Rosa Parks lies in state. Do they think we're idiots. We're not going to be fooled by Samuel Alito going to see Rosa Parks in state. It doesn't means he likes black people. We have his record. Where he was pro all-white juries and defended discrimination. It's a shame they have to stain her memory in such a vile manner, but they do have to run from their record on race.
In the last week or so, there's this alterna world where conservatives think Valerie Plame wasn't covert, despite the statement of fact and evidence in the indictment, Scooter Libby acted on his own and Karl Rove can still be effective.
Alito has taken some pretty ugly positions over the years. This may well turn into Bork II. The unpopular president picks a reactionary judge.
My favorite is that conservatives, faced with facts, like to say liberals are hate-filled people who want to kill babies and keep negroes on the plantation.
That would be compelling, except for one thing: they have no credibility.
For the sponsor of the Bell Curve to call a black man racist is like me calling Michael Moore fat. How that can be a credible argument is beyond me. It literally is like waving kryptonite at Batman. What is he supposed to do, run? Kryptonite has no effect on Batman. Maybe conservatives might one day realize it.
What they really fear is being called on their record on race. Once upon a time, the GOP welcomed black voters. That changed in 1972 with Kevin Phillips Southern Strategy. Now, Phillips has atoned and is persona non grata on the right, but the strategy is still alive. The problem with the current crop of black conservatives is that they are untrustworthy on basic issues of character. Which is to say that when they encounter racist behavior, they either deny it or defend it.
I mean, even online, you don't have to go far to find the racist underbelly of the right. There's the constant defense of the Bell Curve, Glenn Reynolds "Celebrate Diversity" shirt, The NRO's openly racist Katrina posts. Hell, Free Republic is less racist than that. They at least beat back the open racists. Odd, but you can see it. But when you have John Derbyshire say that blacks lack self-control and Jonah Goldberg was tickled at the idea of people drowning in the Superdome.
So when you state what is commonly accepted in black America, that the new black Republicans are an ineffectual minority who often disgrace themselves for personal gain, they act outraged.
Here's the deal: we're not stupid. We know what you think about black people and what policies you propose.
Another point: conservatives whine like children when you bounce them for being trolls. Despite the fact, among the few rightwing blog which has comments, any disagreement gets you bounced. Post a pro-Fitzgerald comment on Redstate.org and see what happens.
So they want to turn liberal tolerance and willingness to argue into a weakness. They want to run all over your site and troll and disrupt the flow of conversation, then whine when you ban them. Why? Because they expect you to remain passive while they destroy your site. You're a liberal, and that, to them, means you're a pussy. When you act to defend yourself, you're whining, you don't want to hear opposing opinions.
Bullshit. No one has a right to post on a blog. They are invited guests and no one needs a reason to boot any person at any time. The fact that they don't is a testiment to character. It's like a bar. When you act like an asshole, you get booted.
What they are most shocked by is liberals who defend themselves and don't curl up in a ball like they do. You're supposed to shrink away, accept their nonsense as valid.
But the reality is that most trolls can't hang without an amen choir. They need to have their idiotic ideas validiated. Now, there are some people who can argue effectively and defend themselves. But most can't and won't, so they slink off to the few sites on the right which allows for comments.
Liberals have to understand that conservatives don't want an honest debate in many cases. They just want to shut us up. They are astonished that we stand up for ourselves. Something most cannot do for themselves.
The White House announced today that it is elevating two members of Cheney’s staff who are named in the Scooter Libby indictment. The White House announced:
The Vice President today appointed David S. Addington of Virginia to be the chief of staff to the Vice President. The Vice President also appointed John P. Hannah of the District of Columbia as the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
Both Addington and Hannah are named in the indictment. Hannah was intimately involved in the strategy of leaking Plame’s identity. From the indictment:
13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line. Addington provided legal counsel to Libby in helping to divulge Plame’s identity.
18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip.
So much for a fresh start.
Wow, these people have no clue. This is the kind of thing which reeks of arrogance. What if one of these guys winds up indicted. They may think they know Fitzgerald's case, but they don't.
Glenn Reynolds squawks out an opinion on Alito:(we don't link to the right)
ABORTION AND SPOUSAL NOTIFICATION: As several people point out, that's going to be an issue with regard to Alito. I'm not sure what I think about this issue, but looking at the Pennsylvania statute I notice a lot of exceptions, one of which is this: "Her spouse is not the father of the child."
I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse -- even if he's not the father of the child -- would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn't want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn't force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response -- "he made his choice when he had sex without a condom" -- never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)
So where's the husband's procreational autonomy? Did he give it up by getting married? And, if he did, is it unthinkable that when they get married women might give some of their autonomy up, too?
The problem here is that you can say "my body, my choice" -- but when you say, "my body, my choice but our responsibility," well, it loses some of its punch.
So, I wonder what women think about this? (Ducking and hiding as brickbats are thrown at Reynolds)
CNN reports that "President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court." Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the ‘best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any…cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Well, Bush was stupid enough to listen to the right and picked some Scalia clone. Of course, then he has to reach out and get Democratic votes, which they shouldn't get. Getting the woefully incompetent and Bush lover Miers nominated was pure geinus. Now, he moves to the right with a guy who probably calls Attila the Hun a liberal.
Do they go with Patrica Owen or Edith Jones? No. Just another guy. The woman experiement is over. Now, back to the boys club.
Given that Rove has other problems, this should be the fight we all wanted. A long track record, against Roe v Wade, lots of unpopular stands.
This could be fun.
Remember one thing: the right thinks they have some kind of massive power, which they don't. Time they found that out.
Fall of a Vulcan How a very smart and very loyal aide to Dick Cheney got indicted for allegedly lying about his role in defending the war By MICHAEL DUFFY
But the part-time novelist and full-time infighter has met an unforgiving critic. If special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is right, Libby spun an intricate--and criminal--web of lies when he spoke to FBI agents and a grand jury last year investigating the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters in 2003. Although Libby maintained under oath that he first heard about Plame's identity from reporters and passed it on to others as mere gossip, Fitzgerald's indictment offers considerable evidence that it was the other way around--that Libby told two reporters, including TIME's Matthew Cooper, about Plame's work for the CIA, and that he lied to investigators about one of those conversations and confected a third out of whole cloth.
Although Fitzgerald has so far drawn a tight circle around Libby that may leave President George W. Bush's longtime alter ego, Karl Rove, bloodied but secure, the United States v. I. Lewis Libby has already reopened old wounds about why the U.S. went to war in the first place. In an unprecedented and awkward fashion, the case pits government officials against the reporters who cover them. And Fitzgerald's indictment sets the stage for either a trial next spring or a plea bargain that almost certainly would mean jail time for Libby. That possibility has already been discussed: a source close to the investigation told TIME that Fitzgerald and Libby's attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some "serious" jail time.
For anyone who has been trying to follow the bewildering saga of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson and his wife CIA officer Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald's indictment is a helpful road map. After months of confusion, the indictment provides the most concrete evidence yet of a war between the Veep's office and the CIA--a war about a war--and the lengths Libby and his colleagues were willing to go to squelch any criticism of the Administration's prewar behavior. Libby was a Vulcan,* one of the Bush team hard-liners, along with former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who helped the President cram for foreign policy debates during the 2000 campaign and who had argued for years that the U.S. should depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and bring democracy and stability to the Middle East.
What's more, the Vulcans played for keeps. The indictment alleges that Libby sought to find out all he could about an Administration critic named Joe Wilson, then leaked the identity of Wilson's wife to several reporters to undercut the validity of Wilson's criticism, and then lied about his actions in his grand jury testimony. If convicted, lawyers say, Libby could face up to five years in prison.
Now, why would Libby accept disbarment and years in jail, years which could push his family into penury when everyone else would walk? Rove go on making millions, Cheney pretending he doesn't know him.
Fitzgerald has a much stronger case than we've seen. He has shown exactly what little we need to see of his hand., which is almost nothing. People cheering that Rove hasn't been indicted and Spikey Isakoff running to believe that Fitzgerald told Bush's lawyer that he wasn't going to indict Rove are idiots.
Fitzgerald's case is so strong that :
A: he feels no need to get a new grand jury for his case and will use any sitting one in the District.
B: Refused to accept a plea by Libby and demanded at least 24 months jail time.
So people thinking Rove is out of the woods are kidding themselves. It could be a detail or two missing or a witness to flip or even someone still working in the White House gathering evidence for an indictment. If Hadley thought he could be indicted, there's a reason for that. This indictment was clearly designed to show Libby what was going to happen, and give him a chance to think about life with no money coming in, a humongous legal and jail time.
BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
........................
Patrick Fitzgerald's indictments are especially jarring because they also raise the dangerous specter of political hypocrisy: In the 2000 campaign, Bush ended every stump speech by placing his hand on an imaginary Bible and swearing to restore the honor and dignity of the Oval Office, "so help me God."
"There is still time to recover, but we are in a terrible mess," a senior GOP strategist closely allied with the White House admitted.
The damage to Bush could have been far worse, however, and he and his aides breathed massive sighs of relief when Fitzgerald did not announce an indictment against Karl Rove.
The effect of the loss of Rove to the weakened President could not be overstated. The 54-year-old strategist is the central nervous system of the Bush White House, as well as the driving force of the national Republican movement.
It's no coincidence that such political fiascoes as the sluggish federal response to Hurricane Katrina and the bungled Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers occurred while Rove was distracted by his own legal difficulties.
"The truth is, Karl is irreplaceable," a senior Bush adviser said. "We have seen what this administration looks like absent Karl these last weeks. The rest of the group is simply not up to the task."
Now Rove will lead a battered White House's attempt to rebuild from the carnage, but that's a daunting mission.
Was? It took a last minute intervention to hold off a Friday indictment.
Now the plan is to toss Libby under the bus and hope that works. Which is why Fitzgerald indicted him on a Friday. He could have done this midweek, but no, he did it in time for the Sunday chat shows.
So all weekend long, he gets to see David Brooks and John Cornyn, both with excellent connections to the White House, say it was a "one man operation" "not a cancer on the presidency"
Libby has to think about how loyal he's been and how quickly the GOP has turned on him. They so much as announced that he no longer counts on the Sunday chat shows.
So I bet that he'll be meeting with the special prosecutor this week, to consider if he wants to take the weight for this, and let everyone else skate, risking his home, his family, and a civil suit by the Wilsons. Yeah, with his weak assed bad memory defense, which Fitzgerald will demolish in open court, he's got few choices. If he has to turn into Sammy the Bull to save his ass, well, it's not like there's a Scooter Libby defense fund. The GOP has walked away from him, and Pat Fitzgerald is letting him think hard on that.
JUAN WILLIAMS: You can try to minimize it, but the fact that you have Scooter Libby, so involved in justifying going to war, and in the posture of trying to smear a critic of that justification. I think is pretty revealing and pretty damaging to the Bush White House. I think they’re going to have to rebuild a sense of trust with the American People. And that’s why when Brit asked this question, why did he have to lie, he felt the need to lie if he did lie, but by all indications he’s going to say I didn’t remember it quite the way this person remembered and all the like. That’s not very strong in my book, and I think Fitzgerald did a terrific job on Friday. But the reason he felt the need was to make it clear that he was not involved in what really was a conspiracy to defame Joe Wilson.
BRIT HUME: Juan, somebody needs to hose you down.
Good to know that Hume has so many thoughtful arguments at his disposal to defend the Bush White House
Wow, so which Southern general does Hume play in reenactments? John Bell Hood? Nathan Bedford Forrest?
I mean, what an obscene, offensive thing to say. Why not say "someone needs to sic a German Sheppard on you." "someone needs to whip some sense into you," "boy, don't you get uppity with me,"
How Williams didn't kill him is beyond me.
Someone asked me how he could take a paycheck from Fox. Well, it's part of the Beltway Kool Kids Klub routine. Everything is cool until the mask slips. Then Williams has to face Hume's either open racism or ignorant insensitivity.
It's not the big things anymore, no one makes you shit in a seperate, dirty toilet, or watches where you drink water. They insult you, ignore you, demean you. Now, Hume is very unlikely to say something like that to Mara Liasson.
Now, what would happen if Williams had said on air :"You know Brit, that's a really racist thing you just said"
Oh, the conservatives would accuse him of being a race baiter or "too sensitive" to shut him up. The thing is that once someone says racism, that;s suppose to silence you.
The fact that you were offended is to mean nothing. After all, shouldn't Williams be happy to have such a nice extra paycheck? Besides, Hume didn't mean any offense, right?
AUSTIN, Texas - Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.
"You can't say, 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do."
So when does his wife start opposing our colonial effort in Iraq?
No doubt your "Every Soldier's Battle" kits are helping us to win the war. God knows there's nothing meaner than a soldier whose cannon needs polishing--the enemy is most certainly feeling the effects of all that pent up frustration. That said, I think the kits could do even more.
Many of our troops continue to go into battle without the armor they need for protection. It's a sacrifice they willingly make to ensure that Our Leader's friends and supporters have the opportunity to spend their inheritances on plastic surgery and summer homes rather than taxes.
Although such sacrifice builds character, I don't think it's necessary. You could solve the armor problem by simply adding a roll of duct tape to each kit. The soldiers could then use the kits as a kind of makeshift armor by taping them to their bodies and humvees. It probably wouldn't actually stop bullets or shrapnel, but it might lessen their impact, and it would certainly absorb some of the shock of an explosion.
More importantly, you'll sell more kits. One kit is enough to keep a soldier from firing his little howitzer, but they'll need at least eight for body armor and a hundred to outfit a humvee. That and the extra ten bucks you can add to each kit by enclosing the tape and marketing them as field expedient armor will provide you with plenty of extra cash for plastic surgery and summer homes.
A Time To Regroup Bloodied by scandal, setbacks and casualties, Bush is looking for fresh troops and a new battle plan By NANCY GIBBS AND MIKE ALLEN
You have to wonder sometimes why Presidents even run for re-election, given how things usually turn out. Second terms have a way of veering into wild and menacing terrain, spiked with indictments and scandals and betrayal and grief. Some friends become less friendly because they know you are on your way to retirement while they are on their way to the next campaign. Your team gets tired, the ideas stale, and the fumes of power more toxic. It was through those badlands that President George W. Bush trudged last week, and for once he was walking alone. "The problem is that the President doesn't want to make changes," says a White House adviser who is not looking for a West Wing job, "but he's lost some of his confidence in the three people he listens to the most." Those three are his Vice President, Dick Cheney, whose top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, has been charged with brazenly obstructing the investigation into who leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame; Bush senior adviser Karl Rove, who while not indicted has still emerged as a player in the scandal; and chief of staff Andrew Card, who gets some of the blame for bungling the response to Hurricane Katrina and even more for the botched Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. "All relationships with the President, except for his relationship with Laura, have been damaged recently," the White House adviser says. The closest aide who is undamaged is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—who is off minding the rest of the world—and, of course, Bush himself. "The funny thing is everybody's failing now, in which case perhaps it's time to look at George Bush's relationship with George Bush."
Especially since, above all things, Bush values loyalty, both to his friends and to his own beliefs. He does not abandon either easily, so these next weeks pose an interesting dilemma. The thing about the wilderness is that if you stay there, you die. That's why the worst week of Bush's presidency actually brought with it a quiet sense of relief among some of his restless aides. "This has wakened them from their notion of infallibility," says a Bush adviser. Those who have been arguing for what would count in this White House as radical change—fresh faces, shiny plans, a wider exchange of ideas—felt that at last they had some leverage because Bush could no longer insist that everything was working just fine.
..................
But whether or not he's in trouble with the law, friends say, he's certainly in trouble with Bush. Rove will continue managing the intersection of politics and policy in the White House but will have to regain the unfettered powers he once held. "The President's relationship with Karl has been damaged over the scandal," a Bush friend says. A source close to Rove says when Bush asked Rove whether he was responsible for leaking Plame's CIA identity to columnist Robert Novak, Rove told him "absolutely not." While that may have been strictly true, Fitzgerald's indictment suggests that Rove did at least discuss Wilson's wife with Novak, as he did with TIME's Matthew Cooper. As for Cheney, who retained Libby as the scandal unfolded and did not follow the advice of some to move him out five months ago, his relationship with Bush has suffered "a strain, not a rupture," says a presidential adviser. That much was clear when the White House let it be known that Card had called Cheney to inform him of the choice of Miers. In earlier times, he would have been intimately involved in such a decision.
............................
History is certainly not on Bush's side. Since 1966, if a President's approval rating dipped below 50% at a midterm election, his party lost an average of 42 seats in the House—which next year would be enough to put the Democrats back in power. Still, optimists at the White House have reached the point that they are taking comfort from the example of Clinton, who came back strong after his party's shellacking in the 1994 elections and wound up popular despite his own, very different set of scandals. Next thing you know, Bush will be calling himself the Comeback Kid.
Bush's rigidity will work against him here. Bush doesn't like change and doesn't like to admit error. The problem is that Bush has so heavily relied on Rove and Cheney that on his own, well, it wouldn't be pretty.
Last episode, we saw the Bushes in conflict. Now, we see 43 defend himself
43: You were never there for me. Never.
Bar: George, that's not true.
43: You ALWAYS defend him. He has his whore working in the WHite House and you never said a word, I had to drive that bitch out. The no good son, the hatchman. You never let Jeb get his hands dirty, Jeb, with his mistresses, just like daddy, and that thieving Mexcan wife of his. He always got off light
41: Well, he never tried to punch me out.
43: Be careful old man and I might try it again.
41: You're too much of a pussy to try it.
43: Yeah
Bar: Shut up. Son, your father gave you every chance not to fuck up and he kept saving you, most men would have walked away from you like the bum you so desperately wanted to be. George, you spent more time running around and with your "friends" than with your son. You see why he resents yoi'
41: Yeah, you tried to turn him into a carbon copy of me and see how well it worked out. Look at him. He hasn't even shaven. Smell the booze on his breath? He's failed his entire life, no matter what we did, and now look at his punk friends. All jammed up with the cops and George is staring at them shocked that it happened. Well, son, you ran with those people and see where it landed you.,
Bar: Jim warned you about those people, how they always look out for themselves. You can't trust them.
41: Those neocons will ruin you, son
43: You're just mad because I did the things you couldn't, get rid of Saddam, win a second term.
41: Son, you're gonna go out like Nixon, drunk and bitter. Look at this. You think that Irish boy is gonna stop. He's gonna get Cheney, you know.
Bar: What did I tell you about that Rove, he isn't our kind of people. You can never trust him. At least Dick drank himself out of Yale. Now, I bet he's smirking, thinking you're gonna make this all go away. But you had to keep him on, keep that awful man on.
43: Stop it, mother, stop it. Why shouldn't I? I'm the President.
Bar: You're not the king, you silly git. No one will remember that turd Rove. They will always remember you. You're the President. You pardon them, they will always remember you as a crook and goddamn it, I will not have you tarnish this family's name for the sake of a few staffers. You WILL NOT DO THAT George.
43: But I'm the president
Bar: Let's stop with the formalities, George. You're a screw up and always have been. You're a drunk, have you seen a mirror? What are you, sleeping in your clothes? Now, Poppy will get a team together to save you, one more time, IF you can hold up, the first thing, we want someone reliable as Vice President, someone we can trust. Dick's heart is weak, he needs to escape the limelight. Your father thought we could rely on him, but we can't, not any longer. We think Colin would be a good choice, if not him then McCain. Someone who will help the party.
41: Fuck them. I don't need them
Bar: Son, that's the Jim Beam talking, shut it up. You need someone people can trust and Dick Cheney isn't it.
43: You're a cold blooded bitch, aren't you. You always have been
41: Watch your mouth son
Bar: You're goddamn right I am. Someone had to be. Your father thought with his pecker, someone had to be the man of the family.
43: I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do. You won't bully me like you did Poppy, you won't.
Bar: What? Are you gonna run to your mommies, cry on Condi's shoulder, run to Harry, call up Karen? I know all about your mommies George, and they can't help you, and that Xanax-popping Stepford Wife you married is as useful as tits on a bull. What is she going to do? Smoke another pack in her bathroom and wash it down with Bordeaux? All I will say about your children is that they disapoint me so, and that is your fault. I want you to understand something. Rove tricked you into office, but your day is done, you won't taint the family name for your bourbon-fueled ego. You will do what is right, George, or we will leave you to be disgraced and humiliated, what you've always feared.
For good or evil, George W. Bush will have to cross the Rubicon on judicial nominations, politicized indictments, Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the constant frenzy of the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party — and now march on his various adversaries as never before. He can choose either to be nicked and slowly bled to death in his second term, or to bare his fangs and like some cornered carnivore start slashing back.
Before Harriet Miers, conservatives pined for a Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, with a Justice Roberts and someone like a Janice Rogers Brown rounding out a battle-hardened and formidable new conservative triad. They relished the idea of a Scalia frying Joe Biden in a televised cross-examination or another articulate black female nominee once again embarrassing a shrill Barbara Boxer — all as relish to brilliantly crafted opinions scaling back the reach of activist judges. That was not quite to be.
But now, with the Mierss withdrawal, the president might as well go for broke to reclaim his base and redefine his second term as one of principle rather than triangulating politics. So he should call in top Republican senators and the point people of his base — never more needed than now — and get them to agree on the most brilliant, accomplished, and conservative jurist possible. He should then ram the nominee through, in a display to the American people of the principles at stake.
It is also time to step up lecturing both the American people and the Iraqis on exactly what we are doing in the Sunni Triangle. We have been sleepwalking through the greatest revolutionary movement in the history of the Middle East, as the U.S. military is quietly empowering the once-despised Kurds and Shiites — and along with them women and the other formerly dispossessed of Iraq. In short, the U.S. Marine Corps has done more for global freedom and social justice in two years than has every U.N. peacekeeping mission since the inception of that now-corrupt organization.
This is high-stakes — and idealistic — stuff. And the more we talk in such terms, the more the president can put the onus of cynical realism on the peace movement and the corrupt forces in the Middle East, who alike wish us to fail. Forget acrimony over weapons of mass destruction, platitudes about abstract democracy, and arguments over U.S. security strategies. Instead bluntly explain to the world how at this time and at this moment the U. S. is trying to bring equality and freedom to the unfree, in a manner rare in the history of civilization.
Yes, the Kurds and the Shiites need to compromise. The Sunnis must disavow terrorism. But above all, the American people need to be reminded there was no oil, no hegemony, no money, no Israel, and no profit involved in this effort, but something far greater and more lasting. And so it no accident that the Iraqis are the only people in the Arab world voting in free elections and dying as they fight in the war against terror
Hanson is an idiot who should stick to classics, which he teaches at some state college in California. His ideas about modern warfare and military policy would be comic if people didn't die behind them.
Meet Libby's Brain.
This idiot thinks people cares who runs Iraq. They don't. And they aren't sending their kids to help the process. How many of his family are serving there?
Yeah, right.
The problem is that Bush is a coward, always has been. He lets other people fight his battles
After the crazy to and fro of the last three days on the now-infamous Michael Steele post, I would have thought the issue closed after the Baltimore and Washington papers weighed in.
You know, even though we disagree, I thought you were a man.
I was wrong.
I mean, if you didn't like my illustration of Michael Steele, you could have e-mailed me (stevenewsblog@yahoo.com) or posted up. I wouldn't have agreed with you, but I would have respected you.
But you didn't. You ran to Andy "Bell Curve" Sullivan. My God man, have you no pride, no dignity. Not only did you need a white man to fight your battles, but a racist one at that. One who thinks blacks are intellectually inferior. People like you.
You didn't like when I said Deroy Murdock acted like a slave, but Robert, that was a move straight off the plantation: "massa, massa, that negro is getting uppity." When I didn't like what you said, I didn't go to Atrios to post up on it. You should have been man enough to confront me directly.
Steve, I don't know what you are talking about -- and I'm not sure you do either.
I did "confront you directly." I did post on my blog. Where the hell does this "running" to Sullivan come from? Why would I do anything other than post something myself? Check here for a fairly accurate timeline.
Better yet, read my first post (did you even bother? Clearly, you don't read my blog because you would know that, I don't "monitor your site" as I explicitly said here). I specifically said that a Maryland woman (Valerie) tipped me off about the "Sambo" post, the same morning you put it up. I wrote about it on my blog. And, you know what? It may be shocking, but I have a distribution list letting people know when my blog is updated. And, yes, Andrew Sullivan is on it. (As are a couple dozen other people, of varied political stripes. If it will make you feel better, I'll add your e-mail, so you won't be surprised about what I'm writing everyday.)
Sometimes people then read my latest updates and bloggers occasionally link to it. Go check: This is hardly the first time Andrew has noticed this blog. (I'm sure Tom DeLay must have thrown the same tantrum you did when Andrew noted my criticism of the GOP Congress' betrayal of the Contract With America.)
Others turned their focus on the future. "It is a huge problem for this administration and a huge embarrassment," Norman J. Ornstein, a politics expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the indictment. He pointed to the fact that the day's events had not ended the legal scrutiny of the president's political advisor. "It can't be good news that they are continuing on talks and investigations on Karl Rove. If this goes on for any length of time it just paralyzes the White House."
So if I were Dick Cheney, I wouldn't be sleeping very easy tonight. At the very best, his chief of staff was just popped for lying to protect him, and he can now look forward to being questioned in open court. Do you think Andrea Mitchell could spare some TV time from mewling over what a loss it will be not to have Scooter in the Hamptons during the summer season to discuss the serious implications of the Vice President's role in this highly dubious affair? Well probably not, but if there's a God in his heaven tonight the tightly-stretched skin of her face will soon snap and whiplash her into inactivity.
Do not make this mistake of thinking a presidential pardon will be a panacea for those involved. Fitzgerald's honorable and straightforward presentation today made it nigh impossible for the Rovians to fall back on their old tricks and launch a smear campaign -- Chris Matthews pretty near crowned him Pope this afternoon, and any attempt at a pardon will just make Bush look like an impeachment-worthy crook out to thwart the efforts of an honest public servant.
This administration's grand schemes always end up as the opposite. Officials say they're promoting national security when they're hurting it; they say they're squelching terrorists when they're breeding them; they say they're bringing stability to Iraq when the country's imploding. (The U.S. announced five more military deaths yesterday.)
And the most dangerous opposite of all: W. was listening to a surrogate father he shouldn't have been listening to, and not listening to his real father, who deserved to be listened to.
Joe....Wilson talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley, in his first interview since Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Sunday, Oct. 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"There have been specific threats [against Plame]. Beyond that I just can’t go," Wilson tells Bradley. Wilson says he and his wife have discussed security for her with "several agencies."
Former CIA colleagues say that by revealing her identity, harm could be caused to the CIA’s agents and operations. "If a CIA agent is exposed, then everyone coming in contact with that agent is exposed," says Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA agent who trained with Plame at the top-secret Virginia facility known as "the Farm." "There is a possibility that there were other agents that would use that same kind of a cover. So they may have been using Brewster Jennings just like her," said Marcinkowski, referring to the fictional firm the CIA set up as her cover that also came out when journalists, including Robert Novak, disclosed it.
Marcinkowski also points out, "[Plame] is the wife of an ambassador, for example. Now, since this happened…they’ll know there’s a possibility that the wife of a U.S. ambassador is a CIA agent."
WASHINGTON — Sometimes, a witness says he just can't remember. It may well be a convenient memory lapse, but it is hard to prove such forgetfulness is a crime.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, however, is accused of something far more elaborate. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald alleges that Libby made up a false story to deceive investigators and then told the lie under oath to the grand jury.
Telling a false story to a federal prosecutor who knows the facts is a sure ticket to an indictment, legal experts said Friday. And, they said, Fitzgerald appears to have built a strong case.
"That's unacceptable. You can't lie, make up conversations that didn't happen and expect you are not going to be charged with a crime," said George Washington University law professor Stephen A. Saltzburg.
.........................
Fitzgerald would have no case "without the journalist witnesses. We are in an interesting new world," said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. "Why would a guy as smart and as experienced as Libby go in and lie? One reason is he was still living in the world where journalists were not compelled to testify."
Glenn Greenwald Libby's Indictment does not depend upon the recollection of reporters
Foreshadowing what is sure to be a popular line of attack on Lewis Libby's indictment, right-wing bellweather Michael Ledeen, in National Review's Corner, announcesthat the Indictment "stinks," because, he claims, the Indictment rests on nothing more than mere discrepancies in recollections between Libby and the reporters with whom he spoke:
I finally concluded that (the Indictment) says that Libby lied to the grand jury (and elsewhere the FBI) when he testified that he told (Cooper, Miller or Russert) things that in fact he did not tell (Cooper, Miller or Russert).
If that is right, it means that this poor man may well have been indicted because his memory of those conversations differs from the journalists'. And Fitzgerald chose/wanted? to believe the journalists' memories. Pfui.
To this non-lawyer, that's not good enough to shake up the staff of the vice president of the United States. Isn't perjury a knowing lie?
Why should Fitzgerald assume, even if he thinks he KNOWS that the journalists' memories are all reliable, that Libby didn't misremember the conversations?
This entire claim is simply untrue. A central prong of the Indictment is that Libby lied to the Grand Jury and to the FBI not only about what he said to reporters, but also about when and how he first learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
According to the Indictment, Libby told the Grand Jury that he first heard of Plame's CIA employment during a July 10 telephone conversation with Tim Russert, and that he was "surprised" to learn of this during that conversation (see Paragraph 32(a)(ii)) (cited Indictment paragraphs are excerpted below).
That testimony is false, alleges the Indictment, because Libby had known about Plame CIA's employment well before he ever spoke with Russert. Indeed, the Indictment lists four (4) separate occasions prior to his conversation withRussert when Libby was informed that Plame worked for the CIA ((see Paragraph 33(a)(ii)), including his early June conversation with Vice President Cheney, his June 11 conversation with a "senior CIA officer," and his June 12 conversation with an Under Secretary of State.
The funny thing is that after five years of Bush, people are so cynical that they think he can just throw up a few lies and walk away. He can't, much less pardon anyone. All the conservative bleeting about the indictment is just that, bleeting. It isn't serious.
Reporters take notes, for one thing. A bad memory is going to make your stay in journalism short lived.
No, this is isn't Watergate, this is worse, because the criminality goes right to the WH. No henchmen acting on their own. It is likely this came from Cheney himself.
The Bush family is sitting in the White House family quarters
41 is standing, 43, sullen and silent while Barbara looks on
41: Son, you're in real trouble now
43: Whatever
41: No, son. You're in this up to your ass and I cannot fix it. I thought Dick would look out for you, but his ass is cooked as well.
43: I'll handle it.
41: Handle what? What are you going to handle? A prosecutor?
43: I'll pardon them
41: No you won't. You wanna be impeached like Clinton? People don't like you, George. You're mean and crude and this day has been coming for years.
I tried to warn you, sent Brent over, but no. You ran with that neocon crowd, wolfie, Ledeen the rest of them, and now where are they and where are you, in trouble. I told you this would happen. I told you from day one.
43: The hell with you. You have no balls old man. I do,. And you hate it. You hated it when I was a kid and you hate it now.
41: Son, I have bailed your ass out like a lifeboat. I was more of a man at 20 than you are today. Look at you, back on the bottle, alienating Laura, embarassing yourself. Little coward with your Potemkin meetings. Little gutless punk.
43: Go back to your whores. That's where you always were. Leave me alone, I'll solve this on my own.
FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.
Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.
A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.
The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.
In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.
I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.
It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.
So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.
Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.
It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.
Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, Just come back if you find wire fraud. If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.
That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.
And all night long, the right has been saying: It's one man, it's not the White House.
What? To call Libby Cheney's bitch would be to mistate the closeness of the relationship. Maybe to call him Cheney's left testicle might be more accurate.
Libby did Cheney's dirty work with glee.
Now, everyone is "breathing easier" and "glad" Rove isn't indicited.
Look, Fitzgerald is SO confident of his evidence that he will use ANY of the sitting grand juries to file his case.
Rove is being told to rat or face jail.
Libby is looking for a white shoe criminal lawyer, which could end up costing him $2m, to save his ass.
Keep in mind that Libby is a lawyer. In addition to being broke, he faces disbarment, which means he doesn't make any more money, ever. That is a vice on his balls which Fitzgerald is using like Joe Pesci in Casino. Libby has to be shitting himself, seeing how David Brooks wrote him off like a Thai hooker on a business trip. How the new spin is that it's "just one man".
I would bet that Pat told him this is how it would breakdown, how it would end up. The Friends of Scooter Libby would sink him as fast as they could.
"Scooter, they're gonna hang it all on you. Every word."
He was told that he would bear ALL the weight on this. Wurmser and the rest of his neo con buddies would let him hang. Leave his dick swinging in the breeze.
And he didn't believe him.
If you see Scooter Libby taking a plea deal, Dick Cheney's world is gonna collapse.
Rove is already trying to rat his way out. His job is to protect Bush, even if Cheney goes.
The Republicans are trying a Jedi Mind Trick, " this crime isn't important". Too bad it isn't going away. People dislike Bush as is.
Bush created FearAmerica, and now his people are guilty of betraying the CIA, which to people is a bad thing.
Pretty butterflies If anyone cares, it's been an interesting day. I've been interviewed all over Maryland for my comments on Michael Steele and I was asked a bunch of questions.
Two of which were amusing:
One: If you were white would you have done it?
My answer: I'm not white, I don't know.
Two: Do you think a white blogger would have done it.
My answer: I don't know, ask a white blogger.
Of course, I have spent the last day dealing with a WaPo lawyer.
Seems they had a problem with the whole thing.
First, the quote, which I just left as a link
Then the photo, which I had forgotten was from their site and not public domain. Usually, for the controversal stuff, we like public domain.
So that had to be replaced.
Did I minstrelize him again? No. I just put his face, using a public domain photo, over money. After all, he' s not a Republican for free. Besides, I don't have the time to deal with him with Fitzmas in full swing.
Next time, it's a lawn jockey, or maybe a shine boy. We have more than one act in us.:) But the Simple Sambo tag stays. After all, he earned it.
So if people wonder why the article has changed, well, it was not worth a fight with the Post on a minor issue when we have much, much bigger fish to fry. Now, some people might mistake this as regret. It is anything but. I was a bit sloppy and the Post, like anyone else can, asked that I respect their rights. Which is site policy. And their lawyer was civil and reasonable. Which is all I ask.
I won't shy away from a fight, as Michael Steele knows, but admitting error is what I learned as a Scout and serves me well. I should have been more careful, and they settled this without going to the mattresses. Unlike with the Chron, who lied about their concerns, the WaPo was up front. I made mistakes, they asked me to correct them and I did. Now, I could have gotten all huffy, but I wasn't right. And their lawyer was respectful.
Besides, my fight isn't with the Post.
It's with people like Michael Steele.
Two kinds of people responded to my post on Simple Sambo. One, white racists with mock concern who wanted to lecture me on race, which I could give a fuck about. In their world, black Democrats are on the plantation and people like Steele are heroes.
In their world treason is no big deal either.
Needless to say, their squeals come from the idea that a black man has opinions on who serves his interests.
The other is from black Marylanders, none of whom defended Steele and all of whom complimented me.
Why?
Because Michael Steele has 5 percent of the vote in Baltimore. Black Marylanders hold him in contempt. From what I understand, his blowing off of Ehrlich attending an all-white country club's function, was a major deal in the area.
Let me put it this way: I didn't say anything that most black residents of Maryland say openly about him. The difference is that I said it in a public way and people picked it up.
His spokesman said that this was a typical Democratic smear.
I called him a liar and said, more or less, that he knew that was untrue, I have no connection to Maryland, do not vote there, live there, or have any relationship with the Democratic Party of Maryland or any campaign in Maryland. He has no business blaming them for an independent person's private opinion. Also, that he knows his candidate has five percent of the black vote and is widely held in contempt by most black Marylanders and he might want to worry about that instead.
If it was me, I would have ignored it the minute I found out the person behind it was black. Because nothing else good would be said behind it. If I called him Simple Sambo in print, why would I not say that on the radio and remind people why I called him that. Which has to do with his cowardice and craven behavior. I stand behind my words. Otherwise, I'd work for the DLC.
Black political life is brutal. Ask Cory Booker or Barack Obama, and they're democrats. They were attacked as tools of the whites and sellouts and they're Dems. The GOP candidates are regarded as lower than whale shit.
Michael Steele, if he had any feeling, would have known immediately that this was from and could only be from a black person.
But we live in strange times. Black Republicans, who hold few political offices, have little black support and are widely and openly despised, have a public forum denied to most black pundits and writers.
If you wanted to gauge the real range of black political thought, the Millions More march was far more reflective of that reality. There is no more socially conservative figure in black America than Louis Farrakhan, yet his innate conservatism is misunderstood. When you have Al Sharpton and Farrakhan on the same stage, you have a political gulf a mile wide. What was surprising was not that, but Prof. Ron Walters. a moderate, sharing the stage with black nationalists. Yet, most of that was ignored.
It isn't that black people don't have political diversity, it is that the GOP panders to racists and expects blacks to go along with this. As I said. Jackie Robinson was a Republican. So was Sen. Edward Brooke from Massachusetts. They didn't leave the GOP, it left them. Up until 1960, memebership in both parties was nearly equal. Nixon got sizable black support and no one was called an Uncle Tom for considering voting for him.
When you have a black Republican on with a black Democrat, you are basically giving credence to 2 percent of the population versus 98 percent of the population. All day long, reporters were surprised that I made my comments, although the AP reporter was clued in to the open hostility that the GOP engenders among black people by his black editors.
Trust me, this is only news to white people.
I wish that Republicans would stop using that plantation metaphor. It is amazingly racist. And blacks who join this Republican Party are supporting policies which are harmful to the majority of Americans, but especially black people. Black Americans make rational, logical political decisions. It is a failure of the GOP that they cannot appeal to more African Americans. Not a failure for rejecting them.
Black Republicans are eager allies in the GOP's war on the unwhite. Well, it's time people fought back and exposed these frauds for what they are, self-serving opportunists who denigrate and harm black people for financial gain.
Go to page 5 of the indictment. Top of the page, item #9.
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.
Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.
I'll have more to say after some Sparking Cider and a sandwich. But let me say this, this kind of recklessness is unforgivable.
Seems Scooter is facing 30 years. I think he should be subject to rendition to the tender care of Islam Karimov A couple of hours in the pot should do him just fine. Or maybe some time at Gitmo with the dogs. Or maybe the tender mercies of the OGA at Abu Gharib.
This man unleashed a hellish form of abuse on many, many innocent people. Washing the undies of some Aryan Brotherhood bigwig is not nearly puinishment enough.
WASHINGTON -- Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case.
Karl Rove, President Bush's closest adviser, apparently escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a looming political problem for the White House.
The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators.
The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane's identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified.
Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.
So, now Rove's sweating off his balls. Five counts, baby. Five for Libby.
This could be much fun.
Time for the happy dance and some bubbly. With more to come.
We need to be as on point as thisdog is garishly colored
Big Media Matt gives us our talking points
CRIMINALIZING CONSERVATIVES. We're presumably about to witness a long series of accusations and counter-accusations of hypocrisy over the question of whether or not perjury is a serious crime. Jon Chait provides the handy talking points every good liberal will want to refer to:
It's certainly true that not even Karl Rove deserves to go to prison for accidental or inconsequential misstatements. But, if Rove didn't do anything illegal in the first place, then why would he obstruct justice or perjure himself in some substantive way? Clinton's motive for lying was perfectly clear: He wanted to avoid the personal and political embarrassment of confessing his perfectly legal affair with Monica Lewinsky. Indeed, a whole strand of Starr's investigation was set up in order to trap Clinton into lying under oath about his sex life. What motive would Bush's men have to lie except to thwart the prosecution?
The conservatives who crusaded for impeachment, on the other hand, don't want to equate Clinton's perjury with the potential perjury of Bush's aides. They want to argue that the two are very, very different things and that the contrast redounds to the benefit of this administration. Unfortunately for them, it's not immediately obvious why lying about sex is worse than lying about the exposure of a CIA operative. A battalion of conservative intellectuals have thrown themselves heroically into this logical breach...
Another Kristol editorial rages against prosecutors, including--but by no means limited to--Fitzgerald, who are "criminalizing conservatives." This charge may be insane, but--unlike the standard Republican claim that Democrats are "criminalizing politics"--at least it's not hypocritical. Whatever prosecutorial excesses Starr engaged in, "criminalizing conservatives" was not one of them.%2
I would e-mail you this, but since you monitor my site, I will just post it up.
Robert, Robert, Robert, why did you need Andy Sullivan of all people, to stick up for you?
You know, even though we disagree, I thought you were a man.
I was wrong.
I mean, if you didn't like my illustration of Michael Steele, you could have e-mailed me (stevenewsblog@yahoo.com) or posted up. I wouldn't have agreed with you, but I would have respected you.
But you didn't. You ran to Andy "Bell Curve" Sullivan. My God man, have you no pride, no dignity. Not only did you need a white man to fight your battles, but a racist one at that. One who thinks blacks are intellectually inferior. People like you.
You didn't like when I said Deroy Murdock acted like a slave, but Robert, that was a move straight off the plantation: "massa, massa, that negro is getting uppity." When I didn't like what you said, I didn't go to Atrios to post up on it. You should have been man enough to confront me directly.
Did you even mention that I was, oh, black, before he embarassed himself.
Now, I could use all manner of NY street language to describe your behavior, but I won't. No need to sink that low.
Do you really think a man who has promoted The Bell Curve, which is Mongrelization or Segregation with charts, can call me a racist and have it mean anything? Do you think his fans have any effect on my thinking? Of all the people on the planet, Andrew Sullivan is not likely to influence me with his opinions on my racial views, and in this case, race wasn't the factor, but moral courage. If you don't want to be called a Sambo, don't act like one.
What did you think you were doing? Trying to intimidate me? Shut me up? Flood my mailbox with outrage? What were you trying to accomplish?
Well, here's a message for you: if Andy Sullivan doesn't like what I say, that's the point of the exercise. Little Green Fucktards, Michelle "I slander American heroes" Malkin?
Good. I want them to read this site every day and say: I hate that nigger, I wish he'd go away. That, to me, is success. First, it was Instacracker, then Jonah "Chickenhawk" Goldberg, now Andy Sullivan. All I need is the Powerline assholes and my collection of Conservative bloggers who hate me would be complete. Well, they hate me for being black anyway, but now they would have a reason.
I am really saddened that you didn't think you could deal with me on your own. Worse, that you think Andy Sullivan is someone whom you can trust. I thought you had some dignity. I expect that crap from Jesse Lee Peterson and LaShawn Parker, I thought you had some integrity.
What was your goal. Robert? Were you going to expose me? Robert, I'm black, I don't care what white conservatives have to say. They already hate me for my skin color, forget my politics. They are dedicated to making black lives harder. 97-98 percent of black people know that. It's a shame you don't.
You know, I've gotten far more support than comdemnation, and you know where a lot of that support came from? Black people. It's a wonderful feeling to have the community appreciate your words. It is a shame that you may never know that feeling.
But I will give you a chance for redemption.
How about a debate? At a suitable college campus, sponsored by a black student group. We show up and debate this question: the relevance of the GOP to African Americans. I'm willing to defend my views, including my Steele photoshop. Are you willing to defend yours without Andy Sullivan holding your hand and pushing you on stage?
Instead of hiding behind a white man, face me directly and defend your politics. That would be a worthy act, but given your recent actions, it is a challenge you are unlikely to accept.
Everyone is chomping at the bit over a Rove indictment and missing the point.
Yes, everyone would like to see that turd get his comeuppance and be frogmarched out of the White House. It would make for great theater.
But after the emotional satisfaction, what we really have is a man protecting his boss. He would have smeared you if it was to protect Bush. He wasn't plotting to run Iraq, he didn't care who ran it unless it made Bush look good. Jail would suit him fine, but he's only a part of this.
Nailing Rove doesn't nail the neocons.
I. Lewis Libby, otoh, is more important. Far more.
This is not the election, this isn't about us winning, this is about national security, and while I know a lot of people want to hammer Bush through Rove, the stakes are much higher than that. Bush is well on his way to collapse, trial or no trial.
Why?
First, Libby was part of the neocon circle. He knew all of the key players, and thus, as his boss's factorum, he was representing Cheney directly. When people from Bolton's office got Plame's name, that's who it went to.
If there was any need to get Joe Wilson, that's where it came from, Rove came in afterwards. This whole thing started with Scooter Libby and his boss, not the Oval Office.
Can anyone honestly imagine Karl Rove plotting to get us to go to war in Iraq if Cheney didn't have the idea first?
Of course not.
Which is why Libby's bound to be indicted by Fitzgerald, if he has a case against anyone.
Second, if you eventually want to get to the forgeries and the lies which led us into war, the route lies through Dick Cheney and his man Scooter and not Rove and Bush. While Bush may have wanted war, he contracted the work out to Cheney, who then went to Libby, who was obssesed with the subject.
Remember, it was Cheney leaning on the CIA for positive words, it was the neocons like Wurmser and Flietz who challenged the CIA. People who worked for John Bolton. Is Karl Rove tied to these people? No. But Scooter Libby is and so is Dick Cheney.
Word is Rove was already offered a plea and rejected it. Why? To protect Bush. The only reason to offer a plea is to entice a flip.
The thing is that Libby has a lot more to lose than Rove, and an indictment may get him to flip on other people.
Why? Libby is a lawyer and a defense against a federal prosecutor could run him a million dollars or more. A conviction for perjury would get him disbarred. Anything turned up at trial about unethical behavior could get him disbarred.
In short, Libby could face jail and barnkuptcy, regardless of a verdict.
Rove, even if he did jail time, doesn't have those worries. His evil genius will always pay.
It would be nice to leave Rove hanging, as the Times suggests, and while passing him by would be emotionally unsatisfying, it's Libby and friends who are a mortal danger to the Republic.
It was the neocons who led this country into war, with their man Cheney at the helm. Bush was an eager client, but they were the sales team, And as long as they have power, this country is in danger.
ROME — In their decade-long investigation of the illicit antiquities trade, Italian authorities have amassed the strongest evidence to date that the most prized ancient Greek vase in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art was looted.
The Euphronios krater, described as one of the finest antiquities ever obtained by the Met, has been a source of controversy since the museum acquired it 33 years ago.
Italian authorities have long maintained that the vase was looted from a tomb north of Rome, but the Met has refused to return it, saying the Italians lack "irrefutable proof."
Italians prosecutors now believe they have it, according to previously undisclosed court records obtained by The Times.
The records include excerpts from the handwritten memoir of Robert E. Hecht Jr., the American dealer who sold the krater, a terracotta bowl, to the Met in 1972. At the time, he told museum officials that he had acquired it from a Lebanese man whose family purchased it well before a 1939 Italian law prohibited the unauthorized export of antiquities.
But in his memoir, seized during a raid of his Paris apartment in 2001, Hecht tells a very different story. Instead of buying the krater from a reputable dealer with a documented ownership history, he says he purchased it in 1971 from an Italian dealer, Giacomo Medici, who was convicted last year of trafficking in looted art.
Medici turned up one morning at Hecht's apartment in Rome and showed him a Polaroid photograph of a krater signed by Euphronios, a master vase painter of ancient Greece, the memoir says.
Within an hour, Hecht writes, the two men flew to Milan and caught a train north to Lugano, Switzerland, where Medici had the bowl in a safe-deposit box. Hecht says he offered Medici 1.5 million Swiss francs — about $380,000 at the time — for the krater on the spot, making a cash down payment of about $40,000. He then headed straight to Zurich, he writes, where he left the krater with a restorer before heading back to Rome to go on a family ski trip.
In this account, he makes no reference to documentation establishing that the object had been legally excavated and exported from Italy.
Thomas Hoving, who acquired the krater when he was the Met's director, said Thursday in an interview that Hecht's memoir is "a very important piece of evidence."
"It proves, as the final nail in the coffin, where it came from," Hoving said.
Hecht said Thursday that this version from his memoir involving Medici was a fiction. Medici, in a recent interview in Rome, also denied the account.
The Italians' new evidence about the krater's origins emerges at a time of heightened controversy over the ethics of antiquities acquisitions, with Italy, Greece and other source countries pressing claims for the return of rare items they say were illegally removed.
Hecht and Marion True, the J. Paul Getty Museum's former antiquities curator, are now facing trial in Rome for allegedly trafficking in looted art. Medici was convicted last year in the same case and is appealing a 10-year prison sentence. Italy is also demanding the return of 42 objects from the Getty
Let me say this: ANY indictment of ANY White House official is a major triumph. Rove, Libby, it still doesn't explain away what happened.
We have been guessing what Fitzgerald will do for weeks. I think he will indict someone, maybe a lot of someones, but none of us know.
But he's played this to the last minute and the last down. But I think the signs lean towards some indictment. If he wasn't, he would have been wrapping up by now, people wouldn't be on tenderhooks. It isn't a game, if you're gonna skate, the prosecutor is going to not leave you dangling, running up your legal costs. Talk of renting more space would be ludicrous. Steve Clemons heard this earlier and said it was denied. Richard Sale said they were getting more space. My belief is that the people were told to back down to Clemons.
The source of mine in the real estate brokerage arena has called to retract information shared with me that the Office of the Special Counsel was expanding into 1401 New York Avenue. He states that "he just got it wrong."
In addition, the second source -- in the building -- says that he had a miscommunication with someone about this.
This was a flop. I believe in telling what I hear -- on both sides -- whether TWN got it right or wrong.
And in this case it was wrong.
Having been a reporter, two people getting something wrong, specific info wrong, is questionable, especially if they are independent of each other. But Clemons had no choice but to retract. Also having covered Real Estate, I know brokers love to chatter. My guess is that the brokerage got a call and was told "retract your comments to Steve Clemons if you want the deal". Because such a move is a big deal in RE, normally the releases would be out. But if Fitzgerald wants to run a tight ship, he'd demand a retraction. Like the idea that it took two years to get a website online.
Could it be all hot air? Sure. But I don't think so.
And this White House has been especially unlucky this year. The worst thing, a limited indictment and ongoing investigation. The best, no indictments.
The papers are being fed different things by their sources, some say the investigation continues, some say it will end. I think we will all be surprised.
But keep this in mind ANY indictment on this is a disaster for Bush and then Libby will, if he can, be highly motivated to flip on who? Bolton? Cheney? Imagine the trial, WH official after official dragged up to the Prettyman building. Even if only the small fry, Wurmser, for instance, was charged, a whole bunch of WH folks would have to testify under oath.
But the one thing I think is most indicative of trouble for the WH is that they are not knocking down the idea of indictments. They're going along with this. Hell, it may all be an act, but it doesn't seem like it.
If I'm wrong, I'll schedule beating hours. :)
Keep one thing in mind: no matter what happens, we still have work to do. A trial will not take back America.
It is of course, a big news story, because of the following reasons:
1. Miers is the current White House Counsel - the President's close legal advisor. This means that she is one of Bush's closest confidantes. 2. Although an experienced lawyer (she once headed the Texas State Bar) she has never worked as a judge. 3. Most members of the Supreme Court work as Federal judges with the US Court of Appeals for many years before being appointed to the highest court. Some judges (including the retiring Sandra Day-O'Connor) get appointed without this experience, but it is rare. 4. She has worked closely with George W. Bush since 1995.
Now, let's combine the above facts with some present troubles in the U.S.:
1. The feeling that George Bush has selected political appointees to important government posts who do not have the required experience (eg Michael D. Brown, former head of FEMA, the man who has taken most of the blame over the Hurricane Katrina problems). 2. The recent history of many Christian conservatives (including my best mate Al Mohler) to become very angry about "activist judges". This group will no doubt want someone who is willing to take a conservative/originalist view of the US Constitution.
So this is probably what will happen.
* A media outcry that the President is again rewarding political allies with high positions in government - except this one is several steps too far
* An in-depth media analysis that focuses upon whether Miers actually has what it takes to be a member of the Supreme Court. Chances are that the analysis will be short and swift, determining that she is definitely NOT the right person for the job.
* An outpouring of support for Miers by members of the Christian right. Expect to see a blog of support from my best mate Al.
* Levels of reasonable doubt expressed by a number of conservative and moderate Republicans who have been unhappy with W. for a while. Expect John McCain to get angry.
* Dick Cheney will talk about how wonderful Harriet is and how she'd make a great addition to the court.
* An analysis of whether Bush's inner advisors have failed to communicate to their boss the serious political repercussions of such an announcement. Include in this a failure of many advisors to speak the truth and become "yes-men". This then turns the focus on whether Bush is actually competent to lead or not, since he created the insular bubble he now operates in.
* Polls that show an even lower level of support for W. in the light of this announcement.
* An eventual backing-down of W. and more articles about whether his presidency has gone "lame-duck". Despite backing-down, he does not apologise.
It is now 8.07am in New York as I write this (October 3).
Let's see if my predictions come true. You heard it here first!
A State Department phone call, not Vice President Cheney, revealed to I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, the identity of the CIA operative at the heart of the current CIA leak investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, according to former senior and serving U.S. intelligence officials.
An October 25 account in The New York Times, alleged that Libby first learned of the agent's real name weeks before her identity became public in 2003 during a June 12 conversation between Cheney and Libby.
According to the Times account, Cheney told Libby the covert name of the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. diplomat who had publicly alleged that the administration had mishandled of intelligence relating to Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
But several former and serving U.S. intelligence officials strongly disputed this. "That is simply not accurate," a very former senior CIA official told this repoter. "Libby's notes on this are misleading and inaccurate or both."
This source, supported by three others, alleged that it was a telephone call from the Department of State that first gave Libby the name of Plame.
The name of the caller? No one is sure. But these sources said that the call defintely came from the State Department office of John Bolton, then the arms control chief of the department.
These same sources alleged that two employees of Bolton, David Wurmser, a virullent pro-war hawk, first told Libby that Valerie Plame had sent Wilson to Niger to attempt to discredit the administration's line on Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
These same intelligence sources alleged that Wurmser, as Bolton's special assistant, got his knowledge of Plame's classified identity from a colleague in his office, Frederick Fleitz, a CIA officer detailed to Bolton's office from the agency who worked in the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINIPAC.)
