That is going to be one hell of a fuckin' detox. Good luck with the pink cloud, hon.
Crooks & Liars,
Matt Stoller and
Kos all respond to
Church Lady Brady. (
Update: So does Lambert. And LP has visual aids.) If the WaPo ever decides they can do without a full-time whiner running the WPNI, I personally think he has just aced the interview for Fourth Power Tool.
And over at the
Guardian they have a nice piece on Patrick Fitzgerald:
Fitzgerald let no one stand in his way. Novak testified almost immediately, but other journalists supplied with the same leaked information about Plame did not. One, the New York Times's controversial Judy Miller, swore she would go to jail before revealing her source. Miller spent 85 days behind bars before she, too, cracked, as her career disappeared and her tarnished newspaper plunged into an orgy of self-recrimination. It was a remarkable feat by the Untouchable. He stood up against two of the most powerful and politically diametric institutions in America - the Bush administration and the New York Times - and beat them both. Along the way, whether he wanted it or not (and he probably did not), he has become a new force in American politics.
(snip)
Fitzgerald's pursuit of both terrorists and politicians came together in a perfect storm. Suddenly, with Plamegate, the Untouchable was taking his crusade to the highest powers in the land, dealing in issues at the very heart of the war on terror. And he was winning. When he indicted Libby he had done the seemingly impossible. He had taken on the Republican Party machine and emerged bloody, unbowed and clutching a scalp.
Yet, he should be careful. Chicago's toughest streets cannot hold a candle to the Washington establishment when it is riled. Certainly, critics are firing off the first shots. The Wall Street Journal opinion page, a boiling pot for Republican America, has dubbed him 'a loose cannon' and an 'unguided missile'. Some of Washington's biggest names, such as Watergate journalist Bob Woodward, have labeled him a 'junkyard dog prosecutor'. 'The far right is very unforgiving and he has hurt them. They have long memories,' said Abner Mikva, a former White House counsel and an admirer of Fitzgerald.
Yes we know, Ms. Comstock, you have him in your sights. And
we have you in ours.
Meanwhile via
Atrios we learn that Ciro is picking up key labor endorsements, and
the steelworkers have said that defeating the DINO Cuellar is "our No. 1 primary target in the United States." It's pretty exciting, Ciro is gaining momentum and it all started when the blogs got behind him. We've now raised over $14,500 from FDL, and over 50 people have donated in the past 24 hours. Thanks so much for everyone who reached down into their pockets for so much as a dollar. That makes you part of the pushback.
Anyone who wants to deliver some pushback can do so
here.
(photo courtesy
Dependable Renegade)
|
Charles Carreon has an intriguing post up at his blog regarding the propriety of Barbara Comstock, former high level employee in John Ashcroft's DoJ now working on behalf of Scooter Libby. According to Comstock's own bio information on
the Blank Rome Government Relations, LLC, website, she was:
chief spokesperson and communications strategist for Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as the spokesperson for the entire Department with responsibility for all public affairs and communications matters. Comstock also oversaw the public affairs offices of the Justice Department components including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Marshals Service. (emphasis mine)
Sound like just another government drone to you? Not on your life -- this is a woman who would have been intimately involved in crafting the Ashcroft press conference strategy throughout the whole of his involvement in the Traitorgate investigation -- and she had her hands on information from the FBI as well.
And according to
Charles Carreon, Comstock engineered her exit from the DoJ only four days after Fitz was appointed to be Special Counsel in the matter. How convenient.
Carreon cites the
DC Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9, regarding not representing any client whose claims may be adverse to that of a previous client. According to
her Blank Rome bio, however, Comstock is a Virginia Bar Member.
The Virginia Bar Association also has requirements for attorney members to avoid even an appearance of impropriety in client representation,
DR 9-101.
DR 9-101. Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety.
(A) A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter upon the merits of which he has acted in a judicial capacity.
(B) A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee unless the public entity by which he was employed consents after full disclosure.
(C) A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body or public official.
This rule is pretty standard
conflict of interest rule for bar associations around the country. There is a potential out for Comstock if, indeed, the DoJ granted her some sort of exemption in representation for Libby under (B) -- but I would argue that such exemption might have to come directly from Fitzgerald, since he has been granted extraordinary powers in his supervision of the Traitorgate investigation, or potentially by Margolis, who is his direct supervisor at the DoJ.
Both Ashcroft and now Gonzales are compromised by ethical conflicts on this issue, and should not be allowed to grant any waivers for ethical purposes. Has anyone asked the Administration about this? Not that I can find.
Doesn't the public have a right to know if the DoJ gave consent for an employee who worked on a substantial matter of public interest -- the investigation of the outing of a covert CIA agent -- to work for a man who lied to investigators to obstruct that very investigation?
For whom is Comstock now providing a firewall -- Libby or others in the Bush Administration or both?
When I switched hats from defending criminals to working in the prosecutor's office, I had to go through every single file of every single client I had ever represented for all the years I was in private practice and make list after list of due diligence names that I could not touch in any way in a case.
It conflicted me out of a lot of work in our office (criminals tend to be repeaters, after all), because I had been a busy private attorney. It was a pain in the ass, but I did all of this because it was the right thing to do -- for me, sure, but especially as a professional ethics matter for the prosecutor's office and the judicial process overall.
You do not serve the cause of justice by playing fast and loose with the rules to suit your own agenda. And that is exactly what Barbara Comstock is doing.
You can't tell me that she didn't have intimate involvement in crafting message and response on the Traitorgate mess for Ashcroft. This was a huge open sore for the Administration and Ashcroft was "Mr. Press Conference," so you know Comstock was in charge of crafting a "tough on crime, but we'll take care of you Karl, wink wink" public message for Ashcroft on a daily basis.
Comstock's conduct is beyond shameful -- it is exactly the sort of bullshit that gives all attorneys a bad name, and she needs to be publicly shamed for it. It's a cardinal rule that you do not touch things over which you had some control when you were on the other side because it substantially taints the process.
Especially when you are exiting a public service job for the private sector -- big no no. The Virginia Bar Association ought to take active notice of this.
She's going to argue that all she is doing is fundraising -- but we now know that to be utter crap,
since "Clarice" got her "press release" (read strategy memo) about the Jeffress strategy straight from Babs. If she is disseminating Team Libby's talking points (or at least some segment of Team Libby, anyway, because I refuse to believe that Cline signed on to that dreck given his strong defense counsel background), then she is working with them at a much higher level than simply "fundraiser."
Disseminating memos for the team is "getting the message out to the Wurlitzer," pure and simple and, after all, that's been Comstock's stock in trade for years,
as Jane and Digby pointed out last night.
Whether or not it is "just fundraising," it is still wrong. Comstock would have been privy to high level meetings about the information gathered by the FBI, how the DoJ could best publicly respond to questions about Rove, Libby and other members of the Administration and their conduct -- and to do so, she would also have likely had contacts with the FBI investigators heading up the search for information. Think that kind of information wouldn't be valuable to Team Libby?
A way to look at it is this: if you were a corporate defense counsel, working for Corporation X, and you left the firm to work as plaintiff's counsel, you ought to be barred from participating in any way in any cases involving Corporation X. You would have intimate, behind-the-scenes knowledge not only of how your former firm operates, but also what kind of advice they have given on settling claims, what sort of risk averse or risk positive strategy your former client has, what they do in terms of investigation, etc., etc.
In Comstock's case, she would have intimate insights into how investigators approached the Traitorgate case from the outset. And how the DoJ managed crisis issues internally. And how the communications went between DoJ and the WH in those early days. And...well, you get the picture. This just screams "appearance of impropriety," doesn't it?
Lawyers police themselves in terms of conduct. Where I am, this sort of ethical question would raise eyebrows immediately and a lot of questions would be asked by the state bar association's ethics enforcement division.
Perhaps in DC they are so used to looking the other way, they just don't take this sort of smarmy crap seriously. But they should. Perhaps they just need a nudge? The fact that the Virginia bar covers the entire state, and not just DC, ought to count for something.
Can you tell this sort of thing pisses me off? Barbara Comstock is a smarm merchant, and she ought to be ashamed of herself (if she actually had any scruples at this point, which I sincerely doubt). But even if she feels no shame or no compulsion to follow the rules (sound like an Administration you know?),
the Virginia Bar Association has an obligation to the profession and the public to look into this matter of conflict.
|
Shorter Jim "
Church Lady" Brady: I'm
still full of shit, Deborah Howell is just a bad typist and bloggers are so very mean.
Thin-skinned WATBs have such a hard time moving on.
|
When
Digby sounded the warning about Barbara Comstock, head of Scooter Libby's defense fund, I had no idea what a toxic waste dump the comments section would turn into as people went to work delving into the sewage pit that is her past.
This is fucking heart of darkness stuff.
This is a woman who is the author of some of the most despicable and destructive memes the GOP has used to both artificially prop itself up and decimate the Democrats through endless repetition in the mighty Wurlitzer. She's had her skeevy hands on some of the most foul dirty tricks ever perpetuated by the modern Rethugs. She's a high-level GOP operative. She's best buds with Kate O'Beirne. What else can you say.
A brief history of Barbara Comstock's corrupt shenanigans:
. Principal in Blank Rome LLP, major lobbying firm contracted to distribute all that Department of Homeland Security pork for huge corporate clients, who then turned around and made enormous contributions to GOP candidates. Shades of Jack Abramoff, she's a key player in the Rethuglican money machine that rips off the taxpayers, lards its benefactors and keeps itself in the chips.
. Assembled debate materials for GWB, helped prepare Ashcroft for his Senate confirmation. Headed up the media distortion team in Florida in 2000 that manipulated the press narrative to Bush's benefit following the election.
. Former head of research at the RNC, as Digby pointed out her specialty is combing through source material on Democrats, culling and twisting things to embarrass and humiliate Democratic candidates. Gave dictation to Steno Sue.
. Author of many of the "Attack Kerry" memes, including accusations that he wanted to "gut intel" in the NRO. Employed emasculating language to make him appear weak and effeminate. Also wrote that vicious "John Kerry gave mouth-to-mouth to a rodent" story.
. Lobbying clients are a rogues gallery of pork-fed crooks
. Tried to steal Moynihan's legacy and paste it on to John Bolton in promoting him for UN job
. Best friends with the Ledeens, Barbara Olