "is."

During the deposition, Clinton’s lawyer, Robert Bennett, objected to questions being asked about Lewinsky, and made the following statement:

"I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo of the question. Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed--has an affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton."

Clinton said nothing.

During the grand jury proceedings, Kenneth Starr accused Clinton of making an “utterly false statement” by not speaking up and correcting his lawyer’s comment. Clinton responded that Bennett’s statement was not necessarily false. He explained: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” and remarked that in the present tense, the statement was true.

Even though Clinton was subjected to much ridicule for this reponse, it is actually completely true. Clinton’s physical relationship with Lewinsky had ended some time before the deposition.

As I mentioned, Rove may have lied to his lawyer or withheld the truth. Clinton certainly didn't come clean with Bennett about Lewinsky, although he was a very clever lawyer himself and understood the language of the law and didn't need a lot of advice about how to avoid perjuring himself. Rove is not a lawyer.

In that light, I find Luskin's language a little bit interesting. He says Rove never "identified" Valerie Plame to Cooper. What does that mean exactly? Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, " Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job," which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail. It wouldn't have been hard to find out who Joseph Wilson was married to. Or maybe he meant something else entirely. But the wording is unusual -- just as Clinton's wording "I did not have 'sexual relations'with that woman" was strange. Why didn't just say "sex"? Because he was carefully using a legal definition. When lawyers word things in a careful way like this, there's usually a reason for it.

But public opinion doesn't care about such nuances. To them sex and sexual relations are the same thing. And the meaning of "is," is is. And "identifying" and identifying are the same thing. And it is in the court of public opinion that this is finally moving.

So, in spite of what I wrote above, I don't think we should get ourselves caught up in some sort of legal mumbo-jumbo legal definition of what "identify" means. It's their turn to squirm on the parse machine and try to explain why the clear meaning of cover-up isn't cover-up. That's the key my friends, and that's the level on which the American people will come to understand this if we do it right.

People forgave Clinton for lying about an affair. Most Americans, including a good many people reading this blog today, have some personal experience with situations like that. Infidelity is a common occurence of everyday life. People didn't need experts to explain to them what was going on. And they decided that they didn't like the spectacle of the politicians and the law sticking its nose into something so personal.

This isn't about some middle aged jerk getting excited over a chubby eager beaver exposing her thong. This is about a powerful political operative exposing an undercover CIA agent in order to exact revenge and cover up the president's lies about the Iraq war.

Kevin Drum wrote correctly back in 2003, Keep It Simple:

Top White officials blew the identity of an undercover CIA agent, potentially endangering both lives and intelligence operations, solely to gain political payback against a guy who had risen to the top of their enemies list.

That's not so complicated, is it?

That remains true. But the context has changed quite dramatically and there is more to it now. It has become obvious to a majority of Americans that the Bush administration was lying when it made its case for war. The public is much more likely to see this Plame leak for what it was. A cover-up by smear and intimidation. And it looks much more serious in this new light. Here's how I would update it:

The Bush administration lied about its reasons for the war in Iraq. When a critic stepped up to expose one of the lies the Whitehouse blew his wife's identity as an undercover CIA agent. They did this to exact revenge against what they saw as a political enemy and to intimidate those who would further expose the administration, potentially endangering both lives and intelligence operations around the world.

That's the story. And regardless of what comes out about who leaked what to whom first, the sick fucking thing is Rove has actually already admitted to being the biggest asshole on the planet regardless of his legal culpability. When they are apprised of this, in the context of the Iraq lies, people may not be as amenable to forgive or write off as some think. Even if Karl Rove didn't break the law, here is what we already know he did do:

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

Here's the thing, though. Let's not forget that Wilson was right. There was no yellowcake. Rove and his minions discredited Wilson and destroyed his wife's cover because he was telling the truth.

If Democrats start going on Matthews to talk about this, they need to hammer this point home over and over again. They can debate the Barbizon school of blond former prosecutors all they want, but every single time, their point must be that this was a very serious matter of national security, weapons of mass destruction, lying about war ---- life and death. There was no yellow cake and there were no WMD and Bush and Rove and the rest have been lying their asses off from the beginning. And when anyone in a position to know spoke up, they were subjected to what Karl Rove openly admits to believing is a "legitimate means to counter criticism" --- leaking and disseminating derogatory information about Bush's critics. In common parlance that's called character assasination. And when you do it to discredit someone who is telling the truth it's a cover-up.

Democrats really need to rise to the occasion this time. There remains a serious danger of the whole thing getting purposefully muddied by GOP spin artists as it usually is and there is just no excuse for it. As David Corn said back in 2003:

The strategic point here -- and there is one -- is for the GOP'ers to make this scandal look like another one of those nasty partisan mud-wrestles that the public never likes. Turn it into a political controversy, not a criminal one. Then it all comes out blurry and muddy in the wash. (Bad metaphor, I know.) But that is the intent: to fuzzy up the picture and cause people to shrug their shoulders and say, "it's just politics."

That's why we have to be prepared with a story people can understand and be prepared to tie it in to what they are beginning to see happened with the Iraq war. In Hollywood, screewriters and readers are asked to distill the plot into a single sentence called a logline. Here's the logline for the Plame Scandal:

Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq.

Update: Needlenose has a very interesting theory about Judith Miller's role in all this --- and Josh Marshall seems to be leaning in a similar direction.

.
digby 7/03/2005 10:35:00 AM |

 
Grover's Darkroom

I'm sure that most of you have read that the Rev. Lou Sheldon, unofficial new head of the National Park Service, made a stink that there wasn't any footage of conservative protests in a Lincoln Memorial tourist film and successfully got the NPS to add such footage to its reel:

The video gave the impression that Lincoln would have supported abortion and homosexuality," said the Web site of Rev. Louis Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition. It cited footage showing rallies at the memorial by abortion and gay rights supporters and war opponents but no similar footage from Christian and conservative interests.

"Absent from the video were any Promise Keepers marches or Marches for Jesus rallies at the capital. The video was totally skewed to present only a leftist viewpoint," the Web site said.

What I didn't know until I read it at The Capetbagger Report is this:

Here's a classic example of how far conservative thinking has strayed from reality. In order to make the Lincoln Memorial's tourist video more conservative, the NPS will add video of a 1997 rally held by the Promise Keepers and footage of a well-attended march in Washington after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. What's wrong with these? Nothing — except they weren't held at the Lincoln Memorial.

For whatever reason, most of the major events at the memorial, throughout the 20th century, have dealt with progressive caucus (civil rights, opposition to war, gender equality, etc.). In the interest of "balance," the right is demanding the addition of footage from events that took place elsewhere.

Now what does this remind me of? Oh yeah.







What's really funny is that the progressive tradition of mass protest seems to have become something the "traditional values" people want a piece of. NOW they want to be hippies. It figures. They wait until they are deep into middle age to finally get hip --- 35 years too late. Next thing you know they'll take up pot smoking and student sit-ins.



.
digby 7/03/2005 08:48:00 AM |

Saturday, July 02, 2005

 
Everyone Should Hate France

Tom Friedman is right. France is a real hellhole. Ask anyone who spends any time there. Like Richard Perle, neocon France-hater.

I can't understand those fools who think that France has the best definition of the good life. Who would ever think that great food, great weather, great wine, interesting political conversation,great museums, great writers -- long vacations, long meals, light religion, universal health care, laid back sexual attitudes, and beautiful countryside are worth giving up shopping for? They trade money for time to read, think, rest, talk and all those other useless wastes of time.

