SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (166544)7/19/2005 10:08:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Karl Rove's alibi would be easier to believe if he hadn't hidden it from FBI investigators in 2003.

prospect.org



To: geode00 who wrote (166544)7/19/2005 10:16:01 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
This country can't afford it, but Bush can't afford to do anything else!



To: geode00 who wrote (166544)7/19/2005 10:41:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Why "White House v. Wilson/Plame" Matters

By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 19 July 2005

The key issue in the affair has little directly to do with former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson; or his wife, Valerie Plame; or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; or even President George W. Bush's alter ego, Karl Rove. White House v. Wilson/Plame is about Iraq, where our sons and daughters - and many others - are daily meeting violent death in an unwinnable war.

And it's about manipulation.

It's about how our elected representatives were deceived into voting for an unprovoked war and what happened when one man stood up and called the administration's bluff. And it's about the perfect storm now gathering, as:

more lies are exposed (whether in journalists' e-mails or in the minutes of high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street),

the guerrilla war escalates in Iraq, and

more and more Americans find themselves agreeing with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that administration leaders seem to be "making it up as they go along."
It wasn't envisaged this way by the naïve "neoconservative" ideologues that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. Actually they still seem to believe that all will be well if the Iraqi people can only get it into their heads that we are liberators, not occupiers.

So much smoke is being blown over White House v. Wilson/Plame that it is becoming almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Bewildered houseguests from outside the Beltway throw up their hands: "It's all just politics...and character assassination." And that may well be precisely the impression the media wish to leave with us. Otherwise, left to our own devices, we might conclude they served us poorly with the indiscriminate, hyper-patriotic cheerleading that helped slide us into the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.

Our weekend guests had a hard time trying to understand why the White House two years ago blew the cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Sure, Wilson had caught and exposed the Bush administration in a very serious lie. But almost immediately, top officials conceded that Ambassador Wilson was essentially correct in dismissing the flimsy report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa.

Betrayal of Trust

So why the neuralgic reaction? Why go to such lengths to impugn Wilson's credibility; and what purpose would be served by harming his wife as well? At first blush, it does seem awfully petty. But dig a little deeper and you'll get a glimpse of what lies beneath the White House campaign against the Wilsons.

Revenge? There was certainly a strong desire to retaliate. And Karl Rove did tell NBC's Chris Matthews at the time that wives were "fair game." Angry at White House dissembling, Wilson had doffed his ambassadorial hat and thrown down the gauntlet when he told the press that the Iraq-Niger caper "begs the question about what else they are lying about." And, indeed, how many more untruths have been uncovered over the past two years?

Was the relentless White House campaign to vilify the Wilsons aimed primarily at serving notice that a similar fate awaits any whose conscience might prompt them to expose still more of the lies used to "justify" the attack on Iraq? That, too, was surely part of it. And, sad to say, it has worked - at least until now. Yes, we have learned about the misdiagnosed aluminum tubes, the "Curveball" deception on Iraqi biological warfare, and the "unpiloted aerial vehicles" (UAVs) that Congress was told could threaten our coastal cities. But it was basic physics that held administration arguments up to eventual ridicule. None of the exposés came from the mouths of people like Joe Wilson, who simply could not abide crass deception in matters of war and peace.

The main motivation of the White House character assassins had more to do with the particular lie that Joseph Wilson exposed and the essential role it played in the administration's plans. For a nuclear-armed Iraq was the most compelling threat that could be peddled to our elected representatives and senators to deceive them into approving a war launched for reasons unrelated to any putative Iraqi WMD program.

The Big Lie

The Bush administration needed to assert that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking that line posed a huge challenge. On the one hand, a new threat had to be created/hyped out of thin air; and, on the other, the pundits had to be too lazy to refresh their memories on what senior U.S. officials had said about Iraq's military capability before 9/11.

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." (Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001)

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001)

These statements went quickly down the memory hole. Immediately after 9/11, administration officials, with Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead, began to warn that Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" were just over the horizon. On August 26, 2002, a month after senior U.S. officials had explained to their British counterparts that intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy of war, Vice President Dick Cheney was the first to use that fabricated and twisted intelligence to deceive Americans at large. In a major speech he claimed:

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors - including Saddam's own son-in-law."

In fact, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had told us just the opposite: "All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," he told his debriefers in 1995. Everything else he told them was true. And so was that. Kamel had been in charge of those programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command.

But no matter. Cheney's speech, and the subsequent National Intelligence Estimate cooked to his recipe, allowed the president to raise the specter of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, to force a yes vote in Congress for war and, not incidentally, to win back the Senate the following month.

The Iraq-Niger lie was thus both the cornerstone of the Bush agenda for war and the key to unraveling how the "fixing" worked. Rove, master of the administration's strategy yet only two years out of Texas, joined by Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby spread red herrings to divert reporters off the scent and wound up triggering the eventual appointment of a special prosecutor and the convening of a grand jury.

So it was the president's and vice president's own men who brought the skunk to the picnic - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows no inclination to join in the fun and games, and still less to speak prematurely, or to speak at all. Rather, Fitzgerald appears to be a real pro, and as long has he can avoid being fired, he could potentially take all the fun out of things. "Neo-conservative" pundit William Kristol was clearly reflecting growing uneasiness when he commented recently that Fitzpatrick is "the problem for the White House; we have no idea what he knows."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern works at Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He had a 27-year career as an analyst at CIA and is on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This article appeared first on TomPaine.com.
-------



To: geode00 who wrote (166544)7/19/2005 11:22:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Tony Auth summed up Turd Blossom's character very well:

ucomics.com



To: geode00 who wrote (166544)7/20/2005 12:39:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Record of Accomplishment -- And Some Contradictions

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 20, 2005; A01

In 1991, John G. Roberts, then deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, told the Supreme Court its historic decision supporting a woman's right to an abortion was "wrongly decided and should be overruled." In 2003, when Roberts was up for a judgeship, he dismissed his earlier statement as merely "one or two sentences," explaining that he only made the administration's case against Roe v. Wade because that was his responsibility as its lawyer.

After 11 years in government service and 13 years at one of Washington's largest law firms, Roberts has attained a reputation as a brilliant litigator who argues passionately for his clients' positions. The question that the Senate will debate is which of those positions are also his own.

As a lifelong Republican, Federalist Society member and veteran of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, the 50-year-old lawyer has impeccable conservative credentials. But his rhetoric is cool, earning him many friends and few outspoken enemies. And he has maintained there is a divide between what he believes and how he regards and treats the law. "My practice," Roberts said on April 30, 2003, "has not been ideological in any sense. My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board."

His nomination that year to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit nonetheless managed to attract opposition from the liberal Alliance for Justice and NARAL, the abortion rights organization. At the same time, 146 members of the D.C. bar signed a letter calling him "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

"He's the type of person that business conservatives and judicial restraint conservatives will like, but the social conservatives may not like," said John C. Yoo, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley who served in the Justice Department earlier in the Bush administration. "What the social conservatives want is someone who will overturn Roe. v. Wade and change the court's direction on privacy.

"But he represents the Washington establishment. These Washington establishment people are not revolutionaries, and they're not out to shake up constitutional law. They might make course corrections, but they're not trying to sail the boat to a different port."

In his confirmation hearings for the appeals court, Roberts said he resisted being labeled either as an "originalist" or a "textualist," referring to the schools of legal thought that seek to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of its authors or the literal meaning of its words. He compared himself at one point to John Adams representing a British soldier involved in the Boston Massacre, noting that "the positions a lawyer presents on behalf of a client should not be ascribed to that lawyer."

But Fred F. Fielding, the boss when Roberts served as a White House deputy counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said, "I know he's conservative by talking with him about issues." Fielding added: "He's generally conservative on presidential powers," a key issue as Bush fights terrorism, and generally tends toward a "more literal reading of the Constitution."

Roberts was born in Buffalo and grew up in Long Beach, Ind., an affluent beachside town on Lake Michigan. The son of a Bethlehem Steel executive, he graduated first in his high school class and in 1973 went to Harvard University, a son of the Midwest whose middle-America values did not go unnoticed by classmates at a time when conservatives on campus were uncommon.

He found a mentor in William P. LaPiana, now a law professor at New York Law School and at the time a prelaw adviser at the campus housing where Roberts lived. LaPiana remembers that while Roberts was a brilliant student of history, graduating summa cum laude in three years, he was also humble, considered a relatively rare trait for someone with Roberts's academic standing.

Roberts had received an excellent grade from a tough professor, and was eager to share the news with LaPiana. Still, he was self-deprecating about it, saying, "I think my head will fit through the door." Though LaPiana said he "probably disagrees with Roberts about just about everything," the moment stands out for him as one that indicates that he has the temperament to be a good judge. "It showed both maturity and humility," he said.

At Harvard Law School, Roberts was once again a star and known as something of a straight arrow. David W. Leebron, the law review editor and now president of Rice University, remembers stopping off for ice cream with Roberts, the review's managing editor, after working late. Roberts always chose the same flavor: vanilla chocolate chip.

"I'm the type of person who wants to try other things, but he makes his choices and gets comfortable with them," Leebron said.

After graduating from law school in 1979, Roberts clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York, and then for Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist.

After that, he worked as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and joined Reagan's staff as an aide to White House counsel Fielding, who became his mentor in GOP circles.

Roberts joined the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson in 1986, then went into President George H.W. Bush's administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr's principal deputy. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 1992, but the appointment died when Bill Clinton succeeded Bush as president. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he headed the firm's appellate practice and frequently argued before the Supreme Court.

In the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, Roberts played a key, if quiet, role in the Florida recount. Although his name did not appear on the briefs, three sources who were personally aware of Roberts's role said he gave Gov. Jeb Bush (R) critical advice on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice.

Roberts's first writing as a federal judge was an opinion dissenting from a decision by his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals not to reconsider a three-judge panel's ruling protecting a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act.

Roberts thought the court ought to give a developer whose freedom of action had been restricted in favor of the toad another chance to make his argument that the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."

But Roberts made this conservative point in moderate tones -- though his opinion hinted he might side with the developer, he hardly committed to doing so in advance.

"To be fair," he wrote, the panel "faithfully applied" the circuit court's precedent, but a rehearing would "afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."

And that, say the many Washington lawyers, judges and public officials who know him, is Roberts in a nutshell.

Paul Mogin, Roberts's law school roommate and now a Washington lawyer, said Roberts was rarely confrontational about his politics and said he could not point to a significant discussion that led them to conclude that he was conservative. "I just knew he was conservative across the board," said Mogin, "It just came across whenever we would get to talking about movies or politics or something."

But, he added, "I doubt he has any particular agenda that he'd be going into the court with."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company