| |
 |
Monday, October 24, 2005 |
Rep. John Conyers: Pre-Emptive War Against Patrick Fitzgerald. As if spin and character attacks were a viable justification for a massive breach of national security, Republicans have already decided to smear Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rather than take responsibility for their own misdeeds. Prevailing wisdom expects grand jury indictments to be issued this week. Any criminal charges will likely reach deep into the White House. Over the weekend, the GOP spin machine gave us a preview of what we can expect from the Republican Party when we finally learn who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
The New York Times reports that "allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecuto"? and that, in what appears to be a coordinated Congressional and White House attack, "allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case."
Before the Congress and the American people can consider the possibility of a White House cover up, it will have to penetrate the smokescreen of character assassination and RNC talking points. This sort of misdirection is nothing new to this White House. The weapons they will use will be the same used to defame Ambassador Joe Wilson; in the words of a Republican Congressional aide months ago,it's slime and defend.âo?
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was tapped to test drive the strategy on this weekend's edition of "Meet the Press." As if insider trading were at all comparable to alleged treason, Senator Hutchinson attempted to draw parallels between the Fitzgerald investigation and the Martha Stewart trial: mere perjury under oath shouldn't really bring criminal sanctions, she argued, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime." Senator Hutchinson further expressed her hope that the grand jury would not âo[ogonek]go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
Much like the war in Iraq and the clumsy smear of Joe Wilson, the campaign against Patrick Fitzgerald appears doomed from the outset. First and foremost, if the grand jury does choose to bring indictments, neither Senator Hutchinson and her band of White House apologists nor the general public yet know what the scope of those indictments will be. It is quite possible that Patrick Fitzgerald could indict under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to disclose classified information to someone not authorized to received it. The smear artists are already arguing about technicalities-as if perjury under oath were somehow not criminal behavior. Is espionage enough of a crime for Senator Hutchinson? Is conspiracy? Is outright treason?
If senior White House advisors are, in fact, charged with perjuring themselves, why isn't that enough for Republicans? It was enough for Senator Hutchinson to vote to remove President Clinton from office, when she said "Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong....[t]o say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders....I will not compromise this simple but high moral principle...âo? The American people are simply smarter than Senator Hutchinson gives them credit-we remember the high moral principles brought to bare against the Clinton Administration. We will not be fooled by terms like"perjury technicality."
What about President Bush, whose Administration is being so disingenuously defended? When the story first broke, the President told the nation: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." The President did not make a distinction between some crimes and other crimes.
And how do those who claim Patrick Fitzgerald is an overzealous prosecutor reconcile that view with the statements made by the President they so ruthlessly seek to protect? Not one week ago, President Bush again addressed the country:"The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation. He's doing it in a very dignified way, by the way, and we'll see what he says."
The American public should be outraged-not surprised, but truly indignant-if the grand jury has uncovered evidence that the advisors closest to the President placed politics and petty revenge over national security. Time will tell. The only certainty, it seems, is that Republican leaders are less willing to confront the facts on the ground then they are to smear the character of a decent and dedicated public servant. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
2:52:42 PM 
|
|
Assault on Fitzgerald Intensifies. The New York Daily News reports that administration “defenders have launched a not-so-subtle campaign against the prosecutor handling the case.” They’ve got this quote about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from a “White House ally”:
He’s a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he’s been tapped by God to do very important things
James Comey, the Bush administration official who announced Fitzgerald’s appointment, had a different take on December 30, 2003:
I chose Mr. Fitzgerald, my friend and former colleague, based on his sterling reputation for integrity and impartiality. He is an absolutely apolitical career prosecutor.
The mud is being thrown but it’s going to be hard to make it stick.
[Think Progress]
2:47:04 PM
|
|
In an excerpt from her book "Alleluia America!," Irish journalist Carole Coleman describes her interview with Bush and the subsequent dressing down from his handlers, quoting one as saying, "You were given an opportunity to interview the leader of the free world and you blew it." [Cursor.org]
2:23:57 PM
|
|
Fronting Bush's 'Darkest Days,' the New York Daily News reports that "a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts," said: "This is not some manager at McDonald's chewing out the help. This is the President of the United States, and it's not a pleasant sight." [Cursor.org]
1:49:01 PM
|
|
'Breaking Ranks,' Brent Scowcroft tells the New Yorker that "The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney. I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." Asked about the differences between George W. Bush and his father, Scowcroft said: "I don't want to go there." [Cursor.org]
1:38:35 PM
|
|
David Wurmser,. an aide to the Vice President, told Scooter Libby and Cheney “that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle because she was a CIA agent,” Raw Story reports. According to Raw Story, Wurmser was ” told to leak her name to a specific group of reporters.”
[Think Progress]
1:33:03 PM
|
|
Arianna Huffington: Bush and Sulzberger: The "Lucky Sperm Club" Quiz.
The Lucky Sperm Club. A select (albeit unofficial) club populated by powerful men who owe their exalted status in life not to talent, intelligence, creativity, or hard work but to winning the sperm lotto by having the great good fortune to be born into a powerful family.
Plamegate has brought together a pair of Lucky Sperm Club members: George W. Bush and Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. Two guys who, to borrow a phrase from Pete Hamill, were born on third base but think they hit a triple. And who are now busy trashing the stadium.
These two Lucky Spermers find themselves in deep trouble at the moment, plagued by charges of incompetence and cronyism.
This got me thinking: what else do W and Pinch have in common? Turns out quite a bit.
Don't believe me? Just take this handy "Lucky Sperm Club Quiz". You decide: is it W or is it Pinch? [Answers below]
1. Which of these men had a father who was considered stupid but who is now thought to be a genius compared to his son?
2. Which of these men is currently on the defensive about his support for an incompetent woman in his office?
3. Which of these men may have to ask for the resignation of a subordinate because of a mounting scandal?
4. Which of these men appointed as his top deputy a loyal member of his father's regime?
5. Which of these two men's favorite TV series was "Star Trek: The Next Generation," and even owned a watch with the inscription "Live Long and Prosper"?
6. Which of these men lists as his desert island must-haves a Bible, running shoes, fishing rod, and books?
7. Which of these men had a "defining moment" while on an Outward Bound trip?
8. Which of these men said that he decided to "recommit my heart to Jesus Christ" after a fateful walk on the beach?
9. Which of these men works out five times a week?
10. Which of these men works out six times a week?
11. Which of these men is reportedly referred to as "the nitwit" around the office?
12. Which of these men can't stand it when people are late?
13. Which of these men spends an annual "Rambo" weekend out in the woods with friends?
14. Which of these men's favorite dessert is pralines-and-cream ice cream?
15. Which of these men is the luckiest man on the face of the earth?
ANSWERS:
1: both
2: both (W for Miers, Pinch for Miller)
3: both (Rove/Miller)
4: both (Dick Cheney/Howell Raines)
5: Pinch
6: W
7: Pinch
8: W
9: Pinch
10: W
11: Pinch
12: W
13: Pinch
14: W
15: both
1:27:34 PM
|
|
Pat Buchanan writes that "Thirty months ago, many of those [now] anxious to see the White House brought down were hauling its water," including the "adversary press" and "the indispensable enablers of war" among the "loyal opposition." [Cursor.org]
1:00:46 PM
|
|
In describing how 'Cheney has gone off the radar,' Michael Wolff notes that Cheney's office "refuses to supply a daily schedule of his recent activities, and, furthermore, makes this refusal off the record. (Truly -- a spokesperson refused to provide information only under the condition that I agreed not to say she refused to provide information.)" [Cursor.org]
12:57:02 PM
|
|
The article isn't available online, but in a Q & A with the author, Hullaballo's Digby notices "some spanking new jargon bubbling up into the mainstream," including, "the term 'conservative' has been surgically removed from the failed ideology of neoconservativism," with neocons now being portrayed as 'Liberals With Guns.' [Cursor.org]
12:36:48 PM
|
|
Laurie David: Why Alaskaâo[dot accent]s Sen. Ted Stevens is a Drip, Drip, Drip. The Senate floor came to a crashing halt last week when Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska threatened to resign if the $450 million allocated in the new transportation bill for his pet project -- the so called âo[ogonek]bridges to nowhereâo? -- was redirected to help with post-Katrina reconstruction. So much for compassionate conservatism.
Hereâo[dot accent]s my question: Why is this considered a threat? I consider it an offer of the most magnanimous kind. Stevens is indignant over bridges no one needs -- at the same time his state drip, drip, drips into a crisis caused by global warming. Satellite data reveal that the area covered by Arctic sea ice hit a record low this September. Meanwhile, four Alaskan villages are making plans for imminent relocation as the rising sea envelopes the coastline.
Stevensâo[dot accent] colleagues should call his bluff and let him quit. The survival of his state just might depend on it.
stopglobalwarming.org [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:59:45 AM
|
|
Why Wilson Was Smeared. Many on the right claim that the Bush administration launched a smear campaign against Joe Wilson because his claims were false and they needed to set the record straight. The opposite is true. Wilson's core conclusion "that intelligence was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat" was correct.
The truth is Joe Wilson was smeared for a reason much larger than himself. Wilson was smeared because the administration knew if whistle-blowers were able to speak freely, their justification for war would fall apart.
Their fears were well-founded. Wilson put into motion a series of events that were not only politically damaging but began to expose how the nation was misled into war. In the days immediately following Wilson's op-ed:
- Bush officials admitted their intelligence on uranium was a lie
- Congress was calling for an investigation
- the CIA launched its own investigation
- the intelligence on the aluminum tubes (the other half of the nuclear argument) was falling apart
- the nation's leading newspapers and television shows were headlining the story that the Bush administration had misled us into war
Think Progress has chronicled the two weeks following the release of Joe Wilson's op-ed that demonstrates why his claims represented such a threat to the administration. Read our report here.
[Think Progress]
9:50:41 AM
|
|
KUDOS ALEC BALDWIN!!! BEST QUESTION OF THE DAY .....
Alec Baldwin: What Happened to the Party of Lincoln?. In today's NY Times, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, in reference to the Fitzgerald/CIA leak investigation, is quoted as saying that she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
If you check the online record you will see that this is the same Kay Bailey Hutchison that voted in favor of both counts of impeachment against Bill Clinton. More disturbingly, she writes in the Congressional record dated February 17th, 1999:
"I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."
My question for today is: Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit? And a follow-up...How did the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and General Eisenhower get taken over by such lying, thieving, self-serving scoundrels? [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:45:23 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