That's unacceptable. Nobody should go there. Especially workaholic Americans. Not that there's anything wrong with workaholism. I realize it's the highest state of Randian being. Especially if you are working a couple of low paying, low satisfaction jobs. God wants you to work hard and buy a lot of shit at Walmart for Jesus. So don't go to France. They don't have anything good to buy.



.
digby 7/02/2005 05:27:00 PM |

 
The Iraq Group


Update: The story originally posted to E&P WAS the story I refer to below from February of 2004. They've since removed it. The Sam Gardiner stuff is still interesting, however, as we contemplate the DSM's --- the other white meat.


Atrios links to this new E&P scoop that says the Plame Grand Jury just subpoenaed documents from the Iraq Group, which set off some bells. It turns out the Grand Jury has asked for documents from this group before and I wrote about it back in February of '04. (Good to know I haven't completely blown all my brain cells.)

Here's what I wrote at the time. Looking at it now it takes on some unusual (although likely completely coincidental) significance:

According to Newsday(link now broken) today:

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

So, it now turns out that the "Iraq Group," the supervisory marketing arm of the Iraq march to war is in the sights of the Plame grand jury. Jim Wilkinson is the one member of the administration who is simultaneously a member of the OGC and the Iraq Group.

The thing to remember about both the OGC and the Iraq Group is that they are not just spin artists. They are propagandists. They were very involved with Alisdair Campbell in the "sexing up" of the WMD threat, so it will be very interesting to see if these documents are turned over without a lot of national security hoo-hah.

There is a big story in those documents, perhaps much bigger even than Plame, although the subpoenaes are only for July 2003 so they won't reveal the really interesting stuff about the blatant WMD lies. Because, not to go into too much tin-foil hat territory, there is a very interesting story to be told about the unprecedented "PR" sell-job that the White House coordinated to convince the American (and British) people that Saddam was a "grave and gathering" danger.

Many of you have probably read the paper written by Sam Gardiner, the retired colonel who taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College ( in PDF here) in which he claims to have found more than 50 instances of demonstrably false stories planted in the press in the run up to the war and charges the OCG and the Iraq Group as the culprits. This overview of the paper, originally published in The Edge brings up something quite interesting that ties it into the Plame affair:

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus. Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender. When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing as false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp. In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US. The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

[...]

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment "irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains. Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty, democracy receives collateral damage." For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic psychological operations pushed their way into the important process of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

So many secrets. Is it ever possible to keep things like this from unravelling eventually?

Thanks to commenter S who lifted this great 2003 Gore Vidal quote from Americablog:

Yet you saw in the '60s how the Johnson administration collapsed under the weight of its own hubris. Likewise with Nixon. And now with the discontent over how the war in Iraq is playing out, don't you get the impression that Bush is headed for the same fate?

I actually see something smaller tripping him up: this business over outing the wife of Ambassador Wilson as a CIA agent. It's often these small things that get you. Something small enough for a court to get its teeth into. Putting this woman at risk because of anger over what her husband has done is bitchy, dangerous to the nation, dangerous to other CIA agents. This resonates more than Iraq. I'm afraid that 90 percent of Americans don't know where Iraq is and never will know, and they don't care.

Yep. It's often the little things, the sloppy things that trip them up. 3rd rate burglary. Pissant revenge for a critical op-ed. Dumb stuff. We don't know if any of this will stick, it's actually unlikely. But if something does, it will be something like this --- Karl Rove personally involving himself in outing Valerie Plame because he was ticked off --- and then lying to the FBI about it.

There's a lot of speculation that this is a rat-fuck and it may be. But, I think that Karl's playing very close to the edge if he's doing this on purpose. He's the guy who stands to get scalded if this grand Jury turns up something. Unless this entire investigation is a corrupt White House inside job (and you never know) it's very risky. He's a guy who takes risks, so he may have done this, but my guess is that in the summer of 2003, facing the firsrt real criticism of Bush's presidency, he got mad and fucked up and he has been dog-paddling ever since, hoping it goes away.




.
digby 7/02/2005 01:20:00 PM |

 
Wonkette Knows All

Last night I wondered if the journalistic brotherhood was breaking a silence on what they know about the Plame case now that Matt Cooper has been thrown to the wolves. Back on Wednesday, Wonkette wrote this:

Facing jail, Matt and Judy might talk, or -- worse for He Who Must Not Be Named (Karl Rove) -- they'll go to jail with lips still sealed but outrage on the part of friends and colleagues will shake lose which White House source outed Plame to smear Wilson.

I suspect this is exactly what happened with O'Donnell. The question now is how many other people in Washington know who the leaker is? Clearly, Wonkette thinks she does. The panel on Mclaughlin was unruffled at the revelation. Perhaps the real question, though, is how many members of the press corps know that is was Karl Rove who leaked Plame's name?

Now I understand that whores like Cliff May and others would feel no compunction about covering for karl Rove. That's their bread and butter. But what about these buddies of Matt Cooper who apparently know all about this? And what ethical guidelines say you must keep this quiet until your friend's boss stabs him in the back? I don't get it. If Cooper had folded and then everybody piled on saying they knew, then maybe I could at least understand the logic. But what's the logic in doing it like this?

Moreover, is it normal that members of the press know the answer to a major mystery but they withhold it, as a group, from the public? I thought their job was to reveal the answers to major mysteries. In fact, this seems like the scoop of the decade. Back in the day, reporters were racing to get the news of semen stains and talking points on the air mere seconds before their rivals. Now, they all keep quiet?

This is a very interesting professional and ethical question for the media. Does the reporter's privilege extend to his friends? Here you apparently have quite a few members of the DC press corps with a piece of very juicy information (allegedly) about the most powerful political operative in the United States --- information that also has to do with an important matter of national security and a Justice department investigation. In some sort of friendship extension of the reporter's privilege they say nothing. Amazing.

And during the time they say nothing an election is held in which the political operative in question works feverishly to smear his client's opponent with scurrilous charges of borderline treason and cowardly behavior during wartime. The entire election is premised on the fact that the president, this man's client, is the only one capable of handling national security. His prior campaign had been waged with an overt promise to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Still nothing.

Finally, when their friend seems headed to jail and his boss has agreed to turn over notes, they start to step up and reveal what they know.

Hookay. I think it's time to convene another conference on blogger ethics and professional journalistic standards. I get so confused about these things.


Update: Here's O'Donnell's explanation on the Huffington Post today:

Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

Well, at least Karl got his boy elected instead of that traitor John Kerry, so that's good.


.
digby 7/02/2005 09:31:00 AM |

 
Lead, Follow or Have A Drink

Happy belated Birthday to Martini Republic, a vastly entertaining blog in all respects, and one that is particularly indispensible for astute commentary on LA and California politics. And that's important because something's happening here (what it is ain't exactly clear.) I think I'm seeing the beginnings of a middle class revolt. It's hard to know if it's going to go anywhere or if its roots are deeper than Arnold dissatisfaction, but the face of rebellion in California is the face of a fresh faced, soccer mom school teacher. This is something to keep your eyes on as the debt squeeze and the generational squeeze of kids on one end and grandparents on the other begins to really take its toll on the middle class.

But for a little walk in LA sunshine, and there's always plenty of that, check out MR's Joseph Mailander's tribute to our latin heritage on the occasion of our first latino mayor's (can you believe it?) inauguration day.


Here's looking at you, kidz.


.
digby 7/02/2005 08:03:00 AM |

 
Who Told Rove?

As long as we're enjoying ourselves speculating about frog marching and the like, here's an interesting theory from super-smart commenter Sara:

Has anyone here carefully read Joe Wilson's Book?

He provides plenty of carefully crafted information -- for example see p. 443-445.

Wilson indicates that the work up on him beginning March, 2003, turned up the information on Valerie -- which was then shared with Karl Rove who then circulated it through Administration and neo-Conservative circles. He cites conservative journalists who claimed to have had the information before the Novak column.

So the question is -- in the work-up process beginning about March 2003, who had the information re: Plame?

I think it was John Bolton. At the time he was State Department Deputy Secretary with the portfolio in WMD and Nuclear Proliferation. Assuming that Valerie Plame's identity was that of a NOC (No Official Cover) the information about her would have been highly classified, compartmentalized, and only those with a need to know would know. Bolton's Job probably gave him that status. However to receive it he would have to sign off on the classification -- that is he would have to agree to retain the security the CIA had established.

At the time, Bolton had two assistants who also worked in the White House in Cheney's office, David Wurmser and John Hannah. Their names have been around as the potential leakers -- Hannah if you remember is the guy who kept putting the Yellow Cake back in Bush's speeches even though Tenet had demanded it be removed.

So -- I think we have a game of catch going on here -- or maybe some version of baseball, and the scoring is Bolton to Wurmser and Hannah, to Cheney (and/or Libby) to Rove.

I suspect getting Rove on Perjury is more or less step one in walking back the path of the ball.

Lest there be any doubt about Bolton's true calling, remember, he was king of the Florida Recount.



.
digby 7/02/2005 07:35:00 AM |

Friday, July 01, 2005

 
Big Fish

According to Catch, Lawrence O'Donnell named Karl Rove as the guy who fingered Plame to Matt Cooper and said he (O'Donnell) expects to be subpoenaed for saying it.

Interesting, if true. Are some members of the entertainment industrial complex prepared to storm the barricades now that one of their own has been left dangling in the wind?

UPDATE:

Here's the dirt from E&P

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

UPDATE:

Talk Left examines the possibility of a perjury charge.


.
digby 7/01/2005 06:24:00 PM |

 
FYI

Last week Karl Rove appeared on Joe Scarborough. Here is part of what he said:

SCARBOROUGH: Talking about getting—getting things through the United States Congress, let's talk about not so much about John Bolton, but what the problems with Bolton may mean when this summer, the president may be trying to get a Supreme Court nominee through.

You had John McCain and six other Republicans team up with Robert Byrd. And they came up with this anti-filibuster deal. Did you feel like John McCain and those Republican senators betrayed the president, betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed conservatives across America?

ROVE: Look, John McCain, for example, is one of the strongest advocates for an up-or-down vote on John Bolton. We wish that the issue of judicial nominations had been settled once and for all.

As you know, for 200 and some-odd years, judges, judicial nominations were not routinely filibustered. In fact, the only time an appellate nominee faced a filibuster was in—under Lyndon Johnson. And if you go back and read the words of Democrats and Republicans who were discussing the filibuster, they were anguished-filled, because they felt it was the only way that they could cause Lyndon Johnson to rethink the nomination of a person who had received payments under the table from a foundation while in public service.

And, eventually, for those reasons, Johnson withdrew him, because it became an ethical concern.

SCARBOROUGH: So, what happens this summer? Obviously, you know as well as anybody—you can go back to Thomas in '91 -- Bork in '87. These summer appointments can be some of the dirtiest political battles that America sees.

ROVE: Well...

SCARBOROUGH: How is the president going to get a conservative through the United States Senate for the Supreme Court if he is having trouble getting John Bolton through?

ROVE: Well, first of all, look, John Bolton is going to be the United States ambassador to the United Nations. We will get either an up-or-down vote or he will be the ambassador one way...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: A recess—possible recess appointment?

ROVE: Well, I'm not going to—we have got plenty of options we're going to...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But that's one possibility that is open...

(CROSSTALK)

ROVE: The best way for the United States to effect reform at the United Nations is to send a straight-talker to the United Nations.

And if the Democrats think they are doing themselves some favor by blocking his nomination, they are kidding themselves.

SCARBOROUGH: They're just not going to succeed?

ROVE: They are not going to succeed.

And if there is a—we don't know if there will be a Supreme Court vacancy. But if there is, I am confident the president will nominate a qualified mainstream conservative, somebody who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. And I am also confident that, because of the ability and talent of that individual, that they will be approved by the United States Senate.

If the Democrats attempt to filibuster, they will suffer politically, like they did in '02 and '04.

What a fucking thug.

They don't want people to see them losing the war in Iraq or failing to quell terrorism. Instead the chickenhawk army is going to stage a summer pageant in which they will take the fight to the only enemy they have ever beaten (barely) --- Democrats.

But with a 40% approval rating and allies like the wild-eyed Dobson freakshow, it may not be as easy as they think. It could be that the big tough Republican bullies have worn out their welcome with the American people. We'll soon see.

I'd like to make one thing clear. I don't see this as doom for the Democrats. The public is wavering in their support for Bush and they aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt anymore. If the Dems stick together on this it is a very powerful message, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Remember, they believe that the perception of winning is more important than actually winning. That's how we get them. Deny them that perception.

Gotta keep the heat on the gang of 14.



.
digby 7/01/2005 04:32:00 PM |

 
Meltdown

I normally hate to predict things in too much detail because, you know, I can't actually tell the future. But, in the case of this Supreme Court fight I honestly think that Brad Plumer and Kevin and some of my commenters to the post below are on the wrong track. I doubt very seriously that Bush is gaming this in this way:

Some lunatic winger will get nominated — maybe even Jance Rogers Brown — the Democrats in the Senate will say, "Oh hell no" and launch a filibuster. So the battle will rage on for a while, Bush's "base" will get riled up and motivated to send in lots and lots of money, conservative judicial activists will blast their opponents with fairly superior firepower, and bobbing heads in the media will start carping on those "obstructionist" Democrats (bonus carping here if the nominee is a woman, minority, and/or Catholic).

Finally Bush will give a very somber speech about withdrawing his nominee, announce that he's very disappointed in the Senate, toss in a few bonus 9/11 references, and nominate some slightly-less-lunatic ultraconservative instead.

That's the Bork-Scalia scenario. And it worked out very well for the wingnuts, indeed. They've been feeding off the Bork defeat for years while they have the King of Opus Dei running amuck on the court. What's not to like?

But, let me ask you, when has Bush ever done a strategic retreat on anything? Homeland security is the only thing I can think of and I think that stemmed from a belated realization that they really would like to have some fat patronage jobs and a new entrenched "security" bureaucracy that tilted Republican by nature and temperament. It wasn't a plan.

Here is how this White House views itself:

President Bush subscribes to the momentum theory of politics: that success breeds success, and political capital accrues to the one who spends political capital.

That comes from this column by Dan Froomkin which examines that stunning article in which it is revealed that the National Security Council has hired an expert on public opinion during wartime. That expert, widely quoted in various places for the last couple of years, pretty much sums up what the White House believes about the war --- and I think what they believe about governing generally. You govern by giving people the impression that you are winning:

Yes, the very same White House that outwardly exudes contempt for polls has in fact recently hired a prominent academic pollster onto the National Security Council staff and has concluded that the key to public support for the war is not the number of casualties in Iraq, nor whether the war was right or wrong -- but whether people feel like we're going to win.

Being willing to stage a retreat --- particularly on something about which the base is rabid and out of control --- at a time when his popularity is sliding precipitously is not believable to me. I think they are desperate to show strength and get a big win that makes the Dems look weak. That is their theory of governance. The more you win the more people love you.

In their minds it's the public perception of losing on Bolton, social security, Schiavo and Iraq that is causing their problems, not Bolton, social security, Schiavo or Iraq themselves. I think they want a big fight and they expect a big win. And they want that win to "create political capital" with which to consolidate their majority.


Update: Jeffrey Dubner says the same thing:

But this president will not allow himself to appear to be defeated on something so important. He certainly won't set himself up for failure, as Brad predicts, even if such a failure is deemed to be a PR victory that results in an ultra-conservative justice anyway. Just not, as his father might say, gonna do it.

Correction: The Bork-Scalia analogy is entirely wrong. Scalia was confirmed before Bork. But he still is the King of Opus Dei running amuck --- and they'd like nothing more than to have a few more of him. Luckily, while he was confirmed 98-0, the Democrats have since wised up. The question is whether they have the will to "Bork" from the position of a minority party.




.
digby 7/01/2005 11:32:00 AM |

 
Nucular Summer

O'Connor Retires. I'm sure everyone realizes this, but the fact that it's O'Connor means that we are going to have a political bloodbath. If it had been Rehnquist, it would have been no harm no foul if Junior had placated his base with another wingnut. O'Connor is a swing vote, which means that the theocrats and the anti-environmentalists and the corporate whores have a chance to do some real damage. The base is slavering for a chance to overturn Roe vs Wade and Karl needs to give them something for all their trouble.

I would suggest that everyone get ready to bombard the "gang of fourteen" the minute that Bush announces his choice, who I have little doubt will be completely unacceptable. They want this fight. It's the essence of their play to the base strategy and it gets the news off Iraq.

There can be no compromise on this seat.

7 Republicans:

* John McCain
* Lindsey Graham
* John Warner
* Olympia Snowe
* Susan Collins
* Mike DeWine
* Lincoln Chafee


7 Democrats:

* Joe Lieberman
* Robert Byrd
* Ben Nelson
* Mary Landrieu
* Daniel Inouye
* Mark Pryor
* Ken Salazar

Oh, and perhaps today is a good day to recall that while Sandra day O'Connor will always be remembered as the first female Supreme Court Justice, her legacy was tarnished irreparably during election 2000:

[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to Newsweek. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.

Jeffrey Toobin reported this:

On . . . the day of the Supreme Court's first opinion on the election, O'Connor and her husband had attended a party for about thirty people at the home of a wealthy couple named Lee and Julie Folger. When the subject of the election controversy came up, Justice O'Connor was livid. "You just don't know what those Gore people have been doing," she said. "They went into a nursing home and registered people that they shouldn't have. It was outrageous." It was unclear where the justice had picked up this unproved accusation, which had circulated only in the more eccentric right-wing outlets, but O'Connor recounted the story with fervor.

She had to stay another four years just to save face after that, but now she's free to let Bush appoint her replacement, which was always her intention. That man owes her big time, both for his presidency and now the chance to shape the supreme court for a generation. Her tenure as the first female justice will very likely end with a replacement who will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. That's quite an achievement.

Still, despite her partisanship, she's been incoherent enough that she could be counted on to at least give some cases a 50/50 chance at a decent outcome. Another Scalia and we are entering a new dark age.

It's probable that Bush will be looking at replacing her with another woman. On the other hand, being Republicans, they will likely think that having one token female on the court is enough and use her "slot" for a more electorally friendly minority. In any case, I'll be very surprised if he chooses someone in the least bit acceptable to anyone but the James Dobbsians. The want to set loose the hounds of hell.



.
digby 7/01/2005 08:23:00 AM |

Thursday, June 30, 2005

 
Scariest Thing I've Read All Week

Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the changes would allow Mr. Negroponte to wield influence and seek information down to the level of each of the F.B.I.'s field offices, though she noted that the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, would remain responsible for ensuring that intelligence activities in the United States did not violate American law.

I feel so much safer now.




Via Daou Report and Corrente



.
digby 6/30/2005 12:55:00 PM |

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

 
Thug Life

It's bad enough that that hideous little creep Tom Davis (R-jackboot) drops a horsehead in major league baseball's bed saying that it shouldn't give the DC franchise to an investment group that includes George Soros. The real insult is that he does it so openly to tilt the field to the president's friend, fundraiser and former business partner in the Texas Rangers, Fred "count the Jews" Malek.

I know that it does no good to bring up Clinton rules and wonder what the allegedly responsible press would have made of such a thing if it had happened in 1993. We know that it would have been turned into a non-stop feeding frenzy with blond former prosecutors and strange looking Republican men with comb-overs dolefully wringing their hands night after night on Matthews as they bemoaned the corruption of mom, apple pie and Murika's pastime by Bill and his corrupt hillbilly friends.

But you would think that a Republican congressman (with the clout to haul all the MLB owners in front of his kangaroo steroid committee again and ream them out for another 8 hours) publicly strong-arming them with threats to lift their anti-trust exemption and clearly indicating that he'd prefer they picked a Nixon stooge and Bush pal, would cause a little ripple. The only place I've seen any speculation about this is in the WaPo sports section:

You can't help wondering what's behind the outrageous attack on Soros, who isn't even a major partner in the bid for the Nats. (Local entrepreneur Jon Ledecky is the real bidder.) Isn't it strange that rival bidder Fred Malek, the head of the Washington Baseball club, just happens to be a very big GOP fundraiser? And isn't it strange that, in a telephone interview, Davis went out of his way to praise Malek's bid? And isn't it strange that these attacks on Soros from Republicans came on the very day that Ledecky and his partners were being interviewed by MLB?

Forget Soros (although the irony is so thick you can slice it, considering the "jeweyness" of the whole thing.) Malek is the story. I know that the press thinks this Iraq thing and the whole Bush lying and incompetence thing is so, like, 2004. But can't they even get it up to complain about baseball being threatened by Republican thugs? Not even that?

Now that I think about it, I've long noticed that sportwriters are among the last real journalists around. Whenever politics and sports converge they are the first ones who get to the essence of the story. Costas was tough last night on Larry King. Olbermann is always good. Since the political writers love the horse race stories so much maybe the major dailies should just have them switch places with the sports staff. It could be the answer to everybody's problems.


Update: Jesse has more on Malek. And I see that TAPPED tilled this soil yesterday.


.
digby 6/29/2005 06:16:00 PM |

 
Requiem For Jeff Gerth

I thought it was rather strange that Michael Tomasky wrote a column justifiably skewering Ed Klein for his shoddy journalism and then threw in this bit toward the end:

The problem runs deeper even than Klein. Today, with the explosion of Web sites, all sorts of propagandists and provocateurs who aren't journalists can hide behind the label when it comes to First Amendment protection. Can they write anything they please about public figures, knowing that they can print lies as long as Sullivan is in force?

He explains himself today:

I didn’t mean to impugn the established liberal blogs, which I explained to Duncan Black when I ran into him just a few hours after seeing Markos. My list of bloggers to whom I was definitely not referring includes but is by no means limited to: Josh Marshall, Mark Schmitt, Matt (and all his cohorts, at Tapped of course and at TPMCafe), Markos, Duncan, Kevin Drum (and guests), Jerome Armstrong, Arianna Huffington et alia, Ezra Klein, &c &c &c.

My point, which I think remains valid, was that the blogosphere in general is a milieu that is somewhat more likely than the milieu of traditional journalism to produce reckless error.

I don't think that's possible. I've read a lot of garbage on-line, but none that had the kind of corporate backing and public relations push that Klein's book has gotten from a mainstream publisher --- and Klein's book, as Tomasky points out, is just filled with lies. And mainstream news organizations are giving him a national platform with which to spread them.

The only time that I'm aware of outright reckless error is from the rightwing blogosphere during the Rather scandal --- and mainstream journalism was just as bad and rewarded them for it.

The truth is that after watching the three ring circus known as the Whitewater scandals remain uncorrected even after all this time --- and reading pathetic explanations like this from top Washington reporter John Harris --- it's clear that mainstream news constantly commits reckless errors, on both the micro and macro level, and then rationalizes them with all the aplomb of a second grader caught with his hand in the cookie jar:

People tend to forget, for understandable reasons because the Lewinsky scandal was such a sensational affair, that 1997 was in its own way a very sullen, snippy, disagreeable year in the relationship between the White House and the press. Most news organizations -- the Washington Post included -- were devoting lots of resources, lots of coverage, to the campaign fund-raising scandal which grew out of the '96 campaign, and there were a lot of very tantalizing leads in those initial controversies. In the end they didn't seem to lead anyplace all that great. But there were tons of questions raised that certainly, to my mind, merited aggressive coverage.

The White House was unbelievably resentful -- they thought it was much ado about nothing, they thought that this was a scandal-obsessed press corps. Mike McCreary -- and he's a really great guy -- even before Lewinsky he was in a really pissy mood and I don't blame him for him for it, and I don't doubt that it was unpleasant and that his feelings of resentment were genuine, but he was snapping back at us, angry phone calls and whatnot. From the White House's vantage point the whole thing was not on the level, they thought this was standard political fund-raising that was undeniably a little sloppy but wasn't that big a deal, and we were trying to turn it into the next Watergate.

It was much ado about nothing. The fund-raising scandals didn't rise from the 96 campaign. They rose from the right wing noise machine like all the rest. And what he fails to mention is that this was after four long years of one David Bossie/American Spectator bullshit spoonfed psuedo-scandal after another.

In a cluttered office tucked away in one of the many red-brick office condominiums that ring Washington, D.C., David Bossie, source par excellence to journalists dredging the Whitewater swamp, handles one of the eighteen calls he says he gets each hour. This one is from Bruce Ingersoll, a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The discussion centers on bonds. "I have a whole file on bond transactions," Bossie tells Ingersoll. "I will get a report on what I find. I know you are trying to move quickly on this. You want to come out before they come out." A few minutes later Bossie says, "I don't know what I have to give you," but promises to spend the next couple of hours going through materials. "You're on deadline, I understand that." He then points Ingersoll in another direction. "Have you done anything on Beverly? [Presumably that is Beverly Bassett Schaffer, former Arkansas Securities Commissioner.] You guys ought to look into that. There will be lawsuits against the Rose law firm," he adds.

All that has been known since the above article was written for Columbia Journalism Review in 1994 and was fully explored by 1996, when Gene Lyons published the articles that became "Fools For Scandal" in Harper's magazine.

The press performed abominably throughout that period and all the way through the 2000 election, using the same methods of accepting Republican gossip and smears as the basis for their stories:

In the film we see RNC glee as AP accepts their oppo research on a Gore misstatement during the first debate . During their months of filming BBC producers also observed producers for NBC's Tim Russert among others calling to enquire if the team had any new material. This was apparently normal trading on both sides.

RNC researcher Griffin comments in the film: "It's an amazing thing when you have topline producers and reporters calling you and saying 'we trust you.... we need your stuff.'"

And it's not like it's exactly covered itself with glory since then. (Got WMD?)

Really, the blogopshere is the least of journalism's credibility problems. And while I'm sure that it's quite frightening to think of rogue character assassins running around the internet smearing people, it's very hard to see how they could be any worse than the mainstream press already is.



.
digby 6/29/2005 03:55:00 PM |

 
God Told Him

Kevin writes here about how the administration short-changed the VA budget and says:

It's one more piece of evidence that the Bushies really did expect a cakewalk in Iraq and didn't bother planning for additional casualties.

We have a witness who says that Bush absolutely didn't count on casualties. remember this?

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says he warned President Bush before U.S. troops invaded Iraq that the United States would sustain casualties but that Bush responded, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

White House and campaign advisers denied Bush made the comment, with adviser Karen Hughes saying, "I don't believe that happened. He must have misunderstood or misheard it."

[...]

Robertson, in an interview with CNN that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville, Tenn., before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.

"He was just sitting there, like, 'I'm on top of the world,' and I warned him about this war," Robertson said.

"I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.' 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' 'Well,' I said, 'it's the way it's going to be.' And so, it was messy. The Lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy."

The evidence suggest that Bush really did believe that there wouldn't be any casualties. But, of course, the evidence also suggests that Pat Robertson is a delusional head-case. So which religious conman was lying?



.
digby 6/29/2005 02:16:00 PM |

 
Sophisticated

Not wanting to risk remaining in Russia, Vakhitov went to stay with relatives in Tajikistan. Then events became even more fantastic. Vakhitov and his friends were taken hostage by militants from the Islamist “Uzbekistan” movement, and took them to Afghanistan. In Kabul, the hostages were accused of collaborating with the FSB. The tortures and interrogations began anew.

That was in the fall of 2001. Afghanistan was attacked by the Americans. The regime in the country was overturned, while the prison where Vakhitov was being held had its flag changed.

Vakhitov and his friends were waiting to be rescued from day to day. But the U.S. military instead acted exactly like their Russian counterparts. After September 11, they needed culprits. And all Muslims became suspects.

Especially valuable were Arabs. According to Vakhitov, they were bought in Afghanistan for $5,000 each and taken to Guantanamo.
"They sold everyone. Beggars off the street, the deaf, dumb, and blind. I had a 104-year-old man along with me. And once again, no court investigation," Vakhitov says. And that was how he ended up in Cuba at the Delta camp.

"In Russia the torture is primitive. They mostly just beat me. They would hang me up, and burn me with cigarettes. At Guantanamo, the torture was more sophisticated than in Russian prisons. Our special forces are way behind in that sense. There was more psychological pressure: you couldn’t be left alone for a minute. We fought to have the toilet covered with a blanket. We went on hunger strikes to protest against officers trampling on the Koran and throwing it in the toilet."

Gradually, Russians are beginning to use the experience of their Western colleagues. Vakhitov says that after the Americans handed him over to Russian prosecutors, he was blindfolded and kicked, then forced to kneel and told to "pray to Jesus Christ like a Christian." Vakhitov said that the Americans honestly admitted that because they have a democracy, they could not use all the possible methods to draw out confessions, but that their Russian colleagues would be able to get to work on him.

I know this will come as a shock, but it turns out that the Russians eventually concluded that he wasn't a terrorist after all:

After several months in a detention center, Vakhitov was found not guilty -- once again without any trial -- and released.

When I first started reading these stories from released Guantanamo prisoners I was skeptical. They sounded too strange, too bizarre, too freakishly sexual and sadistic. Then came Abu Ghraib and the pictures of forced masturbation. And it was revealed that female interrogators were smearing fake menstrual blood on prisoners and that interrogators were using fierce dogs to threaten naked men. And we know that prisoners were held in "stress positions" for many hours on end in sharply hot and cold temperatures.

It has been known for years now that many of the prisoners were sold to the US by Afghan warlords for $5,000 a piece. It is clear that three years after they were captured that none of the prisoners in Guantanamo have any intelligence to offer. And it is a proven fact that we imprisoned and roughly "interrogated" many people for years who were completely innocent.

It's interesting that this ex-prisoner says that the Americans are much more sophisticated in their methods. Perhaps this is true in comparison to the Russians, although that's quite a statement, if true. I wrote a post some months back in which I discussed these sophisticated techniques in some detail. Here are reports from prisoners who underwent them:

Many men were handcuffed or tied to a stool as a means of slow torture. The [detainee] sat in one position, day and night. Each time he would fall over, the guards would sit him upright. He was not allowed to sleep or rest. Exhaustion and pain take their toll. When the [detainee] agreed to cooperate with his captors and acquiesced to their demands, he would be removed. Here, I have pictured a guard named "Mouse," who liked to throw buckets of cold water on a man on cold winter nights.

You're always sitting either on the floor or on a stool or concrete block or something low. The interrogator is always behind a table that's covered with cloth of some kind, white or blue or something. And he sits above you and he's always looking down at you asking you questions and they want to know what the targets are for tomorrow, next week, next month. You don't know. You really don't know. But he doesn't -- he's going to have to have an answer of some kind. Now the back of the room comes the -- the torture. And he's a -- he's a big guy that knows what he's doing. And he starts locking your elbows up with ropes and tying your wrists together and bending you.

[...]

Some men were tied to their beds, sometimes for weeks at a time. Here, I have drawn a picture showing the handcuffs being worn in front, but the usual position was with the wrists handcuffed behind the back. A man would live this way day and night, without sleep or rest.

The guards come around the middle of the night just rattling the lock on your door. That's a terrifying thing because they may be taking you out for a torture session. You don't know.

"... obviously this is an emotional thing to me, was listening to the screams of other ... prisoners while they were being tortured. And being locked in a cell myself sometimes uh, in handcuffs or tied up and not able to do anything about it. And that's the way I've got to spend the night."

[...]

The ten months that I spent in the blacked out cell I went into panic. The only thing I could do was exercise. As long as I could move, I felt like I was going to -- well, it was so bad I would put a rag in my mouth and hold another one over it so I could scream. That seemed to help. It's not that I was scared, more scared than another other time or anything. It was happening to my nerves and my mind. And uh, I had to move or die. I'd wake up at two o'clock in the morning or midnight or three or whatever and I would jump up immediately and start running in place. Side straddle hops. Maybe four hours of sit ups. But I had to exercise. And of course I prayed a lot.

My original post has much more detail.

Of course, these are all quotes from American POW's who were held in North Vietnam.



"When word of torture and mistreatment began to slip out to the American press in the summer of 1969, our public-relations-minded captors began to treat us better. I'm certain we would have been a lot worse off if there had not been the Geneva Conventions around." John McCain



.
digby 6/29/2005 12:14:00 PM |

 
Fight Back

From Liberal Oasis:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune (which has kindly published a few pieces from LiberalOasis) offers an editorial page that, of all the nation’s major dailies, is arguably the most devoted to the truth and the least afraid of the Bush White House.

And it is under attack from the Right for just that reason.

Last week, the Strib not only ran an editorial defending Dick Durbin when Durbin lacked the courage to defend himself, it also ran a lengthy excerpt of Durbin’s speech so readers could examine his words in context and make up their own minds.

Since then, the right-wing Hugh Hewitt has launched a campaign encourage people to cancel their subscriptions to the Strib, in hopes of pressuring the paper to end its defense of real American values.

And Hewitt’s allies at the blog Powerline are trying to keep up the pressure by directly attacking the top editor.

These thuggish attempts to silence brave American voices must be countered.

The best way to do so is to show that speaking truth to power sells.

So if you live in Minnesota and don’t subscribe, now’s the time!

Click here to subscribe, and then email the publisher, Keith Moyer at kmoyer@startribune.com to let him know you’re subscribing because you support the paper’s editorial policy.

Even if you don’t live in Minnesota, you can subscribe and receive the paper via mail, or digitally on your computer.

The Strib is one of the very few unabashed big city liberal papers in the country. The idea of Unctuous High and the Highpockets boys intimidating them is somewhat laughable, but everybody has to answer to the man on some level. This is a paper worth supporting --- particularly since the geek squad are after them.


Update:

A couple of commenters tell me that cancelled subscriptions are unnerving the publisher and that some advertisers are suing because of what they say are false circulation numbers. I suspect that this last is thuggery on the part of the wingnut cabal that is coordinating this effort to get the editorial page director fired for his political beliefs.

I would suggest that people start looking around for some "advertisers" to sue all the conservative papers that inflate their advertising numbers. I'd start with the Washington Times. This is a very ugly genie that rightwingers should probably not want to let out of the bottle.



.
digby 6/29/2005 09:15:00 AM |

 
Inside Knowlege

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

"I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN.

I have heard this from others. I think it must be a wingnut e-mail talking point or something. I've been told more than once, as a conversation ender, that the government has the proof but they can't share it because it would endanger civilians. And it's used as evidence of Bush's selflessness that he won't provide the proof even though he has to take shit from liberals like me.

I kid you not.



.
digby 6/29/2005 08:38:00 AM |

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

 
Same Old Same Old

This makes Nixon sound like Cicero. The only news here is that he forgot to say "and then I had a choice to make: take the word of a madman, forget the lessons of September the 11th, or do what's necessary to defend this country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time," and "we will form a coalition of the willing and we WILL disarm Saddam Hussein." We've heard all the rest before. Ad nauseum.


I notice the props are having a hard time keeping their eyes open, though. Poor guys.


CNN UPDATE:

Is anybody watching Joe Biden saying that the president has leveled with the American people tonight (as opposed to Cheney and Rummy) and he hopes that it has bought him some time? Nice. Paula Zahn has been very skeptical of the speech, particularly all the 9/11 talk, but Joe very helpfully told her that Bush really did a pretty good job and that hopefully he'll now have the time to fix the problems in Iraq. He was actually more supportive than David Gergen who was personally "offended" by the evocation of 9/11 but made the political judgment that it would work.

Begala says he made progress on the question of credibility. But by the same token it was probably not so good to evoke 9/11 so much since it had nothing to do with Iraq. It's a good thing for Democrats to support our commander in chief, though. But we do have a few questions.

Democrats are so helpful to the president. They're still stinking traitors and all, but they are very nice people. They've managed to convince Blitzer and Zahn that their own reactions to the speech were too harsh.
digby 6/28/2005 05:12:00 PM |

 
Really?

This morning the research shop at the Republican National Committee sent out an email headlined "Democrats Still Wrong on Iraq."

Yeah. Find any of those WMD yet, flyboy?



.
digby 6/28/2005 03:14:00 PM |

 
Chickenhawkery

I think that Kevin is wrong on this:

I actually agree with the overall gist of Christopher Hitchens' latest column in Slate. He argues that it's absurd to think you've scored some kind of withering putdown of war supporters by pointing out that most of them (and their sons) haven't volunteered for duty. Since I support police, fire, and social welfare programs despite the fact that I'm not a police officer, a firefighter, or a social worker, I think he's right on this.

Joining up to fight a war you support is quite different from these other things. A war is a temporary emergency while police work and firefighting are ongoing necessities to deal with everyday occasions of individual misconduct or accident. If there was an earthquake in Kevin's neighborhood and they called for able bodied men and women to volunteer to help dig bodies out of the rubble, I suspect he'd be there.

But this war in Iraq, like Vietnam, presents an even more obvious illustration of why this is true. Any nation that wages a war of choice wholly for ideological and political reasons, particularly when it is opposed by large numbers of its own citizens, should require that those who share those ideological and political goals help with the physical fighting. In fact, they should lead the fighting. It is unfair in the extreme that stop loss orders and extended tours are being forced upon the "volunteer" army when those who support the war are unwilling to put themselves in physical danger. Self defense is one thing. Requiring others to die for your crusade is another.

This is a bad argument for the right and I hope they keep making it. There is something quite primal and instinctive about the old "put your money where your mouth is" logic of expecting people who support a war to be willing to lay down their lives to fight it. People get this one in their gut. It most certainly is a withering put-down and the the put-downees know it very well.

UPDATE: Max Blumenthal in The Nation

I chatted for a while with Collin Kelley, a senior at Washington State with a vague resemblance to the studly actor Orlando Bloom. Kelley told me he's "sick and tired of people saying our troops are dying in vain" and added, "This isn't an invasion of Iraq, it's a liberation--as David Horowitz said." When I asked him why he was staying on campus rather than fighting the good fight, he rubbed his shoulder and described a nagging football injury from high school. Plus, his parents didn't want him to go. "They're old hippies," Kelley said.

Munching on a chicken quesadilla at a table nearby was Edward Hauser, a senior at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas--a liberal school in a liberal town in the ultimate red state of Texas. "Austin is ninety square miles insulated from reality," Hauser said. When I broached the issue of Iraq, he replied, "I support our country. I support our troops." So why isn't he there?

"I know that I'm going to be better staying here and working to convince people why we're there [in Iraq]," Hauser explained, pausing in thought. "I'm a fighter, but with words."

At a table by the buffet was Justin Palmer, vice chairman of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, America's largest chapter of College Republicans. In 1984 the group gained prominence in conservative circles when its chairman, Ralph Reed, formed a political action committee credited with helping to re-elect Senator Jesse Helms. Palmer's future as a right-wing operative looked bright; he batted away my question about his decision to avoid fighting the war he supported with the closest thing I heard to a talking point all afternoon. "The country is like a body," Palmer explained, "and each part of the body has a different function. Certain people do certain things better than others." He said his "function" was planning a "Support Our Troops" day on campus this year in which students honored military recruiters from all four branches of the service.

Standing by Palmer's side and sipping a glass of rose wine, University of Georgia Republican member Kiera Ranke said she played her part as well. She and her sorority sisters sent care packages to troops in Iraq along with letters and pictures of themselves. "They wrote back and told us we boosted their morale," she said.

By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up."

And besides, being a College Republican is so much more fun than counterinsurgency warfare. Bray recounted the pride he and his buddies had felt walking through the center of campus last fall waving a giant American flag, wearing cowboy boots and hats with the letters B-U-S-H painted on their bare chests. "We're the big guys," he said. "We're the ones who stand up for what we believe in. The College Democrats just sit around talking about how much they hate Bush. We actually do shit."

I'm very impressed with their contribution, aren't you?


.
digby 6/28/2005 01:53:00 PM |

 
Silent Majority Redux

Rick Perlstein wrote me an e-mail and reminded me that it was just two weeks after the biggest peace march in American history that Dick Nixon gave his famous "Silent majority" speech on Vietnam --- November 3, 1969. He laid out his plan to "win" the war and successfully marginalized what was becoming a very mainstream anti-war movement. Perlstein thinks that the Bush people probably studied this speech very closely and I suspect he's right.

Read the whole thing, but here's the conclusion of the speech:

My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war.

--I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.

--Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary--a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom. I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way.

It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace--not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.

Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators. carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.

For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.

And now I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this Nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war.

I respect your idealism.

I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.

--I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam.

--But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world.

--And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.

I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.

If it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.

I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion

Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the Wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.

Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

And so tonight--to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans--I ask for your support.

I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.

The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.

Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.

Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.

Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated--the goal of a just and lasting peace.

As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.

I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.

Thank you and goodnight.

God knows it's not unfashionable these days to talk about patriotism and national destiny. And I'm sure we are going to hear a whole boatload of it tonight. But the point in tonight's speech is very likely the exact same point as Nixon's was --- to divide America clearly into two camps and push those who are wavering on the war to see withdrawal as shameful and detrimental to America's security. Perlstein points to the key phrase in this speech: "lose the war in Iraq --- bring the troops home."

That's what the Rove roll-out of the Move-on, "liberal" therapy bullshit is all about. They have to frame withdrawal as a bunch of hippies arguing for "losing" and they have to do it quickly.

According to Perlstein, at the time of the Moratorium, the war was becoming dramatically unpopular. Polls said that 57% of the public wanted withdrawal by a date certain. The march was not perceived as a fringe event --- it was huge and middle class and showed that the nation as a whole was turning against the war. And the media, for the first time,was not presenting this in a hostile manner. The anti-war movement had gone mainstream.

After the speech, things turned around dramatically for the Pres. Here's how Richard Reeves put it in "President Nixon: Alone in the White House":

"A quick national Gallup poll by phone indicates 77 percent approval of the President's's message. A few days later Gallup's overall approval for the President had climbed from 52 perent before the Moratorium to 68 percent. Congressional resoulutions exressing bipartisan suport for the President's position were signed by 400 of the House's 435 members and 58 of the 100 Senators.... 'The euphoria continues,' Haldeman wrote in his diaries... Nixon had his feet up among the telegrams, telling anyone who came in: 'We've got those liberal bastards on the run now!'"

There are three reasons why, in my opinion, the speech worked.

First, he spent about a third of it explaining how we got into Vietnam and showing how it wasn't really his war. This was terribly important because it made people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt early in his first term. There were many people who understood at that point that Vietnam was a quagmire but who truly wanted to see us able to pull it off without what seemed like an ignominious defeat. I remember plenty of people during that time who were willing to give Nixon a break. In 1969, the villian of the war was still LBJ.

Bush cannot do this. He cannot blame his predecesors, or the Democrats or even his allies for getting us into this. He strutted around that aircraft carrier with the words "Commander in Chief" emblazoned on his codpiece and he's stuck with it. Iraq is Bush's war.

Second, Nixon actually unveiled "Vietnamization" in this speech. It was a solution and people were desperate for a solution --- hence the bi-partisan love-fest. Unless Bush has something completely new in mind, he is likely stuck with re-hashing his Iraqification plans and sexing up the numbers to imply that the Iraqis are just minutes away from being able to take over. In this sense, Iraq is Vietnam on crystal meth. It took years to realize that Vietnamization wasn't working. We already know that Iraqification is a bust. He will get no mileage from that.

Third, there was a widespread distaste for the counter-culture movement as a whole. No matter how mainstream the anti-war movement became, its association in the minds of the "silent majority" with long hair and sexual liberation and racial violence and the rest, meant that it was easy for Nixon to conflate "losing" with "withdrawal" and have at least some people who were sympathetic to withdrawal think twice. I don't think those conditions are present today.

The zeitgeist in America is much less shocking than it was then. (At least in the fashion/pop culture sense.) There is no large visible liberal movement for radical social change, no frightening urban violence. Indeed, as I wrote earlier, I think most people would agree that the radical zeitgeist these days is with those who are holding Justice Sunday rallies and having revival meetings at bill signings. And the crazed street theater isn't Jerry Rubin style yippiedom --- it's the nutty extremists that camped out in front of Terry Schiavo's hospice. This isn't 1969.



But, they don't have anything else. And, lord knows, the fear of the enemy within has always worked very well for them in the past. It should be very interesting if they can turn a little known internet group like Move-On into the anti-war movement circa 1969. If they can roll out their tired red-baiting/liberal-baiting one more time in the face of a liberal movement that barely even has breath and make it stick, then I'll really have to believe that there is no stopping them. But I doubt that it will work.

The party of new ideas is reaching back to the days of Richard Nixon at the height of Vietnam for tactical advice. There's a whiff of desperation in the air.



.
digby 6/28/2005 11:19:00 AM |

 
Principle Failure

Josh Marshall writes that Democrats may be folding up their tent on Social Security in the false belief that it is won. Dear Gawd, I cannot believe that my party could actually be this dumb. Protecting social security is going to be a full time seige for as long as the Republicans are in power. In one way or another they are going to try to dismantle it. Unlike us, the Republicans commit for the long haul on these big ticket items. Even if Bush is seen as a big loser, they won't give up.

Which leads me to Josh's second point:

According to CNN, President Bush's worst numbers came on the issue of Social Security. He clocked in at 31% approval and 64% disapproval.

(I'd actually be curious to hear from pollsters out there what the lowest ratings for a president has ever been on any significant issue. I mean, how much lower than thirty percent does it go? With the possible exception of Nixon at the very end of Watergate, how often has a president been under, say, 25% on any issue of significance?)

With numbers like that, is there really any reason imaginable why any Democrat should feel even the slightest need to move even an inch toward accomodation with President Bush's agenda of phasing out Social Security? How unpopular would a president need to be before his unpopularity made it safe to follow the dictates of your own principles?

Do we know that the Democrats as a whole actually are operating out of principle on social security? After the debacle of the bankruptcy legislation, in which many Democrats truly seemed to think that Americans in financial crisis due to divorce, unemployement and health catastrophe needed to be taught a lesson in responsibility, I don't think we should take anything for granted. The Joe Klein wing of the party may very well believe that social security as we know it is obsolete and that we have to introduce "market forces" and "competition" into it or some such nonsense. And there may be more than a few who really believe that benefits have to be cut and that now is the time to do it.

In other words, I don't actually think that holding the line against social security privatization was a matter of principle for all the Democrats. I don't doubt that it was for most. But, I suspect that there are a few of the MNBA-Big Pharma Dems who really do think that social security should be "reformed" and that Bush has the best chance to do it. And there are more than a few who would like to be accepted as one of the boys on a really big ticket item like social security.

That's why we should stay engaged with everything we've got. There is every chance that a "gang of 14" will develop at some point to begin the dismantling. After all, you have CW experts like Joe Klein, who is perceived (and perceives himself) as a New Democrat, saying things like "in the Information Age, you don't deliver public services the same way you did in the Industrial Age. You don't rule out huge bureaucracies, what you do is give targeted cash payments," which makes no sense, of course, but distances you so nicely from all those icky liberals.

This is one of the ways in which GOP liberal baiting affects the discourse. It's aimed at "moderates" of both parties as a way of making them move away from liberal policies. We now have a large number of Democrats in the caucus who have spent their entire careers denying they are liberals and working feverishly to show that they are "different" than the rabble that forms the base of the Democratic party ---- unions, feminazis, uppity African Americans. Like their timorous forbears who capitulated to Joe Mccarthy, these Dems are the ones who cringe when Karl makes sweeping denunciations of "liberals" and who will sub-consciously try to find ways of re-establishing their "reasonable" bona fides.

We unreasonable liberals need to make sure that we push back just as hard. No compromises on social security. Not even one. If we don't I'll bet you money that there will be a rose garden ceremony with Bush smirking and Dems beaming and we will have been screwed one more time.



.
digby 6/28/2005 08:59:00 AM |

Sunday, June 26, 2005

 
Rogue State

It certainly is interesting that the Italian authorities have finally gotten fed up with America's illegal behavior and issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents accused of kidnapping terrorist suspects and rendering them to Egypt for "interrogation."

But we've done this with Guantanamo prisoners as well. I wrote about this last February in a long post about "how great we are." This story is from the New Yorker by Jane Meyer called "Outsourcing Torture":

Nadja Dizdarevic is a thirty-year-old mother of four who lives in Sarajevo. On October 21, 2001, her husband, Hadj Boudella, a Muslim of Algerian descent, and five other Algerians living in Bosnia were arrested after U.S. authorities tipped off the Bosnian government to an alleged plot by the group to blow up the American and British Embassies in Sarajevo. One of the suspects reportedly placed some seventy phone calls to the Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah in the days after September 11th. Boudella and his wife, however, maintain that neither he nor several of the other defendants knew the man who had allegedly contacted Zubaydah. And an investigation by the Bosnian government turned up no confirmation that the calls to Zubaydah were made at all, according to the men’s American lawyers, Rob Kirsch and Stephen Oleskey.

At the request of the U.S., the Bosnian government held all six men for three months, but was unable to substantiate any criminal charges against them. On January 17, 2002, the Bosnian Supreme Court ruled that they should be released. Instead, as the men left prison, they were handcuffed, forced to put on surgical masks with nose clips, covered in hoods, and herded into waiting unmarked cars by masked figures, some of whom appeared to be members of the Bosnian special forces. Boudella’s wife had come to the prison to meet her husband, and she recalled that she recognized him, despite the hood, because he was wearing a new suit that she had brought him the day before. “I will never forget that night,” she said. “It was snowing. I was screaming for someone to help.” A crowd gathered, and tried to block the convoy, but it sped off. The suspects were taken to a military airbase and kept in a freezing hangar for hours; one member of the group later claimed that he saw one of the abductors remove his Bosnian uniform, revealing that he was in fact American. The U.S. government has neither confirmed nor denied its role in the operation.

Six days after the abduction, Boudella’s wife received word that her husband and the other men had been sent to Guantánamo. One man in the group has alleged that two of his fingers were broken by U.S. soldiers. Little is publicly known about the welfare of the others.

Boudella’s wife said that she was astounded that her husband could be seized without charge or trial, at home during peacetime and after his own government had exonerated him. The term “enemy combatant” perplexed her. “He is an enemy of whom?” she asked. “In combat where?” She said that her view of America had changed. “I have not changed my opinion about its people, but unfortunately I have changed my opinion about its respect for human rights,” she said. “It is no longer the leader in the world. It has become the leader in the violation of human rights.”

In October, Boudella attempted to plead his innocence before the Pentagon’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The C.S.R.T. is the Pentagon’s answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, over the Bush Administration’s objections, that detainees in Guantánamo had a right to challenge their imprisonment. Boudella was not allowed to bring a lawyer to the proceeding. And the tribunal said that it was “unable to locate” a copy of the Bosnian Supreme Court’s verdict freeing him, which he had requested that it read. Transcripts show that Boudella stated, “I am against any terrorist acts,” and asked, “How could I be part of an organization that I strongly believe has harmed my people?” The tribunal rejected his plea, as it has rejected three hundred and eighty-seven of the three hundred and ninety-three pleas it has heard. Upon learning this, Boudella’s wife sent the following letter to her husband’s American lawyers:

Dear Friends, I am so shocked by this information that it seems as if my blood froze in my veins, I can’t breathe and I wish I was dead. I can’t believe these things can happen, that they can come and take your husband away, overnight and without reason, destroy your family, ruin your dreams after three years of fight. . . . Please, tell me, what can I still do for him? . . . Is this decision final, what are the legal remedies? Help me to understand because, as far as I know the law, this is insane, contrary to all possible laws and human rights. Please help me, I don’t want to lose him.

As I wrote back