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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (44484)10/3/2005 11:38:12 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 93284
 
Remember The Memo
________________________________________

As the noose tightens at the White House, the State Department memo may be the key piece of Plame evidence. The one thing they didn’t count on was an honest prosecutor who cared more about evidence and the law than about partisanship. That, for this White House, was an inconceivable circumstance.

By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 10.03.05
prospect.org

Think it’s fair to say that the combination Sunday of the Walter Pincus–Jim VandeHei piece in The Washington Post and George Stephanopoulos’ bombshell on television’s This Week felt like a tug on the noose around the White House’s neck?

The Post article noted that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor looking into the Valerie Plame investigation, could bring conspiracy indictments against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby -- even if he fails to pin down evidence that they violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Stephanopoulos did them one better: He said to George Will on his show that a source told him that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney “were actually involved in some of the discussions” about how the White House should deal with Joe Wilson and Plame, his wife.

OK, before we go any further, let’s pinch ourselves: I still think it will be awfully difficult for Fitzgerald to bring indictments against high-level officials. Bureaucratic layering is such that high officials typically have five or six degrees of separation from controversial actions, so that they can say “my hands were clean” and some underling the media have never heard of can take the fall.

It’s kind of like in The Constant Gardner -- the pharmaceutical company doesn’t need to order an actual hit; it merely has to let out word that so-and-so is a problem, and by the time the word gets to the sixth sociopath down the line, the comment is understood to mean murder. But no executive ever said, or perhaps even ever intended, any such thing.

So for now we still need to assume that, whatever happened, neither Rove nor Libby nor anyone else in the Bush White House intended for Plame’s name to get out there. And remember, we’re not exactly dealing with Murray Kempton on the journalistic end of this transaction. (For those of you who don’t know, he’s the epitome of journalistic probity and rectitude.) Bob Novak may have burned a source or made a more innocent error. So Plame’s name might have appeared in print through some fault of his.

But the argument against all my buts is the memo.

You are probably familiar with the memo story, which The New York Times broke in mid-July. The Times published Joe Wilson’s op-ed on July 6, 2003. By the next day, as he was getting aboard Air Force One to travel with the president to Africa, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had the key memo in his hand.

The memo, prepared the previous month, was chiefly about State’s skepticism that Saddam Hussein had obtained uranium from Niger. But one paragraph, marked “S” for secret, included Plame’s name, although it did not specifically identify her as a covert operative. (For the record, Rove’s attorney has maintained that Rove never saw the memo until Fitzgerald’s office showed it to him.)

To quote from a Washington Post piece by VandeHei and Mike Allen from July 16: “A key mystery in the leak case is how senior administration officials first learned of Plame's identity and her relationship to a key critic of President Bush's Iraq policy, before her name appeared in news reports.” One of Fitzgerald’s earliest moves was to subpoena phone records from that Air Force One trip.

Bush, of course, was on that plane. It hardly stretches credulity to think that Powell showed his boss the memo -- if not because of the Plame mention, then because the memo stated his department’s view that Wilson’s trip had been unnecessary to begin with because State’s internal probe had already shown that the Iraq-Niger connection was a fabrication.

And this, I suspect, is where Stephanopoulos’ source circles back in to the story. If Bush saw that memo seven days before Novak’s story appeared, might Bush himself have been involved in discussions about Wilson and Plame?

Again, there’s usually insulation built in between higher-ups, especially the president, and any decision or action that might remotely be considered controversial. And, again, I still think the likelihood of high-level prosecutions is less than 50 percent. But if those prosecutions come, the State Department memo will likely be a key document.

And the more important point is this: We’ll learn that the normal layers of insulation were ignored because the Bush administration, and perhaps the president himself, felt they could get away with ignoring them. Certainly, they had no reason at that point to think that the media, which helped them make their phony case for war, would get nosy. It’s equally obvious that they had no reason to fear the feeble Democrats. The one thing they didn’t count on was an honest prosecutor who cared more about evidence and the law than about partisanship. That, for this White House, was an inconceivable circumstance.
__________________________________

Michael Tomasky is the Prospect’s executive editor.



To: American Spirit who wrote (44484)10/3/2005 12:34:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 93284
 
In the Beginning, There Was Abramoff

By Frank Rich
Columnist
The New York Times
Sunday 02 October 2005

"Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life support."
- Tom DeLay, March 20, 2005

If you believed Tom DeLay then, you no doubt believe now that the deposed House majority leader is only on "temporary" leave from his powerful perch in Washington and that he'll soon bounce back, laughing all the way, from a partisan witch hunt that unjustly requires his brief discomfort in a Texas courtroom.