"We do not know yet which of the two called," the former very senior intelligence official said.
"We are almost positive the outing of Plame came from State," said another former senior U.S. intelligence official. But he and others insisted that Fleitz had knowledge of Plame and her cover.
Wow. Someone flipped here. Because Flietz would be under the jail if he didn't.
Oh, and let me add, the bet between Jen and I continues until an up or down vote on Rove.
What I am outraged about is that his people didn't ask my side of the story first. They just reacted to a Sullivan e-mail campaign WITHOUT TALKING TO ME.
All they had to do was send an e-mail saying "Steve, we have a problem with the Steele picture, "
I've worked in campaigns, I know they would have pulled the ad, just to avoid controversy by association. WHICH I AGREE WITH. I don't want anyone to think I expected them to keep the ad up after the crap they got. I'm hardly that full of myself. I'm not going to censor myself, but they don't have to keep their ads on if it hurts them. Although that seems to be OK for Republicans.
But this is ridiculous. How many blogs will be attacked this way? No one pulls ads from the racist Malkin or LGF, hell Charles Johnson is forming Pajamas Media with people like David Corn. But we're supposed to be suppine when something comes up.
Look, I know I write things which sometimes make people squirm. And I certainly didn't expect any advertiser to endorse my words.
But what I do expect is to treated like an adult. And when adults have problems, they discuss them. Too many people, especially in politics, think all bloggers are 20-something kids ranting. I've been writing for 20 years, I know when I will give offense. A couple of days ago it was on homework.
If they had even given me the courtesy of an explaination, which they didn't, I would have explained why the ad was gone and that would be that.
It's not about the money, or the pull, but the utter lack of respect shown by the Kaine campaign. This site supports Democrats and liberals, which is why they bought the ad. My goal is not to harm campaigns. But I am not 20 years old. I am an adult and I would expect that the Kaine campaign would show me basic courtesy in explaining their actions. It was absolutely cowardly to handle it in such a way, and I think Mr. Rohrbach understands that now.
Now what do they have, thanks to Andrew Sullivan. Stories in both the WaPo and Baltimore Sun about this. Why? Well, after Michael Steele called me a racist I needed to defend my good name. I was going to not speak to the reporters, to not make this any worse. I think they got enough crap for one day. But because they backed away and Steele attacked me, as a tool of the Dems no less, a person who doesn't even campaign for candidates he likes, much less raise money, well it's silly, but I changed my mind. I think Lt. Gov. Steele will regret his intemperant comments, because I am going to be quoted on how he defended racists and why he has no support among black voters.
Campaigns need to contact blogs when there is a problem. My goal was not to give the Kaine campaign problems until they took the side of a racist and didn't care about mine. Support is a two-way street. When you treat your supporters as disposable, they can cause you problems as well.
Oh, and to all the Sullivan readers calling me a racist: ROTFLMAO.
I know you don't like black people to begin with, much less want to hear their opinions. Your mock outrage is amusing, following the lead of Andrew Sullivan. If he told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? You would probably call Steele a nigger under your breath if you could. Don't act like you care, because you don't. You know you aren't going to vote for him, the fate of all black Republican candidates. So save the outrage. I don't really care.
If you valued black people as humans, you would hardly read his site.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-465-4238 or at john@kaine2005.org.
John Rohrbach
Internet Director
Kaine for Governor
Feel free to call and ask him why they pulled the ad. Or e-mail.
john@kaine2005.org
They bought a full month's run and paid for it. How effective they thought it would be is beyond me. But the ads been up for a month, more or less of content.
Until today.
Now, they got a few mewling e-mails from people who take the racist Andrew Sullivan seriously, and now they want me to pull the ad. Fine.
The ad wasn't all that important to me, but the gutlessness of the Kaine campaign is.
First of all, depicting Michael Steele as a minstrel was neither accidental nor random. The specific reason is this: a couple of weeks ago, as I posted, Bob Erhlich was attending an event at an all-white country club. Steele was asked what he thought of that, being black and all. He said "it was no big deal".
What?
First of all, in a state as black as Maryland, Erhlich's actions were amazing in an of themselves. But Steele's attempt to brush it away was astounding. I mean, what kind of self-respecting black man would do that? I mean, that's just craven.
Hence the minstrel paint.
Now, I've done that before, but Bob George felt no need to run to his patron to tattle. But he did, and someone ran to the Kaine campaign and said "look at that racist picture" and of course, they buckled without calling me or contacting me to find out what was going on.
Robert George cannot stand on his own two feet and has been embarassed here, but I still like him, more or less. I don't think he's evil, he just has a yellow streak down his back a mile wide and a foot deep. If people flooded him with e-mails and got one of his ads pulled, well, he'd be crying. I'm a little pissed, but mostly at the lack of courage on both sides. We both know who's the better man. But then, we always did.
Now, of course, they are in the embarassing position of pulling an ad from an African-American who expressed his opinion, because of the complaints of a known racist. When outraged conservatives call me, unknowingly, a racist, I find that amusing. Or lecture me on race. Hell, they're the ones preventing a color-blind society and they want to pick on me?
Fine. It's humorous. The cabs still pass me by. I know exactly what it is like to be black in America. Forty years of it.
But they reacted like scared children, despite the hundreds of other opinions here. Drunk, mean Bush, fine. Telling the Yankess to fuck off, fine. Attacking homophobic blacks, great. But mocking a mediocre politican who runs on race, and is being abandoned by his own party as the WaPo illustrated yesterday-pull the ad.
And of course, they'll have to explain themselves at some point.
Michelle Malkin can slander Japanese-Americans and no one will pull her ads. Andy Sullivan can advocate whatever he wants, no one pulls his ads.
But Democrats, when receiving complaints, jump and run to pull ads to avoid offending anyone. Without asking. If they had asked, I would have been inclined to provide them cover. But not now. But there's something more pernicious than that. The assumption many people make is that I'm a white man. Now, people have done this in other cases, but in this case it's well, pretty fucking stupid.
What white progressive or liberal would feel free enough to make fun of a black man by putting him in blackface? No one. I can't imagine one doing so. Just the art alone would indicate I wasn't worried about being seen as racist, and hint, hint, I might be black.
But why do people assume I'm white? Because many people simply cannot imagine a black man blogging, much less expressing his opinions on a range of topics. It isn't what they are trained to think. Sports, ok, but politics, nope. It amuses me some days, but it does get other people in trouble
So now the Kaine campaign is in the silly position of responding to a racist while withdrawing support from an African-American. Which could have been avoided if they had talked before running scared.
If they had asked, they could have found out why I made such a brutal commentary on Steele's character and why I will do so again. When black Republicans act with dignity and stop running on race, there will be no need to depict them as minstrels and lackies. But as long as they act that way, that is how they will be depicted here. But what really and truly bothers me is not the ad pull. You play football, you wake up sore. But the responsiveness to the opposition.
The Kaine campaign has never been responsible for the content on this site. They just buy space. They have probably disagreed with my stands. But they respond to people who will not vote for them, want them to lose and uses anything to pressure them.
And in the end, hurts them more than if they blew it off. The campaign didn't need me to go after them, but I am, because they are cowards. They didn't even have the common courtesy to explain that they were getting e-mails.
I've already spoken to Rohrbach, well shouted at the poor bastard. You're free to join in.
My beef with them is the same I have with Sherrod Brown. Cowardice should not be rewarded.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - Harriet E. Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court this morning after her selection by President Bush led to criticism from both conservatives and liberals.
During meetings on Capitol Hill since her nomination, Harriet E. Miers failed to gain the support of key senators. Related Bush's Statement | Mier's Withdrawal Letter (pdf)
Go to Complete Coverage
In recent days, several prominent members of the Republican Party had begun to publicly question Ms. Miers's nomination, suggesting was not conservative enough on issues such as abortion. Others, including Democrats and Republicans, have questioned Ms. Miers's lack of judicial experience since her nomination was announced on Oct. 3.
Democratic senators had also sought White House documents from Ms. Miers, who is the White House counsel, that might have given clues to her judicial philosophy.
Concern among conservatives over her views on abortion and judicial philosophy heightened on Wednesday when The Washington Post reported that Ms. Miers, in a 1993 speech in Dallas, spoke approvingly about a trend toward "self-determination" in resolving debates about law and religion, including those involving abortion rights and religion in public schools and public places.
In a statement today, President Bush said he had "reluctantly" accepted her decision to withdraw.
First: let's give Harry Reid a round of applause.
This was his idea. Brilliant. And you say Dems are patsies.
We may not fully trust special operators, we may not fully appreciate the FBI, but Americans love spies. Even the most diehard leftist can pick up Alan Furst and be carried away to 1930's Paris or read about the cold war machinations of George Smiley and his battles against Karla and the Moscow Circus.
Matt Damon's career break came playing spy Jason Bourne. While few of us imagine sitting on a hillside, waiting for a parachute drop and working with local soldiers, we all would want to sit in a Monte Carlo casino playing baccarat and having beautiful, easy women hang on our arms. The image of the commando is someone who achieves a high standard of personal fitness, but in the end, is like us, except for the killing.
When you say Special Forces, you see hard men in isolated places doing difficult things. When you say spy, you see someone who lives by his wits.
The reason I compare the two is that there is some overlap. The CIA and SOCCOM work closely together, but only one is glamorous.
The reason I bring this is up is obvious.
The reason the GOP has been desperate to minimize Valerie Plame and her career is as simple as a trip to Blockbuster or Barnes and Noble.
In the American imagination, spies are heroes. From the suave Scotsman James Bond to the harried old school spies of John LeCarre, to the quick and sly spies of Len Deighton to the weary spies of Graham Greene, the spy is a hero in our imagination. He is the man at the end of the rope who lives.
How potent is the spy myth? Julia Child's work as a clerk in the OSS during WWII accorded her respect from people indifferent to the joys of French food. Just saying you were an OSS member was enough to gain respect from people across the political spectrum.
Our first national hero was Nathan Hale, a spy. Our greatest traitor was a spy, Benedict Arnold. Spies have been accorded the greatest honors and respect in our society. People like Harriet Tubman and Robert Smalls became national heroes for their espionage work in the Civil War.
Americans may have their issues with the CIA, but spies? They are the new cowboys, the American heroes of a dangerous world.
When it becomes clear that the Bush Administration really did betray spies, all hell will break loose. While most Americans have little idea of what espionage is, a grimy business of betrayal, blackmail and greed, they know that when they go to the movies, they've seen everyone from Brad Pitt to Michael Douglas play spies. They know James Bond is the modern Western hero, suave and deadly.
The battle to deny Plame's covert status is about far more than the law. They know Americans will not tolerate someone who betrays a spy, nothing is lower in our imaginations. Once they lose that battle, Bush is lost.
The last president who took a picture like this resigned in disgrace. Let's go for 2 for 2
Yeah, I smacked Syd Barrett around a little bit tonight, but he did ask an important question: why do you think the GOP will be crushed by this?
I didn't really give him a serious answer and I will.
Syd,
The reason I think this could be the end of the GOP is very simple: corruption from all corners. You have the Majority Leader of the House, the defacto speaker, the Majority Leader of the Senate and the White House all facing criminal investigation.
This is the kind of thing which will fracture the party. It becomes easier to jump ship when the ship is on fire. Bush is a miserable manager, and with Cheney under intense scrutiny and if half of what Fitzgerald is reported to be up to, not only is he not finished, but Cheney is clearly in his sights. What you have now is an unpopular, and I believe emotionally unstable president, who basically let Cheney make all of his key decisions, who relied on Rove daily, facing the loss of his support team.
What is the ripple effect of that? The President can no longer raise money for candidates, neither can DeLay and Frist isn't all that popular, any legal troubles will cripple him as well.
A lot of people have mistaken GOP luck and timing for permanent dominance. It isn't. With the President under siege, money restricted, the GOP members start thinking about personal survival. When the President can't boost your campaign, raising money gets all that much harder.
Part of the problem of dealing with Bush is that his loyalty is a one way street, People are loyal to him and he's loyal to himself. Which means there is no point in jumping on a grenade for him, when you can wind up like Katharine Harris, ignored and shoved aside.
The second problem is that Americans do not like corruption and like spies. Making Joe Wilson into a villian is going to be real hard. Especially if civil rights charges are included in the indictment. What that turns this story into is a case of abusive government. And Joe Wilson becomes the next Daniel Ellsberg. This is not the kind of thing the GOP needs to deal with.
The third problem is that power abhors a vacuum. You probably haven't noticed, but the House backbenchers have some wacky ideas, like keeping tax cuts and cutting Day Care. Normally the House leadership and WH could squash such raw idiocy, but they have their own problems. So what is going to happen is that the fundies will make their move, the moderates will jump in and the fiscal conservatives will stake their claim. Normally, we call this civil war.
But the real danger and the reason I said this could crush the GOP is this: if this goes to trial and conviction, on national security issues, it will completely obliterate the claim of the GOP to be strong on national defense. That has gotten them over the hump in more than one election. The fissures in the GOP have been there for some time, but now they're set to explode. You also have to consider that the fundies think they are far more powerful than they are.
If this goes all the way, the GOP could effectively splinter, with various factions running in primaries and refusing to support the winners, then talk of a new right, even Christian, party. And if that happens, the GOP could not only not retain power, but all hope of them maintaining a majority is almost impossible.
Consider this: the DLC is not at risk of forming their own party and having their leaders storm off. In the end, they will support candidates or become irrelevant. They can't march off with their "followers". Dobson can. There is a real risk of the fundies, faced with Bush's corruption, of storming off and forming a new team, leaving a rump GOP.
We are entering a unique period in our history, one I don't think has been seen too many times in the West, which is the entire leadership of the government charged with serious corruption. Is it is a prediction? No, but it is possible. There are other alternatives, but don't mistake this as just another political crisis. This is the kind of crisis which changes countries. Alice Marshall likes to compare this to the fall of Galteri in Argentina in 1982. But this isn't Watergate, where the GOP eventually turned on Nixon. In this case, the GOP officials may have to turn on their leaders to save their jobs and that kind of thing is always messy.
It may not happen, I may well be wrong, but then, I might be right.
What has been harder to discern is what the opposition Democrats would actually do to remedy the situation that may well confront them if their party comes back to power in the 2008 election. The other day, the thinking branch of the opposition -- centered these days in the Democratic Leadership Council and its allied organizations -- offered at least the start of a response.
.............................
This message was spelled out by Maya MacGuineas, a panelist from the New America Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As one who has worked with Republican moderates as often as with Democrats, she was particularly insistent that Democrats must ante up for any bipartisan solutions to become possible.
Specifically, the Democrats who have profited politically this year (as in the past) by opposing any change in Social Security must, she said, recognize the necessity of reforming the country's retirement system before it becomes an impossible economic burden on working-age Americans.
MacGuineas urged the Democrats to begin examining ideas she and others have put forward that would not simply reduce future benefits or postpone the age at which retirees could claim them but would instead adapt the whole social insurance concept of the 1930s to the realities of a new millennium.
Her concepts include mandated programs of individual savings for the predictable expenses of child-rearing, education and retirement; social insurance for the costs of catastrophic but unforeseeable medical bills; and some guarantee of safety-net income for people who, through no fault of their own, lose jobs or retirement benefits because of broad economic changes.
These are big concepts, the start -- but only the start -- of a different kind of economic debate from the one the country was offered in last year's campaign.
But one thought emerged clearly from the panel: The big question is not how to pay for cleaning up from Hurricane Katrina. The real challenge is how to repair the fiscal damage Bush has left in his wake.
MacGuineas is a Vichyite fool. Why the fuck would Democrats endorse plans widely rejected as unpopular? No, personal savings plans don't work if you have a crappy job.
Why would the Dems offer a plan before they hold power to enact it?
We don't need any bipartisan solutions. We need a Democratic House and Senate and offering to screw people over on social security is not going to win any votes.
Bush made this mess, let him clean it up as best he can.
Sheryl Swoopes, the three-time Most Valuable Player of the W.N.B.A., disclosed today that she is gay, an announcement that she described as lifting a burden from her, and one encouraged by an endorsement she received from a cruise line that caters to lesbians.
Swoopes, 34, a forward for the Houston Comets, was one of the original marquee players in the Women's National Basketball Association and the first woman to have a Nike shoe named for her. She is the first high-profile African-American basketball player to come out as gay.
"My purpose for doing it has nothing to do with throwing it in anybody's face," Swoopes said in a telephone interview. "I'm not trying not to make a big deal of it.
"I was at a point in my life where I am just tired of having to pretend to be somebody I am not. I was basically living a lie. For the last seven, eight years, I was basically waiting to exhale."
Saying she felt empowered by expressing her sexuality, Swoopes, who is divorced from the father of her 8-year-old son, Jordan, also admitted to a vulnerability that is not consistent with her image on the court. She said she had struggled with debt, which forced her to file for bankruptcy in 2004 because she had mismanaged her money.
Swoopes's announcement coincided with her contract with Olivia Cruises and Resorts, worth about six figures, the company's chief executive, Amy J. Errett, said. What effect it may have on the league's corporate sponsors remains to be seen.
"Hopefully, this will not have a negative effect on the W.N.B.A.," Swoopes said. "Me coming out does not change what the W.N.B.A. stands for as a basketball league. I don't think there's any secret that the huge support we get comes from the gay and lesbian community. It's unfortunate that people, and those not only in W.N.B.A., are not able to feel like they can be who they are. They lose endorsements; they lose friends and family."
Two points: one, for a famous black woman, much less an athlete, to come out is an act of heroism most people can barely imagine, much less comprehend. If you're looking for a hero, she's one. There is the risk of personal and financial punishment and her finally making the decision to be an out lesbian is something to be commended, especially with the climate of open homophobia here.
Two: David Stern has tried to suppress the lesbian side of the WNBA for years. They are deathly afraid that the league will be linked to lesbianism and not draw support. This certainly puts a crimp in their plans.
Michael Bloomberg is likely to be re-elected on a platform of having been the “education mayor.” Educators almost unanimously feel that he has fallen off that platform, and students have been run over by “reforms” that are reforms in name only.
From top down, starting with Chancellor Klein, the Mayor has relied almost exclusively on non-educators to set policy about matters in which they have no expertise, but impose with raw and unmonitored power. They have abolished curriculum and replaced it with a single, mandated teaching style and methodology that has been discredited and despised by almost all educators, except those whose careers tend to prosper and wallets fatten by its advocacy.
The public has a stake in the demoralization of the entire public school professional staff citywide. Some people see educators’ universal loathing for Chancellor Klein as nothing more than spoiled unionists griping because someone is finally standing up to them and showing them who’s boss.
It is bad enough to show contempt for teachers in every way imaginable, plus more that nobody ever dreamed possible. But worse yet is the devastating damage being done to a whole generation of children, whose alleged educational gains under Bloomberg and Klein are fraudulently manufactured by their corrupt consultants and press agents.
The reign of Chancellor Klein, under union and sanity-busting Mayor Bloomberg, has formed many unholy alliances, among the most spectacular of which is Columbia University Teachers College. In the past, its admirers hailed TC as the high temple of progressivism. Throughout the twentieth century, with only minor exceptions for deviant professors who strayed from the party line, Teachers College could reliably be counted on to instill generations of new teachers and administrators with pure progressivist doctrine. In recent years, those who entered its hallowed halls were greeted by a bronzed head of John Dewey, the patron saint of Teachers College. Given its devotion to progressivist principle. Teachers College became home to critics of standardized testing and standardized instruction.
With the advent of the Bloomberg/Klein era of education reform, Teachers College has abandoned almost all of its progressivist principles in exchange for power over the school system's instructional program and millions of dollars in grants and contracts.
Consider this:
* Instead of fighting against standardized teaching, TC has become the purveyor of a standardized program based on the Lucy Calkins "workshop model."
* Instead of defending teacher professionalism and teacher autonomy, TC is spearheading the campaign to compel every teacher to adopt the Calkins model.
* Instead of fighting standardized testing, TC now helps to install "test prep" courses in classes across the city, to get the all-important scores up in time for the election season.
* Instead of publicizing the education research showing that the Mayor's efforts to end social promotion will lead to higher dropout rates, TC now defends the new strict policy of failing kids who fall behind.
* Instead of defending public education from the Chancellor's program of privatization and dismantlement, TC defends whatever the Chancellor announces.
* Instead of asserting its institutional independence, TC has subserviently joined the publicity machine of the Bloomberg/Klein changes.
* Instead of providing independent analysis of the city's literally incredible test score gains, Teachers College remains silent.
When given a choice between principle and power, even the high temple of progressivism cannot resist temptation.
Teachers College, though it has been paid to help set the tone, is not wholly to blame for some of the bizarre and unprecedented antics of the current Department of Education. In the last hour since I started this essay for the New York Resident, I got two phone calls from bewildered teachers.
One is a thirty-four year master teacher in Region 3 who was formally censured by the principal because he was sitting at his desk taking attendance during a ninety-minute class session. Teachers are under orders to be circulating around the room every minute. This teacher has for decades spent 6 hours after school for no extra pay, every day, communicating with parents, planning lessons and processing papers.
The second received a letter in his file reprimanding him for asking why it is required to use a stopwatch issued by the DOE to time precisely the mandated length of each lesson
Mayor Bloomberg is no more the “education mayor” than China is a “people’s republic.” The schools are suffering from a reign of terror and our children have been made into caged birds that can neither fly nor sing.
I know this is Fitzmas Eve, but this story is incredible.
OK, I know I haven't written much on either the NYC Mayor's race or the NJ Governor's race, but this is incredible.
Matt Stoller, who's on Corzine's campaign staff, sent this around, and while I don't normally run campaign stuff this whole thing is incredible. Doug Forrester, the GOP candidate for governor is attacking a paralyzed young man.
The New Jersey Governor's race is coming to a close. With a healthy lead, Jon Corzine has released a new television spot which, if you live in or around New Jersey, you know is flooding the airwaves. It's incredibly impressive and should help put Doug Forrester away. This is a fact Forrester seems keenly aware of, which I'll get back to in a minute.
The ad, 'Carl,' is quite honestly devastating. If you've ever watched a Republican ad in awe and wondered why can't we make ads like that?, here's your answer. The ad features Carl Riccio, a young quadriplegic man talking about the hope of embryonic stem cell research, which Corzine supports and Forrester does not. He's the only speaker in the ad. Here's the transcript:
Almost three years ago now, I was in a wrestling match for my high school. I went to do a move and I was paralyzed from the neck down -- a quadriplegic.
Right now, the most hopeful thing for spinal cord injuries is embryonic stem cell research.
Doug Forrester doesn't support embryonic stem cell research. Therefore, I don't think he supports people like me and doctors who say a cure is coming.
Jon Corzine supports embryonic stem cell research. I think he's the best candidate for our Governor.
I've watched this ad a number of times now and it still hits me in the gut each and every time. Doug Forrester is running a campaign making false promises about tax cuts. It's total garbage. Never does Forrester talk about using the collective power of the people embodied in government to make people's lives better. That's what Corzine's campaign is about. That's what responsible progressive governance is all about. Sure, I want our guy to win this race. But this race and every race is about more than winning for our side. It's about making the world a better place. I know that sounds so corny, but if this ad can shake me out of the day to day back and forth of a political campaign, I can only imagine the impact it will have on others.
Forrester's response has been to attack Carl. No, I'm not kidding. This is what Forrester had to say about Carl on the public New Jersey Network. "My position is not known by this young man and I wouldn't expect necessarily that he would know this; he has been used for political purposes." Without even getting into Forrester's Robo-Nixon linguistic style, this is ridiculous. Carl Riccio, an adult, endorsed Jon Corzine. Forrester responds by saying that Carl doesn't know what he's talking about. In response, Carl put out a public statement slamming Forrester and reiterating his support for Corzine.
It has been brought to my attention, that Doug Forrester, has made comments to the effect, that I have been taken advantage of by me expressing myself supporting Senator Corzine, and specifically supporting his stance on embryonic stem cell research. I am releasing this statement to clear up any misunderstanding. I am completely aware that when I came out in support of Senator Corzine and his stance on embryonic stem cell research I would automatically be involved in controversy. That is the nature of politics, and sadly, the search for a cure for dozens of diseases and conditions with embryonic stem cell research is a political issue.
I have never met, therefore I do not know Doug Forrester. I am sure he is a good man, but he does not support the public funding of embryonic stem cell research, which at this time still gives us the best hope of a cure for central nervous system diseases and spinal cord injuries. Public funding will make the research move faster, therefore finding cures sooner.
A person in my condition is very aware of every thing that is going on throughout the world that can possibly cure spinal cord injuries. Just like most people who are afflicted by a disease such as diabetes, cancer etc. We become well read on our particular medical problem. It would be hard pressed for any lay person to know more about spinal cord injuries, and what is going on in the world as far as research goes, for a cure, then me.
A few months ago Doug Forrester's office called my mother to ask her if she was interested in meeting with Doug Forrester's campaign to discuss Stem cell research. She said she would be happy to and if Forrester's office would name the place and time she would be there. My mother never heard back. I can assure you I am well aware of Mr. Forrester's stance on stem cells as well as embryonic stem cell research.
With all that I have just said I hope it is clear that not only was I not taken advantage of by being in the commercial supporting embryonic stem cell research, and Senator Corzine's campaign for Governor, but that my presence and words were well thought out and understood.
I hope when Carl is cured he can give a more thorough, in person response to Forrester.
Just fucking incredible. If you live in the NY-Philly area, you've seen this ad and it is just brutal.
An hour ago I was contacted by a U.S. government official close to the Fitzgerald case. This person told me that there WILL be indictments announced later this afternoon, and the Special Prosecutor will hold a press conference tomorrow.
Richard Sale
OK, if you look at the Steele post, you'll see a lot of silly comments. Do a bunch of squishy liberals and wingnuts think I care if they call me a racist? Yeah, right. I wonder how many of them challenge people in real life.
They are a warmup for what is to come.
When the indictments come down, and people realize the kind of nuclear level shit Bushco is in, anything we write or say will be pounced on.
I mean, people are going to be scared shitless, because if Fitzgerald is right, this is the collapse of the GOP as a modern political party. The whole nest of charges, basically revolving around the kind of petty political revenge Rove mastered in Texas.
So we better expect things to be as ugly as possible with the GOP in high desperate stupid mode.
Why?
Because it's time to save the republic. The GOP, under Bush, have driven us into a ditch. A bad, murderous ditch and it's time we get out of it before we drown.
It's not that the GOP had some master plan to ruin America, but that they were more wedded to their ideas rather than common sense. You think Andy Sullivan accusing ANYONE of racism is delusional, well wait until what they say about Pat Fitzgerald, the working class kid who put himself through Amherst and Harvard Law. That he has a vendetta, he's wrong, it doesn't matter.
The GOP was certain that they had the answers, that the Dens had ruined this country, and that they would save it.
Which is why they could destroy Brewster-Jennings without a thought. The fact that they made the world more dangerous with their reckless actions will not penetrate the Dobsonites and the hard core rightists. They, the fools, will go down with Bush to the end.
The rest of the GOP will, like Arlen Spector when talking to Harriet Miers, finally realize that Bush is mediocre, dangerously so. But they will debate forever dumping him into the Harding bin of bad presidents.
Helen Thomas was precient in calling Bush the "worst president ever". It might have been seen as overblown at the time. but we're headed into James Buchanan territory here.
We all make jokes about jail and Fitzmas Day, but this isn't funny. We may not have voted for Bush, we may not like him, but our collective security depends on his effectiveness and the effectiveness of his staff. But from 9/11 to Katrina, we have been failed. Failed to the point that this nation's security may have been crippled in any number of ways. Brave, resourceful CIA officers we ask to do our dirty work in parts of the world we would never want to be in, may have died over this.
The CIA may not be our friends, but it should be clear that they also don't join the GOP when they get hired. I think it's clear that Plame was a liberal democrat, by her political donations alone. Yet, she went to Central Asia and risked her life for this country, all of us, even though some of us do not trust or like the CIA.
I tend to blame the CIA's bosses more than the agency, but I think, we on the left, better realize something: national security needs to work. If the CIA doesn't work, or abuses people, we need politicians who will do their jobs and reign them in. But I think we need an effective CIA, protected by law and custom. I've smelled when intelligence failed. Jen swept it out of her aparment. I saw the consequences in a newspaper for over a year. They buried the last firefighter a few months ago. So I know all I need to know about intelligence. When it doesn't work, people die. They die at thew WTC, they die in Iraq and they die in backrooms when they are carelessly betrayed.
So while I joke and mock the Bushies, I am genuinely outraged by this, their carelessness, their pettines, their cowardice. They have endangered us all for petty political revenge and didn't even bother to resign. There shouldn't have to be a drawn out trial here, but that is what they want.
Fitzgerald is no hero. He is doing his job, as he has done before. He can only remove the worst parts. No trial can repair the damage done. That is up to us and the political process. We have to fix what happened, all of us, Democrats and Republicans. If they refuse to do so, if they choose to remain blind, then we will do it on our own.
But make no mistake, we are about to enter rough times here, brutal times and we must be ready to meet them.
Seems Andrew" Bell Curve" Sullivan is calling me a racist.
So we sent a note:
Andrew,
I think YOU calling ME a racist is one of the most amusing things possible.
Still telling people what an act of genius the Bell Curve is? I mean, Bob George, who obviously needs white people to fight his battles for him, should have informed you that I'm , oh, black.
I mean, you think cross burner Charles Murray has something to say about race. So who are you to call anyone a racist. You seem to like white racists just fine, in fact you are a white racist, so of course you're comfortable with your friends.
Therefore, calling me a racist for exposing Michael Steele for what he is, ranks right up there with you lecturing people on morals and looking for bareback sex online.
I mean, Andrew, your open disdain for black people, well not naked black people is hardly a secret.
By Richard Sale, long-time Intelligence Correspondent
Two top White House aides are expected to be indicted today on various charges related to the probe of CIA operative Valerie Plame whose classified identity was publicly breached in retaliation after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy enriched unranium from Niger, acording to federal law enforcement and senior U.S. intelligence officials.
................... Others are to be named as well, these source said. According to U.S. officials close to the case an bill of indiictment has been in existence before October 17 which named five people. Various names have surfaced such a National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, yet only one source would confirm that Hadley was on the list. Hadley could not be reached for comment.
But letters from Fitzgerald, notifying various White House officiials that they are targets of the invstigation, went out late last week, a former senior U.S. intelligence official said.
Although most press accounts emphasized that Fitzgerald was likely to concentrate on attempts by Libby Rove and others to cover-up wrongdoing by means of perjury before the grand jury, lying to federal officials, conspiring to obstruct justice, etc. But federal law enforcement officials told this reporter that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant.
The civil rights charge is said to include "the conspiracy was committed using U.S. government offices, buildings, personnel and funds," one federal law enforcement official said.
Other charges could include possible violations of U.S. espionage laws, including the mishandling of U.S. classified information, these sources said.
That Vice President Cheney is at the center of the controversy comes is no surprise. Last Friday, Fitzgerald investigators were talking to Cheney's attorneys, and detailied questionaires, designed to pin down in meticulous sequence what Cheney knew, when he knew it, and what he told his aides,, were delivered to the White House on Monday, these sources said.
.......................
The probe is far from being at an end. According to this reporter's sources, Fitzgerald approached the judge in charge of the case and asked that a new grand jury be empaneled. The old grand jury, which has been sitting for two years, will expire on October 28.
...............the Special Prosecutor is now in possession of an Italian parliament nvestigationi into the forged Niger documents alleging Iraq's interest in purchasing Niger uranium, sources said.
They said that Fitzgerald is looking into such individuals as former CIA agent, Duane Claridge, military consultant to the Iraqi National Congress, Gen. Wayne Downing, another military consultant for INC, and Francis Brooke, head of INC's Washingfton office in an effort to determine if they played any role in the forgeriese or their dissiemination. Also Included in this group is long-time neoconservative Michael Ledeen, these federal sources said.
Ledeen? Oh happy day. They could get the whole neocon lot.
The most important charge, if Fitzgerald brings it, is the civil rights charge concerning Joe Wilson.
10/25/2005 By Priya Sridhar, Times Record Contributor
BRUNSWICK — On Dec. 1, Alex Cornell du Houx, a 21-year-old Bowdoin College senior from Solon will head to Iraq for approximately 10 months as part of the Alpha 1st Company Battalion of the Marines.
Instead of staying up late to finish off college papers and cram for finals, Cornell du Houx will use his training and experience as a 0351 Assault Man to shoot rockets, deal with demolitions and work the Javelin Missile System.
"I am not nervous whatsoever. We are well trained and we're ready to go," Cornell du Houx said about the news of his unit's impending deployment to Iraq.
......................
While Cornell du Houx has actively rallied against many of President Bush's policies, he feels that his involvement in the Marines is not a conflict of interest.
"Regardless of my opinions regarding the war in Iraq, it is my duty as a U.S. Marine to serve and I am ready and willing to do my job to its fullest extent," he said.
Others on campus, particularly his political opponents in the Bowdoin College Republicans, feel differently about his service. Daniel Schuberth, a leader of the Bowdoin College Republicans and College Republican national secretary, said, "I applaud Mr. Houx for his service, just as I applaud any other soldier who is brave enough to take up arms in defense of his country. I find it troubling, however, that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx's rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation."
Let me get this right, some fat piece of shit is criticizing a Marine who is doing his sworn duty despite opposing the war? I don't see this motherfucker running around Parris Island with a DI in his grill. I didn't see him take a Combat Arms MOS.
He doesn't get to question this young man's patriotism. He should be emulating him and joining the Marines and going to Iraq. Not casting aspersions towards someone people should be proud to know.
Our little Yellow Elephant has been taught well that words equal character. And, of course, they do not. Character equals character. Standing by your friends and doing what you disagree with, a concept alien to our little chickenshit, because you gave your word, is the highest testiment of character.
Maybe one day someone will teach our little nimrod that patriotism isn't blindly supporting a politician.
But this is Bush's America. Real patriots, those who place themselves in harm's way for their beliefs are scorned, while those who talk a good game are considered heroic. We see it in little turds like this, and we're about to see it in the White House.
The mansionization battle rustling the leaves of North Barrington Avenue is something new even for Brentwood.
It's a dispute not over a 12,000-square-foot neo-Tudor monster or a towering modernist cube, but over a backyard treehouse for an 18-month-old girl.
This being Brentwood, of course, the edifice at issue is no ordinary treehouse.
When Les Firestein, a television producer, and his wife, Gwyn Lurie, a screenwriter, wanted to do something really special for their daughter, Sydney, they enlisted their friend Roderick Wolgamott Romero.
Romero is a renowned builder of elaborate treehouses for such celebrities as Sting and Donna Karan. His work can be found in the "fantasy gift" section of this year's Neiman Marcus holiday catalog. Beginning price: $50,000.
In the backyard of the Firestein-Lurie home, which sits on a tree-studded half-acre north of Sunset Boulevard, Romero and his buddies built a roughly 10-foot-by-10-foot structure of reclaimed wood, salvaged windows and vintage stained glass from Buenos Aires that would quicken the heart of any fun-loving child or parent. The treehouse includes a viewing deck bordered by a railing crafted from tree branches from the backyard.
In return, Romero asked for a week's worth of lodging and all the Baja Fresh meals he could eat. With his tattooed arms and braided, knee-length hair swept up under a tweed cap, Romero and his pals worked for days, even in the rain.
Richard Fleming, the couple's next-door neighbor and a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, was not amused.
He feared that children could perch in this aerie and look in on him and his wife in their backyard pool and hot tub. He suspected, also, that city codes had been violated.
Enter the city of Los Angeles. As the treehouse neared completion last Thursday, city inspector Thomas Sze arrived on the Firestein-Lurie doorstep, responding, he told them, to an anonymous complaint.
"Oh, that's big," Lurie said he told them after looking at the treehouse and the much larger platform on which it rested. Sze also expressed concern about the structure's safety. On Friday, he delivered a written order that all work be halted.
"We're requiring plans and permits if [they] want to continue," Dave Keim, the city's chief of code enforcement, said in an interview Tuesday. "We'll work with them to try to legalize this…. It's not going to be easy."
The city does not require permits for nonhabitable structures less than 8 feet square, but Keim said the treehouse exceeds that size and therefore requires city permission. Firestein and Lurie can appeal whether a permit is required.
Wow. Whatever happened to talking to one's neighbors like adults
By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page B09
(Seems the WaPo thought my content and their content was confused)
I will recap though:
Seems Bob Ehrlichs people are leaving him to hang himself. Hit the link for the gory details.
Ehrlich's people are already abandoning Simple Sambo.
And if he thinks he can win Baltimore and the DC suburbs, he's on crack. Black people will not only not vote for him, but regard him with contempt. When he said it was no big deal that Ehrlich held an event in a restricted country club, he showed himself to be Simple Sambo, untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, his bossman's people look like they're gonna let him sink, not swim.
When your boss's money people are laughing at you in print, well, Simple Sambo has a long way to go.
Wait? The 2 percent poll wasn't an outlier like so many people said? Wow. It would really suck to be facing a DC jury and working for the White House, wouldn't it?
I get the feeling the grand jury would have charged them with unicorn theft if they could.
After W. was elected, he sometimes gave visitors a tour of the love alcove off the Oval Office where Bill trysted with Monica - the notorious spot where his predecessor had dishonored the White House.
At least it was only a little pantry - and a little panting.
If W. wants to show people now where the White House has been dishonored in far more astounding and deadly ways, he'll have to haul them around every nook and cranny of his vice president's office, then go across the river for a walk of shame through the Rummy empire at the Pentagon.
The shocking thing about the trellis of revelations showing Dick Cheney, the self-styled Mr. Strong America, as the central figure in dark conspiracies to juice up a case for war and demonize those who tried to tell the public the truth is how unshocking it all is.
It's exactly what we thought was going on, but we never thought we'd actually hear the lurid details: Cheney and Rummy, the two old compadres from the Nixon and Ford days, in a cabal running the country and the world into the ground, driven by their poisonous obsession with Iraq, while Junior is out of the loop, playing in the gym or on his mountain bike.
Mr. Cheney has been so well protected by his Praetorian guard all these years that it's been hard for the public to see his dastardly deeds and petty schemes. But now, because of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and candid talk from Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Wilkerson, he's been flushed out as the heart of darkness: all sulfurous strands lead back to the man W. aptly nicknamed Vice.
So, I assume an apology for her writing and moralizing about Clinton is next. Now, I like MoDo, but she helped create the climate for the worst president ever.
Because if you thought blowjobs were bad, well, I think we're gonna find out exactly what bad is.
I cannot believe that the WH's senior staff are about to be indicted for a crime against national security. I mean I can, but I never really though these people were so low. But it seems that they are and there's proof.
WASHINGTON -- Prosecutors investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity returned their attention to powerful White House advisor Karl Rove on Tuesday, questioning a former West Wing colleague about contacts Rove had with reporters in the days leading to the outing of a covert CIA officer.
Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA officer's residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware — before her name appeared in a syndicated column — that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.
The questioning, described by lawyers familiar with the case and by the neighbors, occurred as Fitzgerald was thought to be readying indictments in the long-running inquiry into the leak of Plame's identity.
The inquiry, which has reached deep into the White House and could come to an end this week, focused initially on determining who leaked the agent's name to reporters. More recent, Fitzgerald has appeared to turn his attention to possible perjury, obstruction of justice or conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting the distribution of classified secrets.
Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, were called before the grand jury hearing the case, along with numerous other senior White House staffers. Both Rove and Libby were described as intent on discrediting the CIA agent's husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the war in Iraq.
In recent days, attention has centered on Libby and the vice president's office. On Tuesday, the focus appeared to shift again to Rove, who has been called four times before the grand jury. Fitzgerald's investigators asked the former colleague about any comments Rove may have made about his conversations with journalists in the days before Plame's name was made public by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
"It appeared to me the prosecutor was trying to button up any holes that were remaining," a lawyer familiar with the case said. The lawyer asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the ongoing inquiry.
Specifically, investigators asked about Rove's July 2003 conversations with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
Cooper had contacted Rove and asked about Wilson, who angered the White House in mid-2003 when he publicly accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence information to justify going to war in Iraq.
The former diplomat had been dispatched by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium from the African nation of Niger — an allegation that President Bush referred to in his Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address as a justification for ousting Saddam Hussein. Wilson found little evidence to support the claims.
Cooper has told investigators that he called Rove to ask about Wilson's claims. Cooper, in an account of his testimony, later wrote that Rove had warned him, "Don't get too far out on Wilson." Rove also had told Cooper that the ambassador's wife worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction, though he did not mention her name.
It's getting hard to keep track of all the lies we've been told. Here's a quick cheat sheet:
We now know that Cheney lied to the American people about his involvement in the effort to smear Joe Wilson.
.........................
Let's put aside the legal arguments for a moment and just focus on this glut of lying. Clearly, these guys knew that what they were up to should be kept in the shadows. Hence Rove's desire to have his conversation with Cooper be kept on "double super secret background," his self-assessment that he'd "already said too much" to Cooper, and Libby's request that Judy Miller identify him as a "former Hill staffer" instead of the usual "senior administration official."
Cheney, Rove, and Libby obviously felt that their actions had to be covered up.
But what they were covering up was much more than the outing of Valerie Plame. They were covering up the way the White House had used lies and deception to lead us into a war that was reckless and unnecessary -- what Lt. Gen. William Odom, National Security Agency director under Reagan, has called "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."
The reason why Cheney, Rove, and Libby were so aggressive in attacking anyone who questioned their rationale for war is because, by the summer of 2003, it was becoming embarrassingly clear how wrong they had been about Iraq -- wrong about WMD, wrong about flowers thrown at our feet, wrong about the cost of the war. Had their incompetence not been so grotesquely manifest, there would have been no need for the attack on Wilson -- and the resulting coverup -- that has now landed them all in such legal hot water.
If Rove and Libby are indeed indicted (adding Cheney to our Merry Fitz-mas gift list would just be getting greedy), I believe it will shake up our government in a way we haven't seen since Watergate.
To borrow a phrase from that era, let me make myself perfectly clear: I'm not saying that Plamegate is the same as Watergate. I'm saying it's worse. Much, much worse. No one died as a result of Watergate, but 2,000 American soldiers have now been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't.
Could there be anything bigger?
After getting a fumbling cipher like George W. Bush elected president, the powers-behind-the-throne must have believed they were untouchable and could get away with anything -- including lying about WMD, outing a CIA agent, and, perhaps, lying to a special prosecutor.
Like Nixon, their mindset was "if you try to get in our way we'll destroy you." (See how quickly those keep-us-safe national security guys were willing to jeopardize an intelligence asset in the name of covering their asses.) And their hubris caused them to over-reach.
Like my old Greek pal Icarus, they flew too close to the sun... and now it looks like they, and their multitude of lies, are about to come crashing down.
As I listened to Bush's latest re-hashed talking points speech about the War on Terra, I began to wonder what qualities, if any, he learned from his time as a Lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard.
Some background: I come from a military family. I spent five years as a Naval Officer from 1990-1995. My father was career Navy for 30 years, and both of my grandfathers and my step-grandfather were all military officers who fought in WW1 and WW2. We can trace military descendents down through the Revolutionary War, fighting as Hessian mercenaries for the British. So you could say that it's in my blood...
Through this exposure to the military, I learned a lot of things about leadership. I would expect that most military officers know them, so I'll see how our President stacks up:
Rule #1: You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
The premise of this rule is that a leader is always responsible for the actions of his unit. A leader can appoint subordinates to make decisions in his absence, but those appointees are extensions of his judgment, therefore the leader must bear responsibility for their actions. An example would be when a Navy ship collides with another ship- even if the Captain is not giving the navigation orders at the time of the collision, he is held responsible because he decided to appoint the officer of the deck and conning officer who made the decisions that led to the collision. How Bush stacks up: Not good. Not good at all. Throughout his presidency we see a pattern of irresponsibily of office and of his cabinet members, whether they are misusing intelligence, lying to the public, leaking classified data, contributing to corporate graft, or failing to respond to natural disasters. Bush is unable to take responsibility for his failings.
Rule #2: Lead by example Do not give an order that you would not follow yourself. Your unit is made up of eager men and women who put their trust in you to make sound decisions that will accomplish objectives without undue risk or hardship. A good officer doesn't order his men to do a 10 mile march and then drive alongside in a jeep; he is on the ground with them the whole way.
How Bush measures up: Again, not so hot here. Sending 2000 of our country's finest resources to die in a war when you dodged out of your Viet Nam service by dodging out of your Texas Air National Guard duty is not leading by example. Donning a carpentry belt and pretending to rebuild a home destroyed in Katrina while rescinding Davis-Bacon is not leading by example. Rule #3: You will only succeed if you have a great supporting cast
This is a simple rule that young officers learn early on. A military unit in the field is really run by the non-commissioned officers- the sergeants and chief petty officers. These are the career military men who have risen through the ranks and know how the system really works. They've seen it all by living it, whereas officers have learned about it in classes and books. As such, Non-coms are also responsible for training the new officers in the ways of the world. Young officers out of the service academies or ROTC succeed by earning the trust of that non-com. They do this by managing upwards- such as making sure that his unit is receiving the right equipment, is kept in communication about what is going on and is given the right orders to succeed in its mission.
How Bush fares: Again, not so hot. The appointment of cronies and sychophants in the place of career diplomats and qualified public servants shows that Bush has no respect for merit, and is a dangerous signal that he is out of touch with what is really occurring on the ground. That's why he thought Brownie was doing a "heckuva job".
Rule #4: You learn a lot by just walking around
A good officer is constantly reviewing things going on in his command from the ground level. By talking to the troops, and officer can learn their motivations and their concerns. By watching his unit conduct exercises, the officer finds out what they do well and what they need to train in.
Bush's take: He doesn't walk around. In fact, he doesn't appear in public at all unless it's in a controlled environment with loyalist attendees and a script. And he doesn't read the news, it is presented to him by his loyal advisors (see #3 above) Rule #5: Take care of your people and they will take care of you
Your team of military men and women are your greatest asset- not your ships and tanks and planes. They sacrifice a lot to do their jobs- they don't earn much, they are frequently away from their families, they work in stressful jobs, often with little sleep or downtime. They will go to great lengths under these circumstances because they are professional, patriotic and genuinely good people. A good officer will remember his people and make sure that they are acknowledged for their work through awards, promotion, time off, and public recognition. Success here means that the unit will watch the officer's back.
Bush: Well if we look at the plight of the military under our President, we see the opposite: placed in a police action with inadequate numbers, no body armor, and a reduction in VA benefits. But he gave Medals of Freedom to those who had failed, like George Tenet, thereby turning awards into farce. Way to go, Georgie.
Rule #6: You need to be able to make good decisions and you need to be flexible about them.
As the leader of a team of people, it is expected that you take all of the information that you can get and make the best decision possible to accomplish your mission with the least risk. Sometimes, you don't have time to react, so you make a quick decision. Sometimes, you have the luxury of planning and intelligence assessment, and can take time to make a good call. But no decision is final- the field is fluid and you need to be able to react, even if it means countering a previous order. For example, if you commit your troops to an area that suddenly erupts in an ambush, you need to react to get them out of there safely.
Our president: Well he doesn't make decisions well, and then when he does, he sticks to them come what may. We've seen it on Iraq, on his Social Security crusade, and on Bolton and Miers nominations. It makes me wonder how he could pilot a plane without crashing into a mountain.
Rule #7: The Chain of Command is inviolable
[Updated] Related to Rule #1, all organizations operate under a command hierarchy called the Chain of Command. The Chain of Command is the line of authority and responsibility along which orders are passed. The Company Commander will issue an order to the Platoon Commander, who then issues the order to the Platoon Sergeant, who then issues it to the troops. The structure is the basis upon which the military functions, as it clearly defines the roles of each member of the leadership team. It also ensures accountability- soldiers act from orders up the chain and their actions are the responsibility of their commanding officer.
Bush says: The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal showed that the Chain of Command means little to this administration. Instead of punishing those who issued the orders, the scandal was swept under the rug by going after the troops on the ground (see taking care of your troops, above). Also, during the run-up to the Iraq War, Cheney circumvented the established chain of command in the intelligence community to stovepipe information that would justify the war.
There are many more leadership maxims, but this is running long, so I'll close it up.
What we have in our White House is a man: - who is unable to take responsibility - who leads from the back - who surrounds himself with unqualified cronies - who is out of touch with his people - who doesn't care for his people - who shows poor judgment in decision making and - who doesn't believe in the Chain of Command
There's no way Bush served any time as a military officer without learning any of these qualities, therefore, he didn't truly serve!
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO Published: October 26, 2005
An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.
In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive.
To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."
The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.
Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011.
In an interview, Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits.
"We are investing in our benefits that will take even better care of our associates," she said. "Our benefit plan is known today as being generous."
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided to seek indictments in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and has submitted at least one to the grand jury, those close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.
Fitzgerald will seek at least two indictments, the sources say. They note that it remains to be seen whether the grand jury will approve the charges.
Those familiar with the case state that Fitzgerald likely will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name illegally. Rather, they say that he will focus charges in the arena of lying to investigators. The specifics of the charges remain unclear.
Any possible indictments are now in the hands of the grand jury. They are expected to be made public later this week.
RAW STORY has not learned who Fitzgerald is seeking to charge. Reports indicate that of those fingered in the case, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is in the most jeopardy. President Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, also appears to have given conflicting testimony to the grand jury.
Update:BREAKING: McClellan Throws Rove & Scooter Under The Bus «
A significant moment during today's White House Press Briefings:
QUESTION: Scott, a couple of years ago you told us that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak. It appears that you may have gotten bad information before you made that statement.
Now today we learn through extrapolation that, when the vice president said in September of 2003 that he didn't know who sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, that he was not speaking the truth.
My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?
MCCLELLAN: I think you can be, because you know that our relationship is built on trust. And I have earned that trust with you all.
As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I made, and I've talked to you about the assurances that I had received on that. McClellan is emphasizing to the reporter that he was just relaying the assurances he received from Rove and Libby. In other words, they lied to me.
McClellan's answer differs significantly from when he was asked the same question back on July 11, 2005
The Army is now running a series of horrid comnmercials where kids, black kids talk to the parents about all the fun things they can do in the military.
Truck convoys to Ramadi and patrols around Baghdad are not included.
Losing your leg is not included.
Having them make you a new skull isn't included.
Being told there is no money for college isn't included.
Watching your friends die in your arms isn't included.
Sunni guerrillas? Iranian-backed politicians? The return of Chalabi?
As William Odom said, this is the greatest strategic mistake in US foreign policy.
Yet, Bush will give another speech to tell us that it is a good thing that the Wal-Mart class sends their kids to die or be mained in Iraq. They won't treat them decently when they come home, but "military service is a noble profession" . Not for Jenna and Not Jenna, but for your kid.
We have made Iraq worse, we have made America worse and we have trained a generation of terrorists.
What hotel will they blow up tomorrow? How many car bombs?
45 percent of Iraqis support the resistance.
How much longer will this go on? 2500 dead, 3000 dead? How many more can America afford to lose?
Both JFK and FDR were Democrats, of course, and the party has always been associated with internationalism. Somehow, though, that moralism -- that urge to do good abroad -- has drifted over to the GOP. It is Republicans, particularly neocons, who talk the language of moralism in foreign policy and who, weapons of mass destruction aside, wanted to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a beast. It mattered to them that he killed and tortured his own people. It says something about the Democratic left that it cheered Michael Moore's infantile "Fahrenheit 9/11" even though the film made no mention of Hussein's depredations, not even his gassing of Kurdish villages.
Yeah. What has GOP moralism done? Get other people's kids killed.
But let's talk about the Kurds for a minute.
Who killed the most Kurds?
Was it Saddam?
Nope. It was our Turkish allies, who raped and murdered their way across a fifth of Turkey and burned down 4,000 Kurdish villages.
It says something about adulterous Beltway pundits who attribute virtue where there is none. The GOP's "moralism" has been fatal to both Iraqis and Americans., 2000 of whom have died for this idea. No one in the Cohen family, but hey, they're meant for other things, like college. Dying in Iraq is for niggers and white trash. Not people like the neocons and the pundit class.
National service is for other people and always has been.
By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:42 AM
I recently wrote a review of the big college guidebooks for Slate magazine. I ranked the books on depth, verve, detail and student perspective. I am grateful to readers of this column who responded to my request for advice on which guides they liked best, although when reader opinion clashed with my own, I always went with me.
You can, however, dismantle and reassemble my review to suit your own tastes by adjusting the weights I gave to each factor. And as a reward for all your free advice, I am going to share some of the discoveries that most intrigued, and sometimes bothered, me as I sifted through those nearly 15,000 pages of collegiate marginalia stacked two-feet high on my dining room table:
1. Some of the Profiles Are Actuall y Paid Ads: Two of the biggest guides, "Peterson's Four-Year Colleges 2006" and the Princeton Review's "Complete Book of Colleges 2006," had large sections reserved for college descriptions that turned out to be written by the colleges themselves, even though that was hard to tell just looking at them. Most of these commercials were well-done, and I am sure beneficial to many readers, but I wish the publishers had made more of an effort to signal their true nature. My own newspaper, I acknowledge, runs glowing accounts of Middle Eastern tourist stops that include copy made to look like news stories, but at least we run the words "Paid Advertisement" on the top of those pages. At least I hope we still do that. Some days I don't get to read the entire paper.
I could not figure out why some colleges bought profiles and other similar schools did not. Pomona College, for instance, had no paid ad in the Peterson's book while the other four Claremont, Calif., colleges did. Pomona College Admissions Dean Bruce Poch told me this had nothing to do with any distaste for self promotion. The previous year, Pomona had paid $3,200 for its ad, plus $340 for a 50-word boldface highlights box that preceded the Pomona entry in the front of the Peterson's book. Poch refused to advertise this time in protest of Peterson's promotion of its online application-essay editing service on its Web site. Poch considers this an invitation to get someone else to write your application essay for you, and he does not want to encourage that by sending Peterson's several thousand dollars.
