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!