Those who still live in the reality-based community, however, may sense they're watching the beginning of the end of something big. It's not just Mr. DeLay, a k a the Hammer, who is on life support, but a Washington establishment whose infatuation with power and money has contaminated nearly every limb of government and turned off a public that by two to one finds the country on the wrong track.

But don't take my word for it. And don't listen to the canned talking points of the Democrats, who are still so busy trying to explain why they were for the war in Iraq before they were against it that it's hard to trust their logic on anything else. Listen instead to Andrew Ferguson, of the conservative Rupert Murdoch magazine, The Weekly Standard. As far back as last December in a cover article on the sleazy lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Mr. Ferguson was already declaring "the end of the Republican Revolution."

He painted the big picture of the Abramoff ethos in vibrant strokes: the ill-gotten Indian gambling moolah snaking through the bank accounts of a network of DeLay cronies and former aides; the "fact-finding" Congressional golfing trips to further the cause of sweatshop garment factories in the Marianas islands; the bogus "think tank" in Rehoboth Beach, Del., where the two scholars in residence were a yoga instructor and a lifeguard (albeit a "lifeguard of the year"). Certain names kept recurring in Mr. Ferguson's epic narrative, most prominently Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, Republican money-changers who are as tightly tied to President Bush and Karl Rove as they are to Mr. Abramoff and Mr. DeLay, if not more so.

The bottom line, Mr. Ferguson wrote, was a culture antithetical to everything conservatives had stood for in the Gingrich revolution of 1994. Slaying a corrupt, bloated Democratic establishment was out, gluttony for the G.O.P. and its fat cats was in. Mr. Abramoff and his gang embodied the very enemy the "Contract With America" Congress had supposedly come to Washington to smite: " 'Beltway Bandits,' profiteers who manipulate the power of big government on behalf of well-heeled people who pay them tons of money to do so." Those tons of Republican money were deposited in the favors bank of K Street, where, as The Washington Post reported this year, the number of lobbyists has more than doubled (to some 35,000) since the Bush era began in 2000. Conservatives who once aspired to cut government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" - as a famous Norquist maxim had it - merely outsourced government instead to the highest bidder.

Mr. DeLay's latest plight is only a tiny detail within this vast Boschian canvas of depravity. If this were Watergate - and Watergate itself increasingly looks like a relatively contained epidemic of corruption - the Texas grand jury's indictment of the congressman and his associates would be a sideshow tantamount to the initial 1973 California grand jury indictment of the Nixon aide John Ehrlichman and his pals in the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office; Watergate's real legal fireworks were still in the wings. So forget about all those details down in Texas that make your teeth hurt; don't bother to learn the difference between Trmpac and Armpac. Fasten your seat belt instead for the roller coaster of other revelations and possible indictments that's about to roar through the Beltway.

The most important plot development of the past two weeks, in fact, has nothing to do with Mr. DeLay (as far as we know). It was instead the arrest of the administration's top procurement officer, David Safavian, on charges of lying and obstructing the investigation of Mr. Abramoff. And what an investigation it is: The F.B.I., the I.R.S., the Treasury Department and the Interior Department have all been involved. The popular theory of the case has it that Mr. Safavian, a former lobbying colleague of both Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Norquist, is being muscled by the feds to rat on the big guys in Washington - much as another smaller fish may have helped reel in Mr. DeLay in Texas.

The DeLay and Abramoff investigations are not to be confused with the many others percolating in the capital, including, most famously of late, the Justice Department and S.E.C. inquiries into the pious Bill Frist's divine stock-sale windfall and the homeland security inspector general's promised inquiry into possible fraud in the no-bid contracts doled out by FEMA for Hurricane Katrina. The mother of all investigations, of course, remains the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's pursuit of whoever outed the C.I.A. agent Valerie Wilson to Robert Novak and whoever may have lied to cover it up. The denouement is on its way.

But whatever the resolution of any of these individual dramas, they will not be the end of the story. Like the continuing revelations of detainee abuse emerging from Afghanistan, Iraq and Guant·namo, this is a crisis in the governing culture, not the tale of a few bad apples. Every time you turn over a rock, you find more vermin. We've only just learned from The Los Angeles Times that Joseph Schmitz, until last month the inspector general in charge of policing waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon, is himself the focus of a Congressional inquiry. He is accused of blocking the investigation of another Bush appointee who is suspected of siphoning Iraq reconstruction contracts to business cronies. At the Justice Department, the F.B.I. is looking into why a career prosecutor was demoted after he started probing alleged Abramoff illegality in Guam. According to The Los Angeles Times, the demoted prosecutor was then replaced by a Rove-approved Republican pol who just happened to be a cousin of a major target of another corruption investigation in Guam.