Harriet Miers can ill afford to lose any more support. But sources at the Capitol tell TIME that the Supreme Court nominee has aggravated Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, ............, is now "very, very, very unhappy."
Miers' troubles with Specter began with her courtesy calls on other Senators. "All Specter is hearing from colleagues on both sides is that they're getting nothing from Harriet but vague generalities and how wonderful the President is," says a friend of the Senator's. "None of these people are interested in that."................Strike two was Miers' response to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, which led to an unusual request for elaboration on eight of her 28 answers. Even Republicans griped that her responses were so elliptical as to be disrespectful. "The alienation," says Specter's friend, "is very real."
Republicans said signs for Miers were more ominous than ever. Even staunch Bush supporters suggested he might be better off starting fresh with a new pick. But James T. Dyke Jr., a White House official who is working with Miers, told TIME, "Is it easy? No. Are we making progress? Absolutely."
Man, I thought the Bush thing was just craven opportunism, but she's serious about this.
A virtual space resort being built in the online role-playing game, Project Entropia, has been snapped up for $100,000 (£56,200).
Jon Jacobs, aka Neverdie, won the auction for the as yet unnamed resort in the game, which lets thousands of players interact with each other.
Entropia also allows gamers to buy and sell virtual items using real cash.
The space station is billed as a "pleasure paradise". Last year, a gamer bought an island for $26,500 (£13,700).
The space station is described as a "monumental project" in the "treacherous, but mineral rich" Paradise V Asteroid Belt and comes with mining and hunting taxation rights.
With the price tag also comes mall shopping booth and market stall owner deeds, a land management system, a billboard marketing system, and space station naming rights.
Neverdie is a popular and well-known in-game character. He and another character, Island Girl, appeared in a 2003 dance music movie Hey DJ!, which starred Jon Jacobs, Charlotte Lewis, and Tina Leiu.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: October 25, 2005
Before dragging any Bush administration officials off to jail, we should pause and take a long, deep breath.
In the 1990's, we saw the harm that special prosecutors can do: they become obsessive, pouncing on the picayune, distracting from governing and frustrating justice more than serving it. That was true particularly of Kenneth Starr's fanatical pursuit of Bill Clinton and of the even more appalling 10-year investigation into inconsequential lies by Henry Cisneros, the former housing secretary.
Special prosecutors always seem to morph into Inspector Javert, the Victor Hugo character whose vision of justice is both mindless and merciless. We don't know what evidence has been uncovered by Patrick Fitzgerald, but we should be uneasy that he is said to be mulling indictments that aren't based on his prime mandate, investigation of possible breaches of the 1982 law prohibiting officials from revealing the names of spies.
Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or revealing classified information. Sure, flat-out perjury must be punished. But if the evidence is more equivocal, then indictments would mark just the kind of overzealous breach of prosecutorial discretion that was a disgrace when Democrats were targeted.
And it would be just as disgraceful if Republicans are the targets.
There is, of course, plenty of evidence that White House officials behaved abominably in this affair. I'm offended by the idea of a government official secretly using the news media - under the guise of a "former Hill staffer" - to attack former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. That's sleazy and outrageous. But a crime?
Gee Nick, what about the dead spies?
What about all those people tortured for having contacts with Brewster-Jennings?
We're not here because of Scooter Libby acting like a bitch and gossiping, but because national security was damaged.
Fitzgerald isn't a special prosecutor, for one thing. His brief as special counsel is much more limited.
Mushier? Tell that to L'il Kim, who's in jail for a year for that mushy perjury thing.
It's not "abominally", Nick, they got people killed. Including a CIA officer. It is highly unlikely this case would have gone as far as it has without real, proven, damage to national security. The CIA's referral had to show evidence of a crime. DOJ had to accept that evidence.
We're not talking blowjobs here, but national security. There is a difference.
By Patricia Sullivan Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A01
Rosa Parks, the dignified African American seamstress whose refusal to surrender a bus seat to a white man launched the modern civil rights movement and inspired generations of activists, died last night at her home in Detroit, the Wayne County medical examiner's office said. She was 92.
No cause of death was reported immediately. She had dementia since 2002.
"Rosa was a true giant of the civil rights movement," said U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), in whose office Parks worked for more than 20 years. "There are very few people who can say their actions and conduct changed the face of the nation, and Rosa Parks is one of those individuals."
Parks said that she didn't fully realize what she was starting when she decided not to move on that Dec. 1, 1955, evening in Montgomery, Ala. It was a simple refusal, but her arrest and the resulting protests began the complex cultural struggle to legally guarantee equal rights to Americans of all races.
Within days, her arrest sparked a 380-day bus boycott, which led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that desegregated her city's public transportation. Her arrest also triggered mass demonstrations, made the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous, and transformed schools, workplaces and housing.
Hers was "an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom," King said in his book "Stride Toward Freedom."
"She was planted there by her personal sense of dignity and self-respect. She was anchored to that seat by the accumulated indignities of days gone and the boundless aspirations of generations yet unborn."
She was the perfect test-case plaintiff, a fact that activists realized only after she had been arrested. Hardworking, polite and morally upright, Parks had long seethed over the everyday indignities of segregation, from the menial rules of bus seating and store entrances to the mortal societal endorsement of lynching and imprisonment. .................. Parks was working as a seamstress for the Montgomery Fair department store, and as she waited for the Cleveland Avenue bus to take her home, she let a full bus go by. The Jim Crow laws reserved the first four rows of a city bus for whites and the last 10 for blacks. The seats in the middle could be used by blacks if no whites sought them. But if a white person wanted a seat, the whole row was emptied.
Also, bus drivers in Montgomery made blacks, who were nearly 70 percent of the riders, enter the front door, pay their fare, disembark and re-enter by the back door. Many blacks were left standing, fareless, when the bus driver pulled away before they could reboard.
James F. Blake, the driver of the bus Parks boarded in 1955, had put her off a bus in 1943 when she refused to enter through the back door because the back was jammed. After that, she refused to board any bus he drove, but when the bus pulled up to the Court Square stop, Parks forgot to check who the driver was. She got on and took a seat in the middle section, next to a black man at the window and across the aisle from two women. At the next stop, some white people got on, filling up the seats reserved for them, and one white man was left standing.
"Let me have those front seats," the driver said, indicating the front seats of the middle section. No one moved. He repeated himself: "Y'all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats."
The black rider by the window rose, and Parks moved to let him pass by. The two women across the aisle also stood up. Parks slid over to the window. "I could not see how standing up was going to 'make it light' for me," she wrote in her autobiography, "My Story" (1992). "The more we gave in and complied, the worse they treated us.
"I thought back to the time when I used to sit up all night and didn't sleep, and my grandfather would have his gun right by the fireplace, or if he had his one-horse wagon going anywhere, he always had his gun in the back of the wagon," she wrote. "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."
The bus driver said he would have her arrested, and she replied, "You may do that." He called the police and waited. Some riders got off, but not everyone, and Parks recalled that it was very quiet. When the police arrived, she asked one, "Why do you all push us around?" She said he replied, "I don't know, but the law is the law, and you're under arrest."
She was bailed out that night, and her boss at the NAACP asked if she would be the test case for a lawsuit. She discussed it with her husband and mother and then agreed. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Women's Political Council mimeographed 35,000 handbills calling for a bus boycott. Black ministers got behind the effort. All 18 black-owned cab companies agreed to stop at all bus stops and charge 10 cents per ride, while others carpooled or walked.
..............
As Parks went into her trial, a young girl called out, "Oh, she's so sweet. They've messed with the wrong one now." The crowd took up the latter half of the cry.
She was found guilty of violating the segregation law and fined. Her attorneys, afraid that the charge might be overturned without the underlying law being addressed, filed a petition with the U.S. District Court that directly challenged the law. It was a wise strategy: Parks's original appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld, so it was the second case that went to the Supreme Court about a year later, and the court overturned the segregation laws
.
The one thing people forget about segregation is its pettiness.
Jackie Robinson got courtmartialed for refusing to sit in the back of a bus in Texas before his unit, the 761st Tank Battalion, was deployed to Europe. His courtmartial prevented his deployment, despite his leadership skills, and he left the Army in April, 1945.
This was the kind of thing which black people dealt with daily, the little snubs and insults designed to remind them of being inferior beings. Lynchings and beatings were the end of the line, but whites had plenty of ways to remind you that you were not their equal.
Parks just wanted to be treated with respect, something most white people thought ridiculous. When black people refused to pay to be insulted any more, then they realized things were going to change. They had no problem taking black money, they thought respect was unnecessary. They found out wrong.
Like a lot of African Americans, I've long wondered what the deal was with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race. ...............
After spending three days with the secretary of state and her entourage as she toured Birmingham, where she grew up in a protective bubble as the tumult of the civil rights movement swirled around her, I have a partial answer: It's as if Rice is still cosseted in her beloved Titusville, the neighborhood of black strivers where she was raised, able to see the very different reality that other African Americans experience but not to reach out of the bubble -- not able to touch that other reality, and thus not able to really understand it.
............. A friend of Rice's, Denise McNair, was one of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. That would have left a deep scar on me, but Rice can speak of that atrocity without visible emotion.
She doesn't deny that race makes a difference. "We all look forward to the day when this country is race-blind, but it isn't yet," she told reporters in Birmingham. Later she added, "The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact."
But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? "That's an artifact of foreign policy," she said in the interview. "It's not been a very diverse profession." In other words, there aren't enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse. ........................
As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, "If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was."
The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.
....................
When Rice was growing up, her father stood guard at the entrance of her neighborhood with a rifle to keep the Klan's nightriders away. But that was outside the bubble. Inside the bubble, Rice was sitting at the piano in pretty dresses to play Bach fugues. It sounds like a wonderful childhood, but one that left her able to see the impact that race has in America -- able to examine it and analyze it -- but not to feel it.
If there's a "Rosebud" to decode the enigma that is Condoleezza Rice, it's Titusville.
Robinson knows, like I do, that even people who grew up middle class during segregation had race smacked in their face at some point, the civil rights movement, Vietnam.
While people have a lot of problems with Powell, few people openly curse him like they do Rice. He's far from heroic, but people are a lot angrier at his appearance at the UN, than his loyalty to Bush. No one is running around calling him an Uncle Tom, no one would ever ask him why Foggy Bottom is still so white.
But the difference is this: Powell never acted as if being black was an accident of birth. Even thought he's had powerful white patrons, he wasn't seen grovelling to them. Rice has been a Bush family factorum since she pretended to be an expert in Soviet Affairs. Her second rate education has been quietly accepted as a sign of genius when if a man had it, he'd be transcribing tapes at the NSA.
Rice is oblivious to race because she can be. She was mystified that people attacked her fo buying shoes at Ferragamos while black people drowned in New Orleans. As if people expected her to stand up for blacks.
Rice's accomodation is such that she thinks that Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King didn't challenge American mores. Uh, Douglass married a white woman at a time when that was a lynching offense. King's FBI file is inches thick.
But what I think Robinson misses and is clear is that Rice has always been the special girl. Her parents made her special, her mentors made her special. At no time was she obligated to help or assist anyone behind her. Because she was special. Everything is all about her. Rice also has benefitted from the approval of her elders. Why challenge those who help you along and praise your manners?
Her parents raised her with the idea that achievement was good enough. If she was cultured and smart enough, it would be a sign that she could compete with whites and that was important. The problem was that Rice is blind to the fact that her position was only possible by the sacrifice of others. So while Rice played her piano, other kids were being beaten by the local police. She has never thought she owed them anything, despite her success.
The fact that she is single , childless and an only child also comes into play. She's never had to worry about anyone else. Ever. Now, some people say she's a lesbian, others that she's Bush's mistress, either way, she's never had a public, adult relationship with anyone, one which required responsibility to another human.
By comparison, her cousin, Susan Rice, also a likely candidate to be Secretary of State one day, is held in much higher esteem by her peers as a foriegn policy expert. She also a liberal democrat who worked for the Clinton Administration with a completely different world view. She does not defend her cousin.
That's how tiny Rove's balls shrivelled up when I told him I knew he was lying
FITZGERALD: TOOL OF THE LEFT [Andy McCarthy]
I’m too busy today to be monitoring the media, but Ive gotten a lot of questions about this from people who say some conservatives are hitting the airwaves with preemptive suggestions that my friend Pat Fitzgerald may not be as apolitical as his press clippings indicate. In particular, I am being pointed to favorable comments made by Senator Schumer about Pat’s competence and integrity.
Let me just say this. Pat is at least as apolitical as his press clippings suggest. And just because Senator Schumer says something doesn’t make it wrong.
Pat Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor I have ever seen. By a mile. He is also the straightest shooter I have ever seen – by at least that much. And most importantly, he is a good man.
This investigation has gone on for 22 months. Most of the evidence was collected before autumn 2004 – the last year of delay has mainly been caused by reporters challenging subpoenas in the federal courts.
If Pat were political – or, worse, if he somehow had it in for the Bush administration – it was fully within his power to return indictments in the weeks before the November elections, which would almost certainly have cinched things for Senator Kerry. It is something, I am quite certain, it would never even have occurred to him to do. The only thing the guy I know would do is bring charges or close the case without charges when the facts of the investigation warranted doing so.
Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has been a model of decorum throughout this investigation, regarding it as a serious matter and being respectful and complimentary in light of the professional way in which it’s been conducted. I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I think people would do well to follow the President’s lead. They will be far less likely then to look foolish later on.
Bush is scared, which is why he hasn't fucked with Fitzgerald. Starr played dirty, Fitzgerald hasn't. Hard, but not dirty.
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was given considerable information about his stake in his family's hospital company, according to records that are at odds with his past statements that he did not know what was in his stock holdings.
Managers of the trusts that Frist once described as "totally blind," regularly informed him when they added new shares of HCA Inc. or other assets to his holdings, according to the documents.
Since 2001, the trustees have written to Frist and the Senate 15 times detailing the sale of assets from or the contribution of assets to trusts of Frist and his family. The letters included notice of the addition of HCA shares worth $500,000 to $1 million in 2001 and HCA stock worth $750,000 to $1.5 million in 2002. The trust agreements require the trustees to inform Frist and the Senate whenever assets are added or sold.
The letters seem to undermine one of the major arguments the senator has used throughout his political career to rebut criticism of his ownership in HCA: that the stock was held in blind trusts beyond his control and that he had little idea of the extent of those holdings.
The extent of Frist's knowledge of the inner workings of his trusts and his family's health care company is related to a recently launched federal investigation of possible insider trading involving the liquidation this summer of Frist's HCA stock. Within weeks of Frist's decision to sell his holdings in June, HCA shares fell sharply because of a weak earnings report. Frist has said he possessed only publicly available and not "insider" information about the company when he directed the sale and, therefore, did nothing wrong.
Last week, Frist told reporters that he is "absolutely confident in the outcome" of the inquiries by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission because he "acted properly at every point." He declined to address specifics about the investigations but said he is providing information as quickly and fully as possible.
By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL Published: October 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.
White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status.
Sounds like perjury to me, and something else, a plot to protect Cheney.
Because it sure sounds like Cheney said "look into this" and I can't believe Tenet didn't mention her name and position were considered secret. I mean, this is a massive deal.
It would also explain why Tenet ok'd the referral to DOJ. He was not happy to have his trust abused. Especially on such a critical matter.
Apple is facing legal action from an aggrieved American consumer over alleged problems with the iPod Nano.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple launched the music player despite knowing its design would limit its life.
The legal action follows a rash of complaints from iPod Nano users who reported cracked and scratched screens.
Apple said a bad batch of Nanos had caused those problems and denied the device was more likely to scratch than other models of the popular player.
Asked a comment on the lawsuit, Apple said: "We do not comment on pending litigation."
Coating questioned
In the first 17 days that the iPod Nano was on sale, Apple sold more than a million of the credit card-sized music players.
But the gloss of the early September launch of the Nano was marred by reports that screens of some devices were cracking or scratching very quickly. Protests were led by Matthew Peterson who started a website to force Apple to admit the problems and replace gadgets.
Now Jason Tomczak, another disgruntled Nano customer, is at the centre of legal action over the gadget.
Represented by Seattle-based legal firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Mr Tomczak filed a lawsuit on 19 October in the San Jose District Court which alleges that the Nano is too delicate for normal us
When I ask for Beam, I want Beam, not Jack. Understand. Lucky I had this last bottle here.
The Bush White House:
Bush: Listen asshole, don't tell me how to fucking drink. I don't need any lectures from you, beeyotch. Goddamnit, Fucking Dick Cheney should have been on top of this shit and now my ass is on the line. Whatever happened to loyalty.
Aide: Mr. President....
Bush: Shut up bitch, when I want an opinion from you, I'll ram my dick in your ass and move your lips.
Aide: Yes sir.
Bush: You don't get it. It was suppose to be Jeb, he was the genius, not me. I was supposed to drink myself to death. Nope. They all hated it when I became President. I could see it, I could see it in my father's eyes. He never trusted me.
Aide: Sir....
Bush: Shut up, bitch, Where the fuck is that girl with those notes.
Aide; I'll have her called in.
Bush: Yeah, do your fucking job, twat face.
Female aide comes in
F Aide: Sir, here are the papers you wanted.
(Takes them and flings them at her)
Bush: You dumb bitch, I asked for the Rove papers
F Aide: Sir, these were given to me by Mr. Rove
Bush: Bitch, this isn't what I fucking asked for. Can I ask you a question?
F Aide: Yes sir?
Bush: Has any one stuck their dick into you?
F Aide: Sir?
Bush: Has anyone stuck their dick into you?
F Aide: Sir, sir...
Bush: I'm just curious, because I can't imagine anyone fucking someone as ugly as you without being blind drunk.
She flees the room in tears. A couple of the secretaries laugh at her muttering "virgin, if she can't handle the old man's temper, why is she in the West Wing?"
Bush: Fuck that nonsense. Can I ask you a question?
Aide: Yes sir.
Bush: How the fuck did that fat heifer get on my staff?
Aide: She's James Dobson's second cousin, sir.
Bush: Well, get that bitch out of here. Stick her in HUD or something. I want some fine, pimpin' bitches in here. Not some fat Jesus freak who's too ugly to fuck.
(50 Cents PIMP plays in the background)
Aide: Yes sir, right away.
The TV is on and Cindy Sheehan is on announcing her plan to tie herself to the White House.
Bush: Cunt
Aide: Sir?
Bush: I'm tired of looking at that bitch. And I'll be goddamned if she's gonna tie herself to the White House every fucking day. She needs to go away.
Aide: Sir. We'll make sure she does the maximum time possible.
Bush: Make her a fucking security risk. Get the Secret Service in her ass. I don't want to hear from this bitch, you got me.
Aide: Yes sir.
Bush: Get Rove in here.
Aide: Yes sir.
Rove: Yes, Mr. President?
Bush: Turd Blossom, you fucked up.
Rove: Yes sir.
Bush: You stupid motherfucker, You realize what you've done, you dumb piece of shit. Now, you're going to pound me in the ass prison. How fucking dumb could you be, listening to that asshole Libby. You asshole. I fucking hate you.
Rove: I'm sorry sir.
Bush: Fuck your sorry, bitch. I'm surrounded by assholes at every turn. A useless wife, drunken slut daughters, and you, a too stupid to not get caught fuck. I bet you think that you got me here.
Rove: Sir?
Bush: You think you made me President.
Rove: We all worked to get you here, sir.
Bush: Fuck you. I got here myself. I did this, not you, NOT YOU. Me. Don't you forget that.
Judy Miller has always been known as a passionate reporter. And, at times, she has tended to forget that The New York Times pays her to be an observer of events, not a participant in them. Many months after I wrote a profile of Miller in New York magazine, a source sent me this shot of her in the Iraqi desert. There's nothing damning per se about Miller dressing in uniform. But it does seem to perfectly capture the essence of her subject-object confusion. (Incidentally, the uniform, I'm told, belonged to Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzalez. Miller famously pinned a medal on Gonzalez at a Baghdad promotion ceremony.)
--Franklin Foer
Actually, reporters didn't wear uniforms so they wouldn't be mistaken for US troops. For her to toss on some BDU's is well, weird. I'd like to know if she carried a weapon as well.
What civilians missed about the promotion ceremony is this: only close relatives or friends pin your new rank on you. Which is why the unit's members were flabergasted by it. He might as well have bought her a friendship ring. People were pissed because they would have to lie for him. That's why they ran to Howie Kurtz. They weren't gonna fuck up their marriages because he banged her.
With the possibility of indictments just days away, sources close to the investigation into who outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have provided RAW STORY a more detailed account into how and why Plame's name was leaked and what role the Pentagon and the vice president's office played.
Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told him that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle because she was a CIA agent, the sources said.
Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson and his CIA to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, they added.
Within a week, Wurmser, on orders from "executives in the office of the vice president," was told to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle her husband, Wilson, who had become a thorn in the side of the administration, those close to the inquiry say. It is unclear who Wurmser had spoken with in the media, the sources said, but they confirmed he did speak with reporters at national media outlets about Plame.
"Libby wanted to discredit him right from the start," one source close to the investigation told RAW STORY. "He used David Wurmser to help him do that."
Neither Wurmser or Libby could be reached for comment.
Wurmser had a direct link to the CIA because of his work on intelligence issues related to Iraq and frequently met with CIA analysts who worked on weapons of mass destruction. Through his contacts, Wurmser was told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent working on WMD issues and it was she who had recommended Wilson for the trip, the sources said. Those familiar with the investigation say, however, it is unclear whether Wurmser was told that she operating as a covert agent. They believe it was likely he was told she was an "analyst" working on WMDs in a similar capacity to the other agents Wurmser had interacted with.
Those familiar with information provided to Fitzgerald say that shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Wurmser was handpicked by Harold Rhode, a Foreign Affairs Specialist in the Office of Net Assessment, a Pentagon "think tank," and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to head a top secret Pentagon "cell" whose job was to comb through CIA intelligence documents and find evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its neighbors in the Middle East so a case could be made to launch a preemptive military strike. Wurmser largely invented evidence that Iraq had close ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, sources knowledgeable about his work told RAW STORY.
..........................
For two years, Wurmser, Feith, Perle, Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had a tumultous relationship with the CIA who they blamed for not providing them with the type of evidence they wanted to see, specific, tailor made assessments that Iraq was an imminent threat. But with Wilson they feared a public backlash.
In June of 2003 that Libby first learned that Wilson was discrediting the administration's intelligence information, specifically the claims that Iraq tried to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Africa for an atomic bomb.
Wilson went to African country of Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations and reported that the uranium claim was unfounded. According to a Senate report, the mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney earlier that year. Vehemently denying that his boss had requested the trip, Libby became so incensed by Wilson that he sent word to Wurmser to find out who Wilson was and sought details of his trip, those familiar with the investigation say.
Yeah, but this isn't the whole story.
Of course, Libby had to confirm she was actually a CIA employee and once they did that, the SECRET classification connected to her name would have sprung up. Even as mild a request as to confirm her employment at CIA would have sent up red flags. Because ANY inquiry into her employment status would be regarded as a danger sign. Wurmser would have had to confirm her employment as well. Even if he was told she was an analyst, any attempt to confirm that would have drawn a red flag.
The deputy director of the CIA called Bob Novak to disuade him from publishing Plame's name. You think they didn't respond to a WH request with similar information. As in, "please do not use her name in any communications".
Why? Because how do you know this wasn't an attempt by a foreign power to track her. The agency would have been deeply curious as to who wanted to know anything about her.
I don't think the agency forgot this. I think they started to track the inquiries into her and who did it. Why? Because if her name became public, they wanted to know who to blame. And more importantly, who'd they have to save if this blew up.
And I think Pat Fitzgerald knows who asked about her and what they were told.
And why did Wurmser snitch?
Because he was going to pound me in the ass prison. And be broke at the end of it. No one was going to defend him. He was expendable and Fitzgerald made sure he knew it. If he had kept his mouth shut, the world would have landed on him. Which, his wife reminded him, would have been silly. Rove wasn't going to save him, Libby wasn't going to save him. He had to save himself.
BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
WASHINGTON - Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.
....................
"He's like the lion in winter," observed a political friend of Bush. "He's frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made. But this is a guy who wanted to do big things in a second term. Given his nature, there's no way he'd be happy about the way things have gone."
Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss' wrath.
"This is not some manager at McDonald's chewing out the help," said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. "This is the President of the United States, and it's not a pleasant sight."
The specter of losing Rove, his only truly irreplaceable assistant, lies at the heart of Bush's distress. But a string of political reversals, including growing opposition to the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina's aftermath and Harriet Miers' bungled Supreme Court nomination, have also exacted a personal toll.
Presidential advisers and friends say Bush is a mass of contradictions: cheerful and serene, peevish and melancholy, occasionally lapsing into what he once derided as the "blame game." They describe him as beset but unbowed, convinced that history will vindicate the major decisions of his presidency even if they damage him and his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
At the same time, these sources say Bush, who has a long history of keeping staffers in their place, has lashed out at aides as his political woes have mounted.
"The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about," said one Bush insider. "Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share."
The vice president remains Bush's most trusted political confidant. Even so, the Daily News has learned Bush has told associates Cheney was overly involved in intelligence issues in the runup to the Iraq war that have been seized on by Bush critics.
Bush is so dismayed that "the only person escaping blame is the President himself," said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration "illogical."
Boys, Bush is about to send you over the falls.
If I was a House member and read that, impeachment would be a much less distant prospect today. He's saying that he could give a shit about your job.
Of course, like the coward he is, he's blaming everyone but himself for his horrible choices. You know Bush will not make it to the end of his term. Nixon was acting like this when he was out of the door.
A lot of us owe Doug Thompson an apology. He's been writing this for over a year. Now Tom DeFrank just confirmed everything he's been writing since then. Bush is close to the edge. He's lashing out, ranting, but he's weak, His casting of blame, as if he didn't pick these people, is cowardly.
And of course, he's bullying the junior staff, mainly because he can.
Karl Rove's post-imprisionment work will be in Hollywood. Because he can create an image out of nothing. The real George Bush, is a petty, bitter bully who abuses his staff and refuses to take the blame for the mess he created.
BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK and MICHAEL McAULIFF DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - As the White House and Republicans brace for possible indictments in the CIA leak probe, defenders have launched a not-so-subtle campaign against the prosecutor handling the case.
"He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.
.......
But now friends of the White House have started whispering that the Brooklyn-raised prosecutor is overzealous after it became clear that Bush political mastermind Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, are in Fitzgerald's cross hairs.
Such hints surfaced publicly for the first time yesterday when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), armed with comments that sources said were "shaped" by the White House, suggested Fitzgerald might nail someone on a "technicality" because they forgot something or misspoke.
"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment ... it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime, and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste," Hutchison said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Wow, sounds like Bush to me, oh, they meant Fitgerald.. And in more bad news for the White House
WASHINGTON - Jack Abramoff, the GOP lobbyist under investigation by federal authorities for fraud, repeatedly sought the help of Bush strategist Ralph Reed to open doors at the White House for his business clients, according to E-mails made public yesterday.
The E-mails show Abramoff pushed for intervention from deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove on at least three occasions since 2001 to promote business opportunities. ........................
The E-mails show that 10 days after the 9/11 attacks, Abramoff promoted a business venture to rent cruise ships to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to house rescue workers off New York City.
Responding to Abramoff's request for help, Reed wrote on Sept. 21, 2001: "Put in a tag call to Karl to find out the best contact at FEMA."
Why would rescue workers need to stay in cruise ships.
Someone should explore why this is a reccurring theme in the Bush Administration. DeLay also wanted to use them during the convention, and now they're in New Orleans. Why?
# Commissioned officers may give the orders, but in war it's the poorly paid, blue-collar sergeants and corporals who get things done.
By Robert D. Kaplan, ROBERT D. KAPLAN, a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly, is the author of "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground," published last month by Random House.
WHETHER IN New Orleans or Baghdad, at home or abroad, the real workhorses of our post-9/11 military have not come from among the generals and colonels, or even the captains and lieutenants, but from the enlisted ranks of sergeants and corporals.
As any West Pointer or Annapolis-educated officer will tell you, these noncommissioned officers — NCOs or noncoms in military lingo — are the heart and soul of the U.S. military, the repository of its culture and traditions.
They are a poorly paid, blue-collar corps, many of them just high school graduates. Two-thirds of all Marines are noncommissioned and in their first four-year enlistment. Nearly 90% of Army Special Forces soldiers, or Green Berets, are sergeants of one grade or another.
The average American has not worn a uniform since the draft ended more than three decades ago, so perhaps we may be forgiven for clinging to the stereotype of the growly sergeant hovering over a recruit doing push-ups, as in the 1960s comedy series "Gomer Pyle, USMC." .......................
Wow, so many cliches in one article. Gomer Pyle? That was an insult in the 1960's. Uh, Mr. Kaplan, watch Band of Brothers. You will see NCO's leading their men. Buy Brothers in Arms. When you play, it will be as an NCO. Many American officers got their start as oh, NCO's. The Marines even have a name for them, Mustangs. This is NOTHING new. My father can remember the NCO's he served with 50 years ago. Wow. Mr. Kaplan doesn't even realize that a service academy officer is the rarest of breeds, about 10 percent of the officer corps.
Never before in military history have noncommissioned officers — who deal at the lowest tactical level, where operational success or failure is determined — been so critical. This is because of the changing nature of conflict.
Really? Someone would have to tell that to Eisenhower.
...................
Because the world of NCOs is tactical, they do not voice opinions about such things as "should or should we not have intervened," and thus for the media they often remain invisible.
Because NO ONE ASKS THEM. Believe me, they have opinions. Especially the more educated ones. They have opinions. It's just that they may be punished for giving them.
The idealistic captain or lieutenant has become a mainstay of much military reporting, including my own. NCOs, by contrast, are generally tight-lipped, except when you ask them about the technical task at hand. Then they can't stop talking. Ask them what they do, never how they feel, has become my motto.
Have you ever read a newspaper? Because NCO's are all over them. They talk to officers, but NCO's give far better quotes.
This fine NCO corps is also a product of America's middle-class society. In many a Third World army, the gulf between officers and enlistees is that between aristocrats and peasants. Because such class distinctions do not really exist here, the consequence is an NCO corps that deals confidently with its superiors, so that lieutenants revere and depend upon their sergeants. It is that bond that is at the core of a military that gets the greatest possible traction out of the worst possible policies.
Wow. I hope no one in the British Army reads this. Since it's been said that all a young officer has to do is be brave and die well. Or in the German Army, where officers first serve in the ranks. Wow, this shit is pretty obvious to anyone who cares to know.
But NCOs are not sufficiently listened to. The three most desperately needed items in Iraq today are ones that NCOs have long been emphasizing: armored Humvees, "blue-force" trackers for situational awareness of the battlefield and SAPI plates (small-arms protective inserts for flak vests).
Gee, that's the same reason David Hackworth was given when he was about to refuse a commission. A wise old sergeant told him: "Look, Dave, no matter how right you are, some officer is going to give you an order and you're gonna have to follow it. It would be a lot better if you were that officer."
Robert Kaplan needs to read more, because this is hardly anything new.
Wow. NCO"s are the backbone of the Army. And in other news, it rains in California in the winter.
By Peter Slevin and Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 24, 2005; A03
So far, Fitzgerald has given neither Republicans nor Democrats grounds to question his motives as he excavated the machinations of a White House that prided itself on its discipline and its ability to push its pro-war message. He did not blink, lawyers and witnesses say, and he did not leak.
News organizations have complained bitterly that Fitzgerald fractured the special relationship between reporters and their sources. White House allies have warned that he will criminalize routine Washington political transactions or impute a coverup where no provable original crime occurred. But federal judges have strongly backed Fitzgerald, who presented secret evidence to persuade an ideologically diverse appeals court that someone committed "a serious breach of public trust."
................
A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.
At least five other reporters -- Miller, Cooper, NBC newsman Tim Russert and Washington Post reporters Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler -- produced testimony. Members of the media high and low were none too happy to see Fitzgerald demand information from conversations intended to stay private. They also worried that, in his methods, he was setting a dangerous precedent that would make sources less likely to speak up about wrongdoing.
While Cooper and Miller initially refused to cooperate, Fitzgerald made pragmatic accommodations with the others. In the case of Pincus, Fitzgerald structured the testimony to allow him to avoid revealing the name of his source, even though Fitzgerald and the grand jury already knew it. That preserved the reporter's ability to say he had not broken his promise. The name has never been made public.
"The basic thing is he was enormously fair," said Pincus, a veteran national security reporter whose sources waived confidentiality. "There were no threats, just a discussion of how to solve this dilemma. He understood. He never pressured me."
By October 2004, Fitzgerald announced he was "for all practical purposes" finished. The final pieces he wanted were the testimony of Miller and Cooper, who had each discussed Plame with either Rove or Libby. Using a provision that allowed the submission of evidence in secret, Fitzgerald persuaded U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, a Reagan appointee, to order the reporters to testify or face jail for contempt.
Miller and Cooper appealed, but three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals backed Hogan, including Clinton appointee David S. Tatel, considered one of the most liberal voices on the court. Public copies of Tatel's opinion included blank pages where the judge discussed the secret evidence. He called Fitzgerald's investigation "exhaustive" and said the testimony of the two reporters "appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust."
Cooper testified after losing the appeal and receiving a confidentiality release from Rove. When Fitzgerald rejected a compromise that would have kept Cooper from facing the grand jury, he insisted that he was not out to get reporters or dismantle the First Amendment, despite accusations from some constitutional lawyers and editorial writers that he was doing just that.
"It's not personal," Fitzgerald said, according to Sauber. "It's my job."
We can now officially say that Judy Miller was full of shit.
But there is a larger question.
Why?
Why did Miller betray her bosses and her coworkers?
She's not a spy or a plant, just an egotistical reporter. A spy would never get caught up in this mess.
But I want to know why Miller turned.
Why did she show more loyalty to Libby than Bill Keller?
There's more going on here than anyone has discussed. Dowd et al want her gone, yesterday. But that doesn't answer why Miller crossed over and that matters. Why did she take sides, go native?
Miller still has not come close to explaining herself
By Adam Entous Reuters Sunday, October 23, 2005; 10:11 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers and other sources involved in case said on Sunday.
In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" she suggested Fitzgerald may merely be trying to show that "two years' of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars."
Fitzgerald's investigation has focused largely on Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and their conversations about CIA operative Valerie Plame with reporters in June and July of 2003.
Fitzgerald is expected to give final notice to officials facing charges as early as Monday and may convene the grand jury on Tuesday, a day earlier than usual, to deliver a summary of the case and ask for approval of the possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury is to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.
Fitzgerald could still determine that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, but the lawyers said that appeared increasingly unlikely.
The White House initially denied that Rove and Libby were involved in any way in the leak.
Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia joined Democrats in saying that Rove and Libby should step down if indicted. "I think they will step down if they're indicted ... I do think that's appropriate," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her conversations with Libby, is also facing calls from colleagues to leave the newspaper because of her involvement in the case.
By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 23, 2005; Page A04
With the Capitol all but deserted last Monday night, the Democratic "30-Something Working Group" seized the House floor and took aim at their Republican adversaries.
As C-SPAN cameras beamed their performance around the country, Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, 32, of Ohio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, 39, of Florida recited a litany of GOP misdeeds -- mismanaging Hurricane Katrina and neglecting education and health care, for example -- and offered the Democrats' alternatives.
Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch. Ryan described the problems of the poor as a moral obligation and asked of Meek: "Where is the Christian Coalition when you are cutting poverty programs? They are fighting over Supreme Court justices."
The two newcomers -- who have served a combined six years in the House -- are part of a new generation of Democrats who are working to try to topple the GOP. Their fresh ideas, modern media skills and aggressive political tactics have inspired a party that has drifted for much of the past decade -- wedded to old notions and seemingly incapable of capitalizing on White House and congressional Republican miscues.
As part of the new approach, House and Senate Democrats are devising an alternative agenda of key policies. Ryan is pushing proposals aimed at drastically reducing the number of abortions over the coming decade by offering support and services to pregnant women. Others are crafting a plan for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by using more domestic agricultural products, an approach that would have significant appeal to Midwestern voters.
"We can't be Dr. No to everything Republicans do," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "We have to provide our own positive ideas."
The rise of the new breed, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Barack Obama (Ill.), the Senate's only African American and the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, marks a generational divide in a party long dominated by Northeastern liberals and Southern conservatives.
Unlike some of their forbears, the newcomers are pragmatists who view the past decade of GOP rule not as an aberration but as a sea change in political campaigning, fundraising and lobbying to which Democrats must adjust. They arrived in Washington as challengers and are comfortable questioning the establishment -- because they have not been part of it.
"Everyone recognizes the bottom line: We've got to win the House," said Van Hollen, who is in his second term. "So people are looking for creative alternatives, and they're much more willing to experiment now."
Today's 7-year-olds must do interviews, look through thousands of words, and answer 60 math questions in four minutes. This homework mania doesn't teach kids anything except that life is full of pain.
By Ayelet Waldman
Oct. 22, 2005 | It was the night we wove an Iroquois cradle board out of natural fibrous materials that drove me over the edge. It was 9 p.m., an hour after bedtime, when Sophie suddenly remembered that in addition to a written report, her Native American history assignment required a visual presentation.
"It's OK, I can do it," she said. "I just need some hemp."
Frankly, so did I.
I hate homework. I hate it more now than I did when I was the one lugging textbooks and binders back and forth from school. The hour my children are seated at the kitchen table, their books spread out before them, the crumbs of their after-school snack littering the table, is without a doubt the worst hour of my day. If my son Zeke's teacher, a delightful and intelligent woman, were to walk through my kitchen door between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. on a weekday, I could not guarantee her safety.
Eight-year-old Zeke routinely has an hour of homework a night. He's an interesting kid, one who's described as having a lot of "personality." He's the kind of kid who, left to his own devices, thinks it's funny to write "a Rottweiler" as the answer to every question on the homework page, even the math problems. Especially the math problems.
Accordingly, either my husband or I have to sit next to him and insist that he read the directions in his homework packet, instead of riffing on the crazy soundtrack that runs in his head.
School for Zeke is work, and by the end of a seven-hour workday, he's exhausted. But like a worker on a double shift, he has to keep going. When, halfway through kindergarten, we had to break it to him that this wasn't a one-year gig, that in fact he was looking at, conservatively, 17 more years of school, the expression on his face was one of deep, existential despair. That evening he calculated that the next time he could count on being really, truly happy was in 60 years, when he retires. His sister, however, is one of those cheerful Pollyanna types who finish their summer reading list before Memorial Day, and at 11 is already counting on getting at least one graduate degree. But even she hates homework.
When I sent out a feeler to mothers of other elementary-school students asking for their experiences with homework my in box was immediately flooded with replies, some furious, some rueful. "We had to set up an interview with someone in the community, transport the children, supervise the interview, take notes, take photos, print the photos, assist the students in making note cards for a speech, and help the kids make a poster about the community member," said Martha, the mother of twins in the Bay Area. Sounds like a nice project, doesn't it? It might have been -- for a 10-year-old. But Martha's boys are in second grade.
Six-year-old Katie Williams of Maryland spent days trolling newspapers looking for "io" and "ou" configurations in order to begin her "Rainbow Words" assignment. "Do you know how many thousands of words we had to read to come up with enough to satisfy that assignment?" asks her mother, Carlie. Once she found the words, Katie had to write each one over and over again, using every color of the rainbow. Get it? Rainbow words. What ever happened to using a No. 2 pencil?
...................
So why the hell do Zeke and I have to spend every afternoon gnashing our teeth over the communicative and associative properties of numbers when we could be playing catch?
The reasons, Cooper says, extend beyond Zeke's achievement in this particular grade. Apparently, by slaving over homework with my son, I am expressing to him how important school is. (Of course, this rationale assumes that I'm not also expressing rage, or muttering curses about the authors of Zeke's math textbook.) When younger kids are given homework, Cooper says, it can also help them understand that all environments are learning ones, not just the classroom. For example, by helping calculate the cost of items on a trip to the grocery store, they can learn about math. The problem is, none of my children's assignments have this real-world, enjoyable feel to them. My children have never been assigned Cooper's favorite reading task -- the back of the Rice Krispies box. Instead, we're up all night weaving hemp.
..............
Only boomer parents would think hard work is a bad thing for kids. These kids are coddled, not allowed to go outside, escorted from one supervised activity to another, and yet, when they face homework, a lot of homework, mommy says it's too much. You know, Americans ask the least from their schools, they pay the least for them and they get the worst results in the industialized world. We don't want the high pressure system of the Japanese, but American kids need more instruction, more intelligent and engaging instruction.
If you teach kids that they have to work for what they want, they work for what they want. If you blame homework, then they learn excuses.
My nephew's school starts at 7:45 and has an optional nighttime study session from 6-8. He's 10. They, among the schools in his area, also have gym every day. He's now the captain of the track and field team. In short, he's motivated and engaged in school, because he's encouraged to be challenged and perform. His mother isn't making excuses for his work load. Sure, we want him to get enough rest, but if the school can keep him engaged and promote the value of hard work, he will take that through his life.
Everyone hates homework. I hate looking for stories to post every day. We all do things we don't like. But sometimes we have to do them well.
So she admits her child has no real discipline, but an hour of homework is somehow wrong? Why? He's not getting enough TV and PS2 time.
I had an interesting conversation with my nephew yesterday. He was telling me about his weekly field trip, they take the kids to different places. Yseterday, it was sports. So they played football and kickball. He was playing wide reciever/ safety and scored a touchdown.
He told me that if he handed in his homework every day for the month, he would get to go to dinner. If he missed his homework, he would be on homework detention. I said to him he didn't want to do that. He said, "if I go on homework probation, I don't get to watch TV, play my PS2, anything good for the week."
What that means is that he's learning to be responsible. In his old school, he'd leave his homework, he'd lose hats, everything. Even though he is very bright, as Jen can attest to. What Waldman misses is homework is as much about responsiblity as actual work.
Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.
Miers's advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College.
Next, Miers's advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation's highest tribunal: "I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize." Another said: "When we were on the lottery commission together, a lot of the problems that we had there were legal in nature. And she was just very, very insistent that we always get all the facts together."
Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.
In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result. .....................
Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue -- their right to criticize the administration's cronyism.
And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.
You know, I think these folks are serious in condemning Harriet Miers.
Let's get beyond politics for a second.
John Roberts had a distinguished, if right wing legal career.
Even Clarence Thomas is a Yale Law grad and former judge.
Miers seems to have had no relevant experience except cheering George Bush on with the most obsequious notes in presidential history. Her abject idol worship is discomforting in a woman 60 years old.
My only question is was she playing Bush or was that her true feelings. Either way, she's not qualified to serve, and for some odd reason, I think Harry Reid knew that when he planted that bug in Bush's ear.
I mean there's asskissing and there's salad tossing. In this case, she seems to have not only tossed Bush's salad, but brought her own jello along for that extra special treat.
You know, Jen bet me $50 that Miers will get in. Why she did, I don't know. But I might get a second jersey with that money.:)
When I posted the Dowd column, besides being surprised by the 125 comments, I forgot that most of the readers here have no idea of the culture of newsrooms.
Lower Manhattanite explained that this kind of brutal attack on a colleague has never seen print before. And he's right.
Newsrooms are collegial places. Everyone from intern to editor are usually on a first name basis, personal lives, because of the work hours and close proximity, are widely known. Maureen Dowd's boyfriends are as widely known as Judy Miller's. People cheating on their wives can't really keep it a secret in the newsroom.
And as a rule, omerta applies. I don't rat you out, you don't rat me out. People know each other's secrets, but they keep them.
Bob Greene, the former Chicago Tribune columnist, had a habit of dating 18 year old interns and screwing them. Lots of them. And people in the newsroom knew it, but not the extent. When an intern and her parents complained, Greene, who was married, was fired. And his conduct condemned as a betrayal of trust. But the columns were not mean. They mostly viewed him as pathetic. But there was no sniping, no name calling. Just some sharp comments on how Greene betrayed his colleagues and how some people were concerned.
Newspapers, as a hard and fast rule, do not let employees slam each other by name in print. Snide comments, sure, and a lot of those will be pulled. Now, this doesn't mean that fist fights don't break out, they do. But family business remains in the newsroom and not on the pages.
For Maureen Dowd to come out swinging at Miller, insulting her with clever phrases, it could not have happened in a vacuum. Nor would she have done it without warning Gail Collins, who while not her direct boss, would be the one getting the phone calls to talk to Mo. Nope, nor was this done without talking to reporters. This is a very big deal in the tight world of a newspaper, even one as large and political as the Times. To basically have MoDo go to press with her nearly 20 year grudge against Judy Miller is unprecedented. Dowd speaks of Miller the way George Smiley spoke of Karla and the Circus in John Le Carre novels. Respect? Sure. Admiration, definitely. The conviction that you were on the right side, absolute. Dowd has disliked Miller for years, disliked her ways and her manners.
You don't call someone you genuinely like Becky Sharp. Or operatic.
But if this was just a personal hit, Dowd probably would have been talked out of it. They wouldn't let her be that petty and hurt her reputation. This is the voice of the Times veterans. Dowd is up front because she has the space, but the lifers there agree and some would have been far blunter in their assessment. Because, grudge or not, this is ruining their paper. Dowd went from working class DC, to beat reporter to be the second female national columnist at the New York Times. Everything she's achieved in life professionally has come with a Times paycheck. This is a woman who wrote her first book last year. And while her family was indifferent, her colleagues encouraged her.
Do you think if you were her, or any of the other Times lifers, after seeing Miller run amok for so long, and finally damage the paper, you wouldn't be broiling angry? Completely frustrated by the editors impotence?
I know the blogs like to beat up on reporters, especially at the Times. But lifers like Dowd, despite her flaws, love the Times. The editors at the Times believed in her when her own family didn't. She wrote a column late last year describing the holidays at her family. Not much fun. She and Miller came to Washington about the same time, with Miller already a star and Dowd a reporter. Dowd's first loyalty has been to the Times, she didn't use it to become a a famous author, she wasn't giving tons of speeches or becoming a TV star. Everything Judy Miller did. And a lot of people just rolled their eyes and muttered as she did.
But when it dawned on people that Miller had finally gone over, and was more loyal to her sources than her colleagues, they were revolted. Then came the lies. They may have laughed about it when it involved her love life, but when it involved work, the trust of the reader and the paper, they were enraged.
If you watch the Shield, you know that Vic Mackey and his crew bend, if not break, the law at times. But when his buddy got in too deep with a drug dealer, he'd gone way too far and either had to come back or die. Judy Miller bending the rules irritated, but did not hurt people. But she crossed a line. Arianna threw up none-too-subtle hints over the summer that her coworkers were unhappy. But when she came back, she still didn't come clean, work with her colleagues, the people who supported her.
In the end, Dowd, like a good IAD inspector, cut through the bullshit and called her what she was, a liar. And said she lied or evaded those who stood by her. In the end, she made a fool out of Bill Keller and Pinch Sulzberger and it isn't clear why. Was it ego? A relationship with Libby? A feeling of being a part of a club? Why would she, at the end of the day, betray the Times and her colleagues and insult their intelligence as well. What was in it for her?
She denies screwing Libby, but her colleagues are calling her a liar in print about the entire affair.
What does the future hold for Ms. Miller? She told me Thursday that she hopes to return to the paper after taking some time off. Mr. Sulzberger offered this measured response: "She and I have acknowledged that there are new limits on what she can do next." It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter
The only question is how this ends, with a retirement and a pension, or a firing for cause. Lying to your editors is a reason to be fired on the spot, much less the publisher. The odds of her writing another word for the Times are small, especially after the Dowd column, Keller's e-mail and now the Public Editor.
Briefly put, why do I think an indictment is coming down?
I'm not a lawyer and it's been years since I've read the US Code, so gauge accordingly.
The most telling sign is the silence from the WH. You can bet that if Libby and Rove were going to skate, their lawyers would be all over the media. The Kristol meme "the criminalization of politics" wouldn't be whipped out if this was going to go away. Stephen Hadley wouldn't be telling people he expected to be indicted if this was going to disappear.
Also, you'd start reading stories about Fitzgerald's people leaving his DC staff for new jobs. After all, if there is only clean up, why stick around?
Let me deal with Bob Somersby, who for some odd reason, seems to think this isn't much of a big deal.
THE SEARCH FOR A SEARCH: Did Rove and Libby (and others) commit crimes? Soon, we’ll get Fitzgerald’s (and/or the grand jury’s) judgment. Meanwhile, will 22 people really get indicted? If so, someone could shoot The Longest Yard 3 without having any prison guards play! Or could this mean that prison teams have now gone to the two-platoon system? No wonder it costs nine bucks to see a top film when Hollywood goes so crazy with costs.
Meanwhile, with all the local comedy excitement, we’ll postpone till tomorrow our troubling treatment of a basic question about the Plame matter: Since Wilson’s op-ed didn’t really contradict what Bush had said about Niger, why did the press corps act like it did? (To this day, they shave basic facts to keep this perception alive.)
In the meantime, Matt Yglesias quotes the Duelfer Report about a central question: Was Iraq ever seeking uranium? Key quote from the report: “[The Iraq Survey Group] has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991.” In his State of the Union, Bush said that British intelligence had learned that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The Iraq Survey Group has “not found evidence” of any such pursuit.
That’s significant information, but Matt is almost surely wrong when he says “we can now rely upon the Duelfer Report for everything we need to know about Iraq’s nuclear program.” That would treat the Duelfer as scripture—not the wisest procedure. But then, we’re all inclined to go a bit scriptural at super-charged partisan moments like this. For example, try to believe that someone as smart as Matt could make a statement like this:
YGLESIAS: We also know that the CIA made a criminal referral in this case long ago, so there whole notion that Plame somehow wasn't "really" covert is a nonstarter.
Incredible! If the CIA says it, it has to be true! That someone so smart could say something so odd helps define the strange state we’re now in.
First, Bob, Iraq had no nuclear program. Task Force 20 found a rusted centrifuge, MET Alpha didn't even find that much. The scientists said development stopped in the mid-1990's. US troops couldn't even find stocks of chemical weapons. So, if they couldn't store mustard gas, they had a nuclear program? I think not.
Yes Bob, if the CIA's General Counsel goes to the director of the CIA, a man employed by the president, to tell him we have to send a referral to the DOJ for possible prosecution of the President's top aides. If this wasn't backed by the Directorate of Operations, with evidence, he would have quashed it and that lawyer would probably be looking for a new job. Non-Offical Cover is the most secret data the CIA has. Access to it is limited and few people, all of whom could fit in a small room, have access to the entire list. A slightly larger room can see the raw data they turn up linked to them. For the most part, their information is usually disguised when it is analyzed, as in the analysts may only know that there is a reliable source, not a NOC. In most circumstances, even the President would not know the specific idenity of a NOC unless vital to national security. Because it is very expensive to remove a NOC, and usually impossible to replace seemlessly.
If the CIA says Valerie Plame is a NOC, they have years of history to prove just that, evidence which could convince lawyers. Sure, maybe they made it all up, and maybe all the people she served with are lying. But why? If she was an analyst, this would have been a two day story.
Please apply common sense here. The CIA is challenging the most powerful men on the planet. Who would go to their boss with this info without proof? Then, you have to believe that the Ashcroft Department of Justice took one look and then decided to pass it on like a hot potato for no reason? Pat Fitzgerald would have had a very short stay in DC if Plame's position and work didn't fit the statue. Or is he also a tool of CIA revenge?
And those judges who jailed Judy Miller for three months. Part of the conspiracy as well? They took one look at his case and gave him whatever he wanted.
At some point, the CIA couldn't be lying. It's not documents here, but people, real people talking to the FBI. They had to have something to go on. The CIA had to reveal sources and methods, something they are loathe to do, to prosecute this. It is easy to make the CIA the handy villian, but realistically, the damage had to be so bad, Tenet signed off on this, knowing the potential consequences and Comey hired someone who will get answers, not run for office, knowing the consequences.
I think it's pretty clear from the target letters Libby and Rove recieved that someone thinks they've committed a crime. DC is buzzing about indictments as well. But no, the CIA is lying. They're doing this for revenge. Look, even the CIA has to present evidence of a potential crime before it is prosecuted. And US Attorneys question evidence so they don't look like morons in open court. So the CIA had to lay out their case long before it got to DOJ's hands. And they had to defend that case to Comey and Ashcroft.
There's a manual called the Rules of Federal Procedure. Since Fitzgerald is acting in stead of DOJ, he has to follow them to the letter. Which means if target letters are going out, forget everything else, Fitzgerald has a case. It may not win in the end, but he has enough to go to trial.
But it's really quite simple in the end. If Valerie Plame wasn't a NOC, DOJ couldn't have proceeded on the case and a judge would have ordered Fitzpatrick to produce proof and shut him down if it didn't exist.
By Mike Wise Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 23, 2005; A01
At one of Belgrade's finest restaurants last year, Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James and many of their youthful U.S. Olympic basketball teammates attended a dinner in their honor. The guests included members of the Serbian national team, all of whom wore matching sport coats.
Iverson and some of his fellow National Basketball Association professionals arrived wearing an assortment of sweat suits, oversize jeans, shimmering diamond earrings and platinum chains, according to NBA officials who were at the dinner.
Larry Brown, the Hall of Fame coach of the U.S. team, was appalled and embarrassed. He later remarked to one official that he had thought about sending some of the worst-dressed players back to the team hotel.
Word of the fashion faux pas eventually made its way to the office of NBA Commissioner David Stern in New York, where concern was already on the rise about how some players were dressing and, more broadly, how the game's appeal was slipping. The NBA had tried mightily to fuse its product with hip-hop culture, viewing its young players and their street fashion sense as a way to connect with a new generation of fans in the post-Michael Jordan era. But that wasn't happening. Indeed, Stern and some of his closest advisers concluded, they might be driving fans away from the sport.
.........................
Recent public opinion polls, as well as some of the NBA's own focus groups, ranked basketball players as the least popular athletes among the major professional sports leagues, according to NBA officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Television ratings for June's NBA Finals plunged 29 percent from the year before.
................
Many players who feel their individualism is under siege don't see the issue the same way, and are vowing that they will not allow themselves to be commodified by the league.
"They're targeting my generation -- the hip-hop generation," Iverson said in a television interview. He added, "You can put a murderer in a suit and he's still a murderer." Iverson, along with Denver's Marcus Camby, asked if the NBA would provide players with a clothing stipend to conform to the dress code.
"It's definitely an attack on the hip-hop influence of the NBA," said Elliott Wilson, the editor-in-chief of the hip-hop lifestyle magazine XXL. "It sort of allows the men in charge to think that they have reclaimed the NBA's value system -- and they now have a league that reflects their taste and what they believe in."
The problem is that the relationship between the NBA and hip-hop cuts both ways. The designer sneakers and oversize jerseys and shorts that are now the mainstays of hip-hop fashion appeared first on the basketball court, worn by a generation of players intent on stamping the game with a distinctive new style. For players such as Iverson, who like many stars has a successful clothing line that melds basketball and hip-hop, the dress-code edict could cost money in missed marketing opportunities.
"The style of the players, whether on the court or off, is so intertwined with the style of the streets," said Joseph Anthony, the chief executive of Vital Marketing, an urban youth marketing company. "It's an odd decision for a league that's main draw is the individuality of its players to attempt to create anonymity among its ranks."
Spike Lee, the filmmaker and lifelong fan of the New York Knicks, sees how some could cry hypocrisy -- especially the way the league in recent years marketed players such as Iverson as the next big thing and co-opted hip-hop music in many of its arenas. Moreover, hip-hop stars Jay-Z, Usher and Nelly and are part-owners of NBA franchises.
But "I think David Stern was right on this issue," Lee said in a telephone interview. "What are all those kids wearing the night they're drafted and they shake David Stern's hand? Suits. In corporate America, you have dress codes. Let's be honest: Image is everything. And they're trying to change the image of the league. Between the fight in Detroit last year and other perceptions, they've realized they have a public relations issue. They've set out to change it."
Charles Barkley, the former all-star player and now an analyst for Turner Sports Television, acknowledged there are racial subtexts connected to the new dress code. He also said that's why he's in favor of it.
"Young black kids dress like NBA players," Barkley told the Los Angeles Times. "Unfortunately, they don't get paid like NBA players. So when they go out in the real world, what they wear is held against them. . . .
"If a well-dressed white kid and a black kid wearing a 'do-rag and throwback jersey came to me in a job interview, I'd hire the white kid. That's reality."
The dress code is the most visible component of a broader effort by the league and the National Basketball Players Association to improve the relationship between players and fans. ............
Mark Cuban, the loquacious owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is fond of wearing Mavericks T-shirts at his team's games, does not understand the fuss over players' appearance. "Some in the NBA want things to work purely in a way they are comfortable with rather than understanding players, communicating with them and understanding how the players can bring added value by dressing to fit the customer, rather than dressing to fit senior management," Cuban said in an e-mail.
"If NBA TV ratings were higher, this never would have come up."
Stern doesn't say he's taking money out of their pockets, which he is, unless they get suitmakers to sponsor them, which they will, in the end.
When I was growing up, we used to look for Walt Frazier's two-tone Rolls on the bus to school. But the NBA was content to dine at the table of hip-hop, until they realized that they had problems with the players.
That problem isn't clothes, by the way, but age. Many of the rookies have never been in an adult situation. They are drafting kids from high school and making them millionaires. Something the NFL will not do. Baseball has a structured training system which allows the kids to mature. So does soccer. So you have one Wayne Rooney and not a team of them.
But the NBA wants it both ways: they want the cache of hip-hop fashion, but they want to avoid the baggage which goes along with it. They hire kids from high school and are shocked when they act like kids. You have these coddled kids, kids treated like kings everywhere they go, and then you expect them to follow rules? Especially when the league was infamous for the Jordan/ everybody else rule system. The league created this problem.
The league needs to look a LOT harder at who they hire and what they expect from them.
Child Abuse This is really more Dave's sort of thing, but I read it this morning and got all pissed off.
Known as "Prussian Blue" — a nod to their German heritage and bright blue eyes — the girls from Bakersfield, Calif., have been performing songs about white nationalism before all-white crowds since they were nine.
"We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race."
Lynx and Lamb have been nurtured on racist beliefs since birth by their mother April. "They need to have the background to understand why certain things are happening," said April, a stay-at-home mom who no longer lives with the twins' father. "I'm going to give them, give them my opinion just like any, any parent would."
April home-schools the girls, teaching them her own unique perspective on everything from current to historical events. In addition, April's father surrounds the family with symbols of his beliefs — specifically the Nazi swastika. It appears on his belt buckle, on the side of his pick-up truck and he's even registered it as his cattle brand with the Bureau of Livestock Identification.
"Because it's provocative," explains April of the cattle brand, "to him he thinks it's important as a symbol of freedom of speech that he can use it as his cattle brand."
See. I know us liberals are supposed to be wacky moral relativists and all that, but if you can't get behind the whole "Don't Raise Your Kids as Nazi Propaganda" thing, I think there's a problem. Most people, with the exception of Pat Buchanan, have no trouble with the "Hitler was a bad man" meme.
Like many children across the country, Lamb and Lynx decided to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina — the white ones.
The girls' donations were handed out by a White Nationalist organization who also left a pamphlet promoting their group and beliefs — some of the intended recipients were more than a little displeased.
After a day of trying, the supplies ended up with few takers, dumped at a local shop that sells Confederate memorabilia.
Last month, the girls were scheduled to perform at the local county fair in their hometown. But when some people in the community protested, Prussian Blue was removed from the line-up.
But even before that, April had decided that Bakersfield was not "white" enough, so she sold her home, and hopes that she and the girls can find an all-white community in the Pacific Northwest.
Do all parents share their values with their kids? Sure. But most parents also make sure their kids have a way to judge those values. That's where things like going to school come in handy, and allowing your kids access to a world outside yours. My teen is into all kinds of stuff I don't really "get," and you know what? That's all right.
Guess we just have to sit back and wait for their Jamiel Terry moment.
More at NTodd's, including lyrics.
UPDATE: Just got back from a listen to "Skinhead Boy."
Oi, oi, oi, skinhead boy, you're my oi boy.
Skinhead boy, skinhead man Someday you will save our land.
(Bangs head on desk.)
On the plus side, this is pretty amateurish, just these two and an acoustic guitar, easily transportable to a rally in an Idaho cornfield, say. And it's, errr, not good. There's not even any harmonies, just these two singing in unison.
But then it was never really about the production value, now, was it?
Mom is an idiot and those girls will have black babies by the age of 19.
RAMADI, Iraq, Oct. 22 - The Bradley fighting vehicles moved slowly down this city's main boulevard. Suddenly, a homemade bomb exploded, punching into one vehicle. Then another explosion hit, briefly lifting a second vehicle up onto its side before it dropped back down again.
A marine driving a Humvee in Ramadi was killed when a series of homemade bombs destroyed it on Oct. 4. Four other Americanswere injured.
Two American soldiers climbed out of a hatch, the first with his pant leg on fire, and the other completely in flames. The first rolled over to help the other man, but when they touched, the first man also burst into flames. Insurgent gunfire began to pop.
Several blocks away, Lance Cpl. Jeffrey Rosener, 20, from Minneapolis, watched the two men die from a lookout post at a Marine encampment. His heart reached out to them, but he could not. In Ramadi, Iraq's most violent city, two blocks may as well be 10 miles.
"I couldn't do anything," he said of the incident, which he saw on Oct. 10. He spoke quietly, sitting in the post and looking straight ahead. "It's bad down there. You hear all the rumors. We didn't know it was going to be like this."
Here in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, Sunni Arab insurgents are waging their fiercest war against American troops, attacking with relative impunity just blocks from Marine-controlled territory. Every day, the Americans fight to hold their turf in a war against an enemy who seems to be everywhere but is not often seen.
The cost has been high: in the last six weeks, 21 Americans have been killed here, far more than in any other city in Iraq and double the number of deaths in Baghdad, a city with a population 15 times as large.
"We fight it one day at a time," said Capt. Phillip Ash, who commands Company K in the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, which patrols central Ramadi.
"Some days you're the windshield," he said, "some days you're the bug."
Ramadi is an important indicator of just how long it may be before an American withdrawal.
The city has long been a haven for insurgents, but it has never fallen fully into enemy hands, as Falluja did last fall, when marines could not even patrol before an invasion in November. Senior commanders here will not rule out a full invasion, but for now, the checkpoints and street patrols continue.
...................
Still, more than two years after the American invasion, this city of 400,000 people is just barely within American control. The deputy governor of Anbar was shot to death on Tuesday; the day before, the governor's car was fired on. There is no police force. A Baghdad cellphone company has refused to put up towers here. American bases are regularly pelted with rockets and mortar shells, and when troops here get out of their vehicles to patrol, they are almost always running.
"You can't just walk down the street for a period of time and not expect to get shot at," said Maj. Bradford W. Tippett, the operations officer for the Third Battalion
The Marines don't control shit. They are penned up in their bases and take fire when they leave them. That's not control.
MICHELLE MALKIN WADES INTO THE GUTTER: The blog world is certainly not for the political faint of heart. Personal attacks, harsh language, and hyperbole are routine. But in this post, Michelle Malkin sheds every last vestige of decency: "THE GHOULS OF THE LEFT - They support the troops...by partying over their deaths." Her post links to a Little Green Footballs entry that makes the same odious argument, namely that this group is throwing "parties" on the day that we cross 2000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.
Here's how the actual events are described: "Events to mark the 2,000th reported U.S. military death will range from candlelight vigils to public actions that illustrate the size of the death toll." Surely, these aren't "parties." I spent years in Beirut, I lived and breathed war, I watched friends get blown to pieces, I've seen horrors I hope Malkin never has to see. Those who are fighting to stop this war deserve the utmost respect, whether or not you agree with their politics. Prominent bloggers like Malkin should know better than to soil our public discourse with this kind of garbage...
.. Rant over
The American Friends Service Committee, otherwise known as the Quakers, are planning to hold memorials for the 2000 dead Americans in Iraq.
Only Little Green Fucktards would accuse the Quakers of celebrating death.
Peter, who is a nice guy, doesn't get it. These guys can only slander and distort because they are cowardly scum. Malkin slanders the 442nd RCT freely, by implying that internment was necessary. I say 21 Medals of Honor and a Presidential Unit Citation says differently, but why let facts get in the way. Johnson is a raving bigot.
All these people can do is soil the public discourse. They can't participate, they can only shriek and attack.
John Dean -- who knows something about these things -- has some cautionary words for all the little lefties eagerly counting presents (indictments) under the tree: Don't be entirely surprised if "Santa" leaves a lump of coal in your stocking.
Dean's been extremely prescient about the legal issues raised by the Plame scandal so far -- he was, for example, the first to point out the possible applications of the 1917 Espionage Statute. So when he raises the spectre that national security (the last refuge of executive branch scoundrels) might trump whatever evidence of criminality the special prosecutor has gathered, I give him a respectful hearing, even though I don't agree with this analysis. Here's what he says:
It is difficult to envision Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting anyone, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who believed they were acting for reasons of national security. While hindsight may find their judgment was wrong, and there is no question their tactics were very heavy-handed and dangerous, I am not certain that they were acting from other than what they believed to be reasons of national security. They were selling a war they felt needed to be undertaken.
In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington office and returns to Chicago.
Dean adds the caveat that if Libby, Rove or other as-yet unindicted co-idiots perjured themselves or conspired to obstruct justice (and in Libby's case, that looks like the smart way to bet) Fitzgerald may decide to stick around and nail their asses to a jailhouse wall.
While people have been irrationally exuberant, I think John Dean, who, as Billmon said, been right about so much, is probably wrong here. The WH is shitscared about indictments and target letters have already been sent. Forget the nonsense about the website, the real indicator is that the WH has been achingly silent about Fitzgerald and his investigation. Why? Because they're scared. They haven't smeared him because they feel he's coming for them.
But I also think Dean's assumption is wrong here. Revealing Valerie Plame's name and then lying to the FBI cannot simply be justified by national security. Her name and status alone were state secrets. Someone knew that when they used her name.
I think someone below Rove and Libby may be tagged with the actual crime. But their problem is that they used that information, then lied to the Special Prosecutor about it. Four trips to the grand jury is not a good sign.
You have a conflict: starting the war for national security reasons, but violating a state secret to do so against a domestic critic who was basically a footnote to history?
What you have to never forget is that the CIA pushed this to DOJ. The CIA's general counsel had to make the case to George Tenet that significant damage had been done to the CIA covert operations that they needed to persue this. This wasn't something a judge thought up. The CIA had to make the case internally, and then to Justice. There was no free ride here. Everyone going in knew this would end up at the White House.
I think that mitigates much of the national security defense.
The only reason this has gone this far is very simple, but may never be raised in open court.
People died.
The revelation of Brewster Jennings, not Plame's NOC status, is the real intelligence disaster. No one outside of CIA may ever know what kind of intelligence disaster that became. I think, in the end, that is the driving factor. A priceless US intelligence asset was destroyed because of politics.
The problem, and Dean admits this, is that this case went way beyond the original crime when people thought they could outsmart Fitzgerald. People lied in ways which are just not defensible.
Also, people send signals. If people were not going to face indictment, lawyers would know. Fitzgerald would have indicated that their clients would not face further proceedings and he certainly wouldn't send out target letters. Federal prosecutions have a predictable nature. Target letters go out only when they think a true bill is coming from the grand jury. Especially when dealing with the White House. No one is going to jerk WH staff around, not even Fitzgerald. If he weren't going to prosecute, he would be issuing a report. It is unlikely, given the likelihood of civil action, he would say nothing. It's also highly unfair to the targets to leave an unspoken cloud of doubt over their heads. Even without an indictment, questions about their actions would remain.
What also needs to be understood is that if there are indictments, serious political damage would have been done. It's not Watergate, this is national security and the idea that aides to the President and VP violated national security for a political grudge is intensely damaging.
If Fitzgerald was dealing solely with Niger, then yes, I could see Dean's point. But I think the fact that the CIA pushed this referral along means they believe there was damage.
Given Bush's record, people keep looking for the deus ex machina. The problem is that there probably isn't one. Bush is in a tight position and he can't bail out Rove and friends without taking a hit, and Bush doesn't take hits for himself, much less staff.
Normally, I wouldn't have EVER done so, but this was a manditory exception, like when I paid a locksmith $300 to get into my apartment with a smile.
Was it a brilliant Krugman post?
No. He's brilliant all the time.
Bob Herbert?
Come on.
Obviously, it's MoDo and she's going after Judy Miller in her column.
Dowd can be frustrating, but she's loyal and to the right people, those who pay her to write. I know people jumped on Irish Catholic background over dogging Clinton, but there's a flip side to that, intense loyalty and no problem holding a grudge. This is years of grudge work coming to the fore. One of the things I've always liked about the Irish women that I know is their toughness. They all smile and make jokes, but fuck with them and they will ground you into dirt.
Let me put it this way, if anyone liked me like MoDo says she likes Miller, well, I'd have to check to see if I owed them child support.
I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types. ............ Wondering what Tropism means?
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary -tropism
1 a : involuntary orientation by an organism or one of its parts that involves turning or curving by movement or by differential growth and is a positive or negative response to a source of stimulation b : a reflex reaction involving a tropism
2 : an innate tendency to react in a definite manner to stimuli; broadly : a natural inclination :
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."
Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, ..................
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
................... This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
................... But before turning Judy's case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.
Ok, after calling her a drama queen and a whore, tropism being a fancy word for women who likes powerful men and fucks them, she then goes after her bosses for not supervising her and letting her hurt the paper.
Then she suggests that Miller's jail stint had other motives.
Then, finally, calls for her to be fired.
And Gail Collins might as well have cosigned it.
Why? It ran on the op-ed page, she's her nominal boss.
This is call putting your business in the street. This is the consensus opinion of the Times staff, except for the open hatred some folks had for Miller.
Dowd didn't write one fucking word, not one, in defense of her. And her first column on this basically calls her a drama queen whore who needs to be fired. There is no question this has worked Dowd's last nerve and she, cleverly, put all this shit in the street.
I think Pinch's coffee will be ejected from his mouth when he reads this. Keller won't be much happier.
Because she's also accusing Miller of being on the pad. Not corrupt in the way people think, but having gone native with her sources, having taken sides with them and not her paper
This is the a direct challenge and an open statement saying Judy "your newsroom pass has been revoked." This couldn't appear if Miller had newsroom support.
Matthew R. Limon had just turned 18 when he had consensual oral sex with a boy just shy of 15 at a Kansas school in 2000. He was convicted of criminal sodomy and sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had the sex been heterosexual, the maximum penalty would have been 15 months.
Yesterday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the starkly different penalties violated the federal Constitution's equal protection clause. It said the state's "Romeo and Juliet" statute, which limits the punishment that can be imposed on older teenagers who have sex with younger ones, but only if they are of the opposite sex, must also apply to teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.
Mr. Limon will soon be released, his lawyer, James D. Esseks, said. "He's spent an extra four years and five months in jail only because he's gay," said Mr. Esseks, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union.
......................
One judge, Henry W. Green Jr., said the Kansas law promoted "traditional sexual mores," "the traditional sexual development of children," marriage, procreation and parental responsibility. Judge Green added that the law helped protect minors from sexually transmitted diseases, which he said were more generally associated with homosexual than with heterosexual activity.
A second appeals court judge, Tom Malone, endorsed only the final rationale, though he called it tenuous. A dissenting judge, G. Joseph Pierron Jr., wrote that "this blatantly discriminatory sentencing provision does not live up to American standards of equal justice."
In its decision yesterday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Lawrence case required reversal of the lower-court decision in Kansas. The State Supreme Court rejected all justifications offered by the appeals court. "The moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest," Justice Marla J. Luckert wrote for the unanimous court. ..................
The fit between the law and the rationales offered for it is so poor, she concluded, that it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.
A State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan convicted an undercover police officer yesterday in the killing of an unarmed African immigrant during a raid on a Chelsea warehouse two years ago.
Bryan Conroy arriving at court Friday, before the judge's verdicts.
Justice Robert H. Straus convicted the officer, Bryan Conroy, 27, of criminally negligent homicide for shooting the immigrant, Ousmane Zongo, 43, during a chase down a dead-end corridor.
Officers had just entered and secured what they believed was a counterfeit compact-disc operation on the West Side. Mr. Zongo, an immigrant from Burkina Faso in western Africa who spoke little English, was in the warehouse restoring African artifacts and was not involved in the suspected counterfeit operation.
Justice Straus cleared Officer Conroy of the more serious charge of second-degree manslaughter, which has a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. The judge convicted him after a jury deadlocked, 10-2 in favor of conviction, on the manslaughter charge in his first trial in March.
It was the first conviction of an on-duty police officer in the killing of a civilian since Francis X. Livoti was convicted in 1998 on civil rights charges in the death of a Bronx man he had put in a chokehold.
Officer Conroy faces up to four years in prison when he is sentenced on Dec. 2. His lawyers said that they would argue for a lighter sentence, or possibly probation.
Mr. Zongo's widow, Salimata Sanfo, said she was "a little bit disappointed" by the verdict. Ms. Sanfo, dry-eyed, unsmiling and speaking her native language of Morre, said through a translator that she hoped Officer Conroy would go to prison.
This never happens. Usually they walk. I'm surprised.
WASHINGTON (Oct. 21) - George W. Bush's rising political fortunes provided a windfall for Harriet Miers' law firm.
Campaign records show Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaigns paid Miers a total of $163,000 in legal fees, most of it for work done during the future president's 1998 re-election bid. ....................... Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.
The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.
"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented."
......................
Dana Perrino, a White House spokeswoman, said the legal fees to Miers' firm were for routine campaign work, but declined to be more specific. Presidential aides declined to say whether Miers ever worked on researching Bush's past, such as his military record.
A spokeswoman for Locke, Liddell & Sapp - the firm created when Miers' office merged with another Dallas law firm - said it wouldn't provide details on the payments, citing attorney-client privilege.
Former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, a Democrat who was defeated handily by Bush in the 1998 campaign, said both the amount and the timing of the payments are curious. In late September, when Miers' firm received the first of two $70,000 payments, Mauro said he trailed Bush in the polls by 35 points.
"If they're spending that kind of money," said Mauro, now an Austin attorney who estimates he spent less than $20,000 on legal fees during the campaign, "they're spending it to protect themselves from something." ..................
Stay tuned for the full photo essay: The stakeout, DeGuerin's surprise appearance, the perp walk, the courtroom, the MoveOn reference, the press conference.
Many more photos, TK.
Basically, DeLay's lawyer, DeGuerin, asked Judge Bob Perkins to recuse himself because the judge had given money to various Democratic causes including MoveOn. DeGuerin made a big deal about how MoveOn is selling t-shirts with DeLay's mugshot on them. Of course Perkins donated this money back in 2004. So, Perkins referred the issue to a superior judge.
And that was it for today. Full story as soon as we can get home and upload the pictures on a reasonably fast connection. We keep timing out.
Lindsay was raising money for this during the News Blog fundraising drive. We made a suitable donation to this effort, because of the overlap.
Why?
Because seeing Tom DeLay in court is worth every fucking dime. And since you provided those dimes, I hope to hell you agree.
She flew down there just to catch the weasel in court. A pre-Fitzmas gift.
Well, things have hit another major wall down there. Plenty of supplies and such but the volunteer base is drying up. My wife is at the Muttshack facility at the Lake Charles Middle School. They desperately need a vet and more volunteers. People interested, or can call other folks who they might think are interested, can go to:
The fact that you and Jen ran the original request for a couple of days is one reason my wife went down in the first place and is now *back* down there on her second tour. In some ways, it's more depressing because they've had to suspend rescue ops since they don't have a vet, fewer and fewer people are coming down to help and yet the problem of rescuing and caring for animals remains.
Now this is the craziest shit I've ever read in my life. Sober or Drunk. Crazier than Jennifer Lynch's novelization of Twin Peaks. Crazier than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I mean the Unibomber's rant was more logical.
Project 21's Massie on Parshall radio show: Blacks "who curse America are cursing God" because God created slavery to bring them here
On the October 18 edition of the syndicated radio show Janet Parshall's America, Project 21 national advisory council member and columnist for conservative website WorldNetDaily.com Mychal Massie declared to host Janet Parshall that African-American churches today "have succumbed to hatred" and "disobedience to God." Massie went on to proclaim that "the black people today that curse America are cursing God because if God had not permitted the Ashanti and Dahomey tribes of ancient Africa to trap other Africans and sell them to Muslims, who sold them to Europeans, we would not have what we have today." Parshall praised Massie for his "straight talk" -- the name of a program Massie hosts on the conservative website Rightalk.com -- and called him "brother."
Project 21, which bills itself as a "National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives," is a creation of the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). NCPPR's executive director, David Almasi, oversees Project 21's daily operations. Almasi, who previously worked for the Reed Irvine-created right-wing group Accuracy in Academia, employs spokesmen from a "variety of careers" throughout the country to promote Project 21's agenda through the media, academia, government, and business communities. Roll Call reported on October 19 that Jack Abramoff, a former NCPPR board member, used the organization to funnel $25,000 he received in lobbying fees from an Internet gaming company "to pay for foreign trips for Members of Congress and staff." Roll Call noted, as did The Washington Post, that this money was used to help fund a May 2000 golfing trip to St. Andrews, Scotland, that included former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
From the October 18 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Janet Parshall's America:
MASSIE: There's a reason that the black family is in the state of destruction that it is today. At the close of the civil rights era -- and I submit that the civil rights battle has been won. It is over. Black people can do anything they want to do. There is no restrictions, apart from those that are self-imposed.
PARSHALL: Mm-hmm.
MASSIE: At the close of Jim Crow, at that closing of that civil rights era, of those battles, the black family -- 87 percent of black households were two-parent married families. Eighty-seven percent. Forty percent of the black households were business owners. Forty percent.
PARSHALL: Wow.
MASSIE: And, in 40 years, we have 90 percent black-on-black crime. Seventy -- a high 70 percent, near 80 percent, black illegitimacy. We have, in 40 short years, 10,000-plus children born in Philadelphia in 2001, 9,700 and change black abortions. We have three out of every five black pregnancies ending in abortion. Now, how did we go from a period of Duke Ellington to a period of Tupac Shakur?
PARSHALL: Mmm.
MASSIE: How did we go from Nat King Cole to a 50 Cent, or Mystikal, or a Snoop Dogg? How did we go from dignity and honor and an impetus -- an importance placed on education to a thuggery? Rap and what we see today, you can't even call that gangster rap.
PARSHALL: Mmm.
MASSIE: Because the gangsters -- and I'm not going to ask you to date yourself, but I'll date myself -- I remember the gangsters being those that were meticulously dressed, that wore the finest of shoes and set the fashion trends. These things today are street trash --
PARSHALL: Mmm.
MASSIE: -- that have drug the family down, and the church, and Janet, I will go on record and I will not win any popularity awards, but it is the fault of the black church and the black community because the preachers have succumbed to hatred; they have succumbed to a disobedience to God. There is a parallel that I think needs to be pointed out. Had Joseph not been kidnapped and sold into slavery, he would not have been in a position to help his family in their time of need.
PARSHALL: Hmmm. Wow.
MASSIE: The black people today who curse America are cursing God because if God had not permitted the Ashanti and Dahomey tribes of ancient Africa to trap other Africans and sell them to the Muslims, who sold them to the Europeans, we would not have what we have today.
PARSHALL: Mychal, thank you very much. There is a reason why you host a program called Straight Talk, because you just gave it to us. God bless you, brother, appreciate you very much. We'll take a break, folks, and come right back.
He could no more say this in a Philadephia church than walk into a Temple with an SS uniform on.
Parshall has to know most black people don't even come close to agreeing with this insane shit.
That article I posted yesterday points out how offensive this is to most black people. And these folks are at their most craven before white audiences, a major social faux pas to many black people.
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 21, 2005; Page A01
At 7:30 each morning, President Bush's senior staff gathers to discuss the important issues of the day -- Middle East peace, the Harriet Miers nomination, the latest hurricane bearing down on the coast. Everything, that is, except the issue on everyone's mind.
With special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald driving his CIA leak investigation toward an apparent conclusion, the White House now confronts the looming prospect that no one in the building is eager to address: a Bush presidency without Karl Rove. In a capital consumed by scandal speculation, most White House senior officials are no more privy than outsiders to the prosecutor's intentions. But the surreal silence in the Roosevelt Room each morning belies the nervous discussions racing elsewhere around the West Wing.