We have to hope that the law will get to the bottom of these cases and start to connect the recurring dots. But while everyone is innocent until proved guilty, the overall pattern stinks and has for a long time. It's so filthy that the Republican caucus couldn't even find someone clean to name as Mr. DeLay's "temporary" stand-in as House majority leader last week. As The Washington Post reported in 2003, Roy Blunt, the Missouri congressman who got the job, was found trying to alter a homeland security bill with a last-minute provision that would have benefited Philip Morris-brand cigarettes. Not only had the tobacco giant contributed royally to Mr. Blunt's various campaign coffers, but both the congressman's girlfriend (now wife) and his son were Philip Morris lobbyists at the time.

This is the culture that has given us the government we have. It's a government that has spent more of the taxpayers' money than any since L.B.J.'s (as calculated by the Cato Institute, a libertarian research institution), even as it rewards its benefactors with tax breaks and corporate pork. It's a government so used to lying that Mr. DeLay could say with a straight face that the cost of Katrina relief could not be offset by budget cuts because there was no governmental fat left to cut. It's the government that fostered the wholesale loss of American lives in both Iraq and on the Gulf Coast by putting cronyism above patriotism.

The courts can punish crooks, but they can't reform democracy from the ground up, and the voters can't get into the game until 2006. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the key players both in the White House and in the leadership of both houses of Congress are either under investigation or joined at the hip to Messrs Rove, DeLay, Abramoff, Reed or Norquist. They seem to be hoping that some magical event - a sudden outbreak of peace and democracy in Iraq, the capture of Osama bin Laden, a hurricane affording better presidential photo ops than Rita - will turn things around. Dream on.

The one notable anomaly is John McCain, who retains a genuine hunger for reform, a rage at the corruption around him and the compelling motive of his presidential ambitions to push him forward; it's his Indian Affairs Committee, after all, that exposed the hideous Abramoff cesspool to public view last year. The Democrats, bereft of leadership and ideas (though not of their own Beltway bandits), also harbor a number of would-be presidents, but they are busier positioning themselves politically than they are articulating actual positions that might indicate what a new governmental order would look like. While the Republican revolution is dead, it says everything about the power vacuum left in its wake that Geena Davis's fictional commander in chief has more traction, as measured in Nielsen ratings and press, than any of the real-life contenders for that job in D.C.

-------

truthout.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (44484)10/3/2005 12:38:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Bush doesn't care what his "base" thinks...Bush is a lame-duck President and won't run for election ever again...In fact, he may not even stay in office for the rest of his 2nd term...Check out what a leading NeoCON and right winger has to say...

Bill Kristol: Conservatives ‘Demoralized’ over Miers

newsmax.com

Conservatives are "pretty demoralized” over President Bush’s surprise nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, says Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

Kristol noted, in an interview with Fox News, that with liberal Republican Sandra Day O’Connor leaving the court, Bush had a unique opportunity to put his conservative stamp on the Supreme Court.

Instead, Kristol suggests Bush "flinched.”

"It looks like he capitulated,” a pessimistic Kristol said. The conservative commentator noted she has absolutely no judicial record, and he fears she will be "another O’Connor, another Souter."

While O’Connor and current Associate Court Justice David Souter had served as judges, their judicial records were obscure at the time they were nominated for the Supreme Court.

Kristol sees Bush’s pick of Miers as a slap in the face to conservative women jurists.

"He has passed over conservative judges, including female judges, who have long and distinguished records on the federal and state supreme courts," Kristol said.

"Maybe he is right. Maybe she will be a first-rate justice, but you don't know that.

"This is not a Scalia, a Rehnquist or, for that matter, a John Roberts in terms of quality of pick," he added. "It's hard to interpret this as anything but flinching from a fight."

Kristol suggested the Bush administration may have feared a nomination fight with Democrats on judicial philosophy, which he said is a fight that most conservative Republicans would have welcomed.

"It sends a bad signal," Kristol said. Conservative judges, particularly conservative women, that have been making the case for 5, 10 or 15 years, have been passed over in favor of someone with no record. That's hard to explain to conservatives."