Out of the hushed hallway encounters and one-on-one conversations, several scenarios have begun to emerge if Rove or vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby is indicted and forced out. Senior GOP officials are developing a public relations strategy to defend those accused of crimes and, more importantly, shield Bush from further damage, according to Republicans familiar with the plans. And to help steady a shaken White House, they say, the president might bring in trusted advisers such as budget director Joshua B. Bolten, lobbyist Ed Gillespie or party chairman Ken Mehlman.
These tentative discussions come at a time when White House senior officials are exploring staff changes to address broader structural problems that have bedeviled Bush's second term, according to Republicans who said they could speak candidly about internal deliberations only if they are not named. But it remains unclear whether Bush agrees that changes are needed and the uncertainty has unsettled his team.
"People are very demoralized and unhappy," a former administration official said. "The leak investigation is [part of it], but things were not happy before this took preeminence. It's just been a rough year. A lot has gotten done, but nothing is easy."
....................... But the road that led them to this moment is paved with potholes that Bush aides privately concede they could have avoided, and many Republicans are examining the situation for deeper issues to address. From the failed effort to restructure Social Security to the uproar over the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court, Bush's second-term operation has been far more prone to mistakes than his first.
In the view of many Republicans, fatigue may be one factor affecting the once smooth-running White House. Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. gets up each day at 4:20 a.m., arrives at his office a little over an hour later, gets home between 8:30 and 9 p.m. and often still takes calls after that; he has been in his pressure-cooker job since Bush was inaugurated, longer than any chief of staff in decades. "He looks totally burned out," a Republican strategist said.
Others, including Rove, Bolten, counselor Dan Bartlett, senior adviser Michael J. Gerson and press secretary Scott McClellan, have been running at full tilt since 1999, when the Bush team began gearing up in Austin for the first campaign. ......................... Many allies blame the insularity of his team for recent missteps, such as the Miers nomination. Even some sympathetic to her believe the vetting process broke down because as White House counsel she was so well known to the president that skeptical questions were not asked.
Some GOP officials outside the White House say they believe the president rejects the idea that there is anything fundamentally wrong with his presidency; others express concern that Bush has strayed so far from where he intended to be that it may require drastic action.
At the heart of all those discussions is Rove. With the deceptive title of deputy chief of staff, Rove runs much of the White House, including its guiding political strategy and many of its central policy initiatives. "Karl is the central nervous system right now, and that's obviously a big thing -- not only politically, but now he's in that big policy job," a former White House official said.
Pete Longstreet was a good general, but he was no Stonewall Jackson.
Rove cannot be replaced. End of story.
What the fuck are they gonna say when Fitzmas comes with indictments for all? It was just politics? I don't think so. Because the words National Security will be dripping all over them, and that my friends, is the beginning of the end.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.
With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
Associates of Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby continued to express hope that the prosecutor would conclude that the evidence was too fragmentary and that it would be difficult to prove Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby had a clear-cut intention to misinform the grand jury. Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status.
The case has cast a cloud over the White House, as has the Congressional criticism over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers. On Thursday, responding to a reporter's question, Mr. Bush said: "There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining. But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to."
First, they got their warning letters, which in a case of this magintude means they're going to be indicted on several charges. I mean, you don't send a warning letter to the White House without plans for an indictment.
Second, and this is the fun part, Fitzgerald believes that they lied to the grand jury. I would not be stunned if Judy Miller got one of those letters as well. Because her story was just bullshit. I don't expect it, but I wouldn't be shocked.
The beauty of being a Federal Prosecutor with a mind like a steel trap and a loyal staff of lawyers and investigators is that you have all the means at your disposal to try and track down every single piece of evidence: every scrap of paper, every note, every receipt, every entry log every photo, everything you can get your hands on, before ever asking a question of anyone on the record in court.
As an aside, having defended clients in federal court in criminal matters, I can tell you the first major drug case that I worked was an eye opener in terms of just how thorough federal agents can be. After my client was arraigned by the federal magistrate, agents brought my discovery in to me: nine full boxes of it. And promised to deliver the remainder of my discovery items to my office the next day, because they didn't want to weigh me down all at once. These guys mean business, and they are also quite good with the theatrics involved in making their point to a defendant.
In this particular matter, what Judy and Scooter forgot is that they are dealing with a professional. Not some slackass, just out of law school, wet behind the ears kid. Not some political social climber who would sell his mother for a Senate seat or a nomination to the Federal bench. Not some guy who was going to phone it in because he didn't want to piss off the high and mighty and powerful. This guy is a professional prosecutor, who does his job. Period.
You don't prosecute the Gambinos, Sheik Omar Abdel Rachman, Osama Bin Laden and former Governor Ryan of Illinois just for kicks. Those cases are all long, hard slogs, and potentially very deadly to your career as well as your person.
And when you do your job, you find things like this: all government buildings after 9/11 (and even before 9/11 in a lot of cases) require that you sign in and out. That goes double for buildings where you have the potential for someone being around national security documents or highly placed government officials, because you don't want something disappearing without some written record of who has had access to the building. You follow the paper trail, the evidence in hand, the usual patterns of behavior, and sometimes even your gut -- but it is the little details that nail someone to the wall.
During her first go at her testimony, Judy was evasive and could not recall whether or not she had ever met with Scooter on June 23rd, when asked specifically about this by the Special Prosecutor. (Note to witnesses: If the prosecutor is asking you about a date certain, he has something that he will nail your ass with unless you are completely truthful. Keep that in mind in the future.) .....................
A gotcha moment can be a rare and beautiful one for any attorney, and usually occurs over some very specific detail on which you can hang the person on the stand. But it is almost always a detail that the witness thought was so insignificant that no one would ever bother with it in a million years.
Wrong.
For Judy Miller, that detail was a Secret Service log from June 23, 2003. It showed her entering and exiting the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House to meet with Scooter Libby
WASHINGTON - Senate candidate and Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett earned a reputation this summer as an Internet campaign superhero able to mobilize thousands of supporters and raise millions of dollars in cyberspace.
With a close loss in a solidly Republican House district near Cincinnati, Hackett was ready to represent Democrats against GOP Sen. Mike DeWine in what many are calling the bellwether race for Democrats in 2006.
But popular Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown has since forced a primary, and Hackett no longer has sole command of a blogosphere that carried him from Marine patrols in Fallujah to the brink of a key U.S. House victory in a matter of months.
Among the online political diaries and discussion groups, there are about 80 bloggers in the influential Advertising Liberally network. They provided the majority of Hackett's fundraising and inspired most of the national buzz during his House run. Hackett's campaign says blogs brought in more than $500,000 of the $856,738 he raised in his House race.
Brown initially announced he wouldn't run for Senate, and bloggers and Democratic Senate leaders alike stood squarely behind Hackett. But then, two weeks ago, Brown reconsidered. Since then, several leading Democratic bloggers have asked Hackett to step aside for a man with 30 years in public office and $2.1 million in his campaign war chest.
An angry Hackett says he'll run as the outsider against a career politician and signaled a brutal primary ahead. But Brown still doubts Hackett will stick it out, especially if he can take away Hackett's grassroots advantage.
"The blogs were here for Hackett, and here for me," Brown told The Associated Press, holding his hand high for Hackett's support level and then lowering it for his own. "Now, they're even and that was the only place he had any advantage before."
Really?
Now when the fuck did this happen?
Brown has been missing in action for months, and didn't have the balls to run when it was DeWine alone. He got cold feet.
Gutlessness like that is not what gains support in the blogosphere. Just because Brown dropped some ad money doesn't mean we're his fucking piggy bank. I don't remember any conference calls asking for support, like Hackett did in his race. His people welcomed bloggers to work with them. Brown isn't exactly the kind of member who gets people motivated.
Dan Johns, a burly Vietnam vet, heating contractor, and proud Republican, was among those who showed up to get out the vote for Hackett. With his bulging gut and thinning hair, he looked more than a little out of place among the chain-smoking campaign junkies and waifish college kids. He confessed to never having worked for a politician before—and certainly never for a Democrat. “To me, Saddam Hussein is no different than Hitler,” he said, taking a break in the shade of a tree as volunteers swarmed about.
Did he vote for Kerry? “God, no. I hated him. He’s too liberal. He was trying to appease the doves.” Bush, he added, “is a good president. He stands up for what he believes in.” Not unlike Hackett, he concluded. “I met him, I like him, and he’s a Marine. I go with my gut.”
Butch Davis, a 70-year-old lifelong Republican, pulled up at Hackett HQ in a 1943 Marine Corps jeep, complete with a mounted 30-caliber machine gun, sporting a “Veterans for Hackett” sign. “I’m a redneck from Brown County,” he declared proudly, extending his weathered hand. “Paul’s pro-choice,” he added. “I’m pro-life. He said educating the young fellas and gals is the answer to the problem, not outlawing abortion.”
Davis continued in a thick Southern drawl, “I used to think clinic bombers were doing the right thing. My preacher said I was too uptight.” He chuckled. Now, he said, “I think Paul’s approach is as good as mine.” The Bush administration, he continued, “trampled on our Bill of Rights and Constitution. They should be ashamed.”
I like primaries. Good canddiates can win them, poor ones won't. Unlike my friends in the blogosphere, I don't work for pols, I don't join their payroll, I don't raise money for them and I don't have any other goal. I donate my money and then people do what they want. Because all I care about is good stories. I'm not going to wish Hackett away because there's a primary. Hell, people should be shoving Brown out, considering he's turned down more than one chance for higher office. I know politicians follow, but this is ridiculous.
Brown is an ordinary candidate who's yellow streak has already shown itself. I mean, he could have run before Hackett said a word. He only jumped in when he realized the odds were pro-Dem. Of course people want a seasoned pol to take what looks like a ripe seat. But the fact is that Hackett, despite his lack of experience, has a much better message to take into a cripped state and national GOP. And he was willing to run when the odds were high, when Brown punked out.
But here's something Brown better realize. Paul Hackett earned his support. Just because you hire a few bloggers doesn't mean you have the thing sown up. Paul Hackett has a nationwide, 15,000 list of contributors who like what he says and how he says it. We are not a piggy bank. You can't just throw up a few ads and say "support me". We need reasons to do so.
I'll tell you what impresses me, Hackett got people to campaign for him who had been lifelong Republicans. Not just vote, campaign. If Brown can do that, then I might send him some cash in the end. But as it stands, Hackett earned the support he got and should continue to get that support.
Personally, I thought Hackett should have run against Schmidt again and win easily. But he didn't. He chose the Senate race. Then all of a sudden, Brown found his balls and jumped in. The calls should have gone to him, not Hackett. If you have to wonder if you want to run for office, you don't want the job bad enough.
Sometimes we need to reward courage, regardless of how difficult that makes our task.
In a long look at Bush's social security debacle in the (subscription-only) Wall Street Journal, Allan Hubbard, the top White House economic advisor, says something quite remarkable.
The White House insists its Social Security strategy was correct. "Obviously we wish we were talking about the president signing legislation," says Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser and college friend, Allan Hubbard. "I can't -- we can't -- really identify where we went wrong in the approach, other than that we misjudged the Democrats, and particularly the leadership, and the AARP."
They "misjudged" Democrats. Translation: they didn't expect Democrats to stick together, and where nonplussed when the party held tight. They didn't expect the leadership to fight back, but Harry Reid was aggressive and effective in getting the Democratic message out while holding his troops together.
And remember, Democrats accomplished this while Bush was riding his post-election high -- killing his signature domestic proposal and dragging his approval ratings down even before Iraq, Katrina, and Miers conspired to complete Bush's transformation to "lame duck" status.
The day after he officially presented his Social Security proposal in the State of the Union address Feb. 2, the president set off on a two-day trip to begin rallying public support. But his itinerary -- North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Arkansas and Florida -- had an underlying message aimed at another audience: Senate Democrats from "red" states that had backed Mr. Bush for president.
Today that kickoff is viewed widely as a big blunder. Instead of privately wooing centrist Democrats whose support he badly needed, Mr. Bush appealed straight to their red-state constituents. That only stoked the enmity left by his 2002 and 2004 campaigning against moderate Democrats who had backed much of his first-term agenda.
To the Bush people, Democratic cooperation was viewed as a sign of weakness. Why would a Democrat cooperate with them unless they feared electoral retribution? And it was precisely the Democrats who most worked with the Bush Administration on things like the tax cuts and Iraq that got the worst of the Rove electoral machine -- Max Cleland, Jean Carnahan, Tim Johnson, and others like them.
It should've been clear after 2002, but it took 2004 for many of these "moderate" Dems to realize that Bush wasn't going to cut them any slack if they cooperated -- it would instead earn them an even more vicious challenge. To Bush and Rove, cooperation was weakness.
And this is why unity mattered:
The White House never expected a lot of Democratic support. It did expect to peel off some moderates' votes, as it had in the first term. Without some Democrats for political cover, Republicans weren't going to provide the difficult votes alone.
Ironic, isn't it? Republicans needed moderate Democrats to defect to their side to provide political cover, yet Bush and Rove had made sure that 1) many moderate Democrats had been booted from office, and 2) those that remained weren't about to play the game anymore, seeing what had happened to their colleagues.
I would only add that this was Bush's Big Idea. He has pushed this since the 1970's and like a lot of big ideas, it sucked.
But the entire year has been a downward slide for Bush.
I think even moderate Dems would have backed down when people realized how people felt about social security. Bush was all by his lonesome when this broke down. It was radioactive.
Embattled Philadelphia city councilman Rick Mariano -- who is likely to be slapped soon with corruption charges by federal prosecutors -- says he's an easy target, in part because he's white.
................... Surrounded by reporters, Mariano said US attorney Pat Meehan is able to go after him because he's an easy target:
"They're going after me because they can."
When asked to elaborate, Mariano brought up race, and pointed to an African-American reporter:
"It wouldn't be all right for them to go after Vernon Odom because of the color of his skin. Or for his pigmentation. But because of (my) lack of pigmentation and because I'm a blue collar guy, it's a little easier to go after me. I'm not saying they're doing that. But I'm saying I make a pretty good notch on the belt of the US attorney." .............
Mariano, who earns $98,000 per year as a city councilman, expects to be charged next week and vows to keep his Council seat.
The probe appears to center on his dealings with several businesses in his district, including one that reportedly paid off some of his credit card bills
PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia city councilman Rick Mariano, who may face a federal indictment, is safe after what a fellow politician called a possible suicide attempt late Thursday afternoon.
Mariano was in the tower on top of City Hall, talking with police commissioner Sylvester Johnson and Mayor John Street just before 6 p.m., before he was accompanied by both men down to the street.
Councilman Frank Rizzo said he believed Mariano had gone up to the tower in a possible attempt to take his own life.
"I'd be really surprised if it turns out to be anything other than that," Rizzo told NBC 10 News.
....................... Sources told NBC 10 News that the key to all of this is Mariano's long-time friend, Vincent DiPentino. Those sources said that DiPentino was the money middleman for Mariano. DiPentino is now cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's Office, and a source very close to the case said that DiPentino would testify against Mariano. In fact, the source said that he is surprised that Marino hasn't tried making a deal already.
Federal investigators are looking at Mariano's dealings with his former Catholic high school football coach, who now runs a North Philadelphia strip club; a friend who runs a real-estate firm; and a scrap metal company that allegedly paid his credit-card bills, according to published reports.
So is Karl Rove going to jump from the EOB?
This guy deserves a fair trial, but crooked politicians are scum. They make governing that much harder for honest people. I could care less about party. A crooked pol has one home, jail.
By Emanuella Grinberg, Court TV Wed Oct 19,12:04 PM ET
MIAMI (Court TV) — A 6-month-old infant seemed more like a newborn when paramedics found her gasping for air on the floor of her parents' home, an emergency responder testified Tuesday in the manslaughter trial of the child's parents.
Paramedic Fernando Castano told jurors in the case against Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn that he mistook their 7-pound, 22-inch child for a newborn as he attempted to revive her.
Woyah died about 45 minutes later from what a medical examiner later diagnosed as "accidental malnutrition," according to Castano.
By their own admission to police, the couple kept their five children on a strict diet of uncooked organic foods and juices made from wheatgrass, almonds and coconuts.
During a lunch break in Miami-Dade Criminal Court, the couple snacked on nuts and grains wrapped in leaves of kale, with an apple on the side.
The couple faces 50 years in prison on manslaughter and child endangerment charges if convicted.
Castano responded to the home after Joseph Andressohn called to report that his youngest daughter had stopped breathing, seemingly without cause, on May 14, 2003.
Despite his best efforts, Castano said he knew death was "imminent" for Woyah, who was without a pulse or blood pressure by the time authorities arrived at the scene.
Miami-Dade County Assistant State Attorney Herbert Walker told the jury that Woyah died because of the reckless negligence of her parents, who ignored obvious warning signs as the newborn child wasted away to "a bag of skin and bones" before her death.
"A growing child such as baby Woyah needs nutrients to grow," said Walker, himself a raw-food vegan. "At the end of her life, and a painful life it was, the child had practically lost all her subcutaneous fat and her body was going through auto-cannibalism because she was not getting enough nutrients."
The Andressohns are also standing trial on counts related to Woyah's four older siblings, who, like her, were found to be smaller than 99 percent of other children their ages, Walker said. ..........................
The Andressohns' two oldest sons will testify about the "living foods lifestyle" that their parents imposed upon each of them from birth.
The boys, now 8 and 6 and living with a relative, told police in interviews that they were fed a steady diet of uncooked organic foods and cleansed with wheatgrass enemas in lieu of attending doctors.
The Andressohns also admitted that they took their children's care into their own hands, delivering them at home and home-schooling them with the permission of the state.
"Joseph and Lamoy were poor folks who spent a high percent of their money on food, food they reasonably believed was the healthiest for the children," Barrar said. "Joseph and Lamoy did what they thought was best for their children."
No they didn't.
This kind of natural food cultism is popular withing some black nationalist circles. Based more on myth than science, people embrace it as some kind of natural diet.
While normal black food sucks, high in fat and salt, this kind of diet can also be problematic. There is no evidence that raw food, much less wheatgrass enemas, have ANY health effects positive or negative. And there is a reason food is cooked, to aid digestion.
The kids were grossly underweight to start with. The baby starved to death, and even if she didn't, why didn't they take her to the doctor.
It's not just poverty which keeps black people away from the doctor. There is a deep suspicion of medicine and how doctors treat minorities. That there is a conspiracy to hide natural cures from people. It's mostly bullshit, but it does have a powerful grip on some people.
A growing number of cities in the US are treating high-speed internet as a basic amenity for citizens, like running water or the electricity grid. But as the concept expands so does the battle with big business.
Earlier this month, Philadelphia - one of America's oldest and most historic cities - thrust itself onto the technological frontline by announcing plans to build the biggest municipal wireless internet system in the country.
The 135-square-mile network will be built and managed by Earthlink, and will offer low-income residents a service for about $10 (£5.70) a month.
A clutch of other cities are hoping to follow suit with free or low-cost services aimed at reconnecting poor communities, growing local businesses and giving new flexibility to the emergency services.
In a couple of weeks, San Francisco will announce the results of its call for proposals on providing a wireless service to the city's 750,000 inhabitants.
One bid that sent shockwaves through the industry came from Google, which offered to blanket the city with free wireless high-speed internet access - funded by advertising.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said: "This is inevitable - wi-fi. It is long overdue. It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information."
'Wasting their money'
Where traditional wired broadband networks required massive investment, new technology means wireless networks can provide similar levels of service, at a fraction of the cost.
But the big telecoms firms - who have invested billions in cable or fibre optic links to millions of US homes - are waging a legislative and PR campaign against municipal initiatives.
Currently there is a bill going through Congress, sponsored by the Texan Republican Pete Sessions, that aims to ban cities from building municipal broadband networks under most circumstances.
But there is also an opposing bill in favour of the city networks, a bill backed by Republican John McCain and Democrat Frank Lautenberg
There are already fears that the rise of Voice Over Internet Protocol (Voip) calling - where net-connected computers can make cheap phone calls - will damage profits.
The companies argue that public competition puts private enterprise at a disadvantage and that cities are rushing into the market without a sound business case.
One industry group has just launched a new TV ad backing a bill before Congress that opponents say would empower the private sector to block community internet services.
Elsewhere, telecoms and cable giants are lobbying hard and spending big at local and national levels.
Verizon, which will compete with Earthlink when the Philadelphia project goes online sometime in 2006, told the BBC it did not support a ban on municipal networks, but said the city's move made no sense.
Link Hoewing, Verizon vice-president for internet policy, said officials were at risk of "wasting their money", adding: "I think the market has done a good job of addressing the issue already."
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: October 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, sent Ms. Miers a letter faulting what they called incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.
Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.
The letter asked Ms. Miers to respond within a week. Mr. Specter said he had scheduled hearings on her confirmation to begin Nov. 7, overruling Democratic objections that they did not have enough information to evaluate her because of her scant record on constitutional issues before joining the White House. Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they would not set any deadline for the conclusion of the hearings.
"If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed," Mr. Leahy said.
Expect her withdrawal the day after Rove is indicted. She can't even answer their questions. Bush arrogantly thought he could push this through. Ooops.
If Harry Reid is behind this, he deserves our praise and thanks.
I just recently came across conservative commentator Star Parker’s January 18 article “The Credibility of Black Conservatism,” in Townhall.com, a conservative Web journal. ..................
However, as an African, and resident of the (black) south side of Chicago, I have often wondered why the black conservative view has such poor resonance in African American communities. ....................
First, I think tone and language matters. When I heard Star Parker suggest on Fox Television News that New Orleans’ black residents suffered from a “welfare mentality” I cringed, was angry and overwhelmed with deep emotion. I thought to myself, even if for a moment this were true, it is not the way anyone, black or white should be sounding in a time of such despair for that community. Although it was not readily apparent to me what Parker meant, I know that the term “welfare mentality,” used in certain contexts, is a provocative term. And for those among Katrina’s victims who work hard and do not receive welfare, I thought it would be particularly offensive.
................ Surely, Parker cannot think this kind of attitude will move large numbers of black people to her side. Moreover, such harsh words about black people are at once hypocritical and one-sided: How often is “welfare mentality” ascribed to white people on the receiving end of government largess after a disaster? How many times have government emergency services been used to rescue white adventurers stranded on mountain tops or snow slopes while engaging in voluntary activity such as hiking or skiing? But we never hear black conservatives suggest that there is a “welfare mentality” at work there................
Blacks aren’t voting liberal-Democratic because they are simply misled by Jesse Jackson and the civil rights leadership, or because they have a “herd mentality” as conservatives often contend. It would be condescending to deny the fact that black people, like any other population group, know and comprehend their self-interest. The black community is voting against what it hears, or does not hear, from black conservatives. Here are some examples:
............................. * Speaking out against racism: Black conservatives seem unable to instinctively convey revulsion over racism or its vivid manifestations. When a James Byrd is dragged behind a pickup truck, crosses are burned in front of black homes, or a Trent Lott or William Bennett utters racially offensive rants, black conservatives need to be as resolute as Jesse Jackson in criticizing it. ................. And, here’s a secret: Jackson keeps his credibility among many blacks precisely because he speaks out. Black conservatives’ failure to respond forcefully to such outrages only feeds the suspicion that they have essentially declared racism a thing of the past, that it no longer has urgency. This is a source of the credibility gap that Parker bemoans;
* African Americans respect intellectual and political independence: Right or wrong, black conservatives are often seen as defenders of, and apologists for white racism. John McWhorter, an African American scholar at the Manhattan Institute has defended, as have many other black conservatives, William Bennett’s recent offensive remarks, dismissing them as just “hypothetical.” For many in the black community, conservative commentators who cannot call these offensive remarks what they are lack independence, are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. When something so blatantly offensive is uttered by people of such influence as Bennett, black conservatives need to stop the knee-jerk defense and simply call it for what it is. I live in the black community and I know there is universal revulsion over these remarks. Jesse Jackson is not coaching black people to feel offended. Black people know racially offensive stuff when they hear it. Quite frankly, there is no way that black conservatives can make inroads into black communities while giving aid and comfort to such contemptible views;
........................ * Katrina has deepened black opposition to the Iraq War: Regardless of its merits, the failure of the government to respond to Katrina’s victims has deepened black opposition to the Iraq War and exacerbated an already palpable backlash. The most common refrain here in Chicago runs like this: “black kids are dying trying to bring 'democracy' to the Iraqis and our government can’t even rescue our people from a flood in New Orleans.” Black conservative commentators who uncritically cheerlead for this war are seen as out of touch with the needs of Black America and sharing the “lopsided priorities” of this government;
...................................... * Racial discrimination is a reality: The wave of successful class-action suits in recent years (against the FBI, Denny’s, Wal-Mart, and so on), funding inequities in education, disparities in the criminal justice system (17 black inmates have been released from death row in Illinois, vindicated by DNA evidence), discrimination in employment (ironically, with the exception of Fox News Sunday, Sunday morning TV news programming in the “liberal media” is now off-limits to black commentators and opinion makers), all conspire to undermine black progress. Black conservatism that does not acknowledge this contemporary reality will not attract black followers;
* Attacks on black leaders: No matter what they think of Jackson, Sharpton, Representatives Maxine Waters, John Lewis and others, black conservatives’ vitriolic attacks on the black civil rights leadership will never work. Whatever the merits, when Star Parker, Armstrong Williams, Larry Elder and other conservatives attack black leaders in a personal way (as opposed to reasoned, honest and constructive engagement), they are seen by many black people simply as attack dogs for the white Republican establishment.........
To the contrary, one has to admit there is something quite extraordinary about an Al Sharpton, a child preacher who grew up to become a self-made political actor in the U.S., a leader, and formidable debater and polemicist. People may disagree with him, but the narrative of his personal accomplishment actually validates the possibility of America, the “American Dream,” if you will. Isn’t this what conservatives should be applauding? How many black youngsters will grow up to become a presidential candidate and eminent leader? (c) The personal nature of the attacks simply re-enforce the suspicion among black people that black conservatives are carrying out someone else’s agenda.
* ....................
But let me suggest that black people have heard the black conservative message. They just don’t like what is being said and how it is being said. There are white conservatives who have a long history of antipathy toward black people and they too hate government. But they hate government because they think government does too much for black people. If black conservatives don’t distance themselves from such convoluted sentiments, they will be shouting in the wilderness for a long time.
He's a lot nicer than I am, but the points are the same I rotuinely make.
More than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment, according to the Pentagon's first detailed screening of servicemembers leaving a war zone.
Almost 1,700 servicemembers returning from the war this year said they harbored thoughts of hurting themselves or that they would be better off dead. More than 250 said they had such thoughts “a lot.” Nearly 20,000 reported nightmares or unwanted war recollections; more than 3,700 said they had concerns that they might hurt someone or “lose control with someone.”
These survey results, which have not been publicly released, were provided to USA TODAY by the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. They offer a window on the war and how the ongoing insurgency has added to the strain on troops.
Overall, since the war began, about 28% of Iraq veterans — about 50,000 servicemembers this year alone — returned with problems ranging from lingering battle wounds to toothaches, from suicidal thoughts to strained marriages. The figure dwarfs the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty count: 1,971 U.S. troops dead and 15,220 wounded as of Tues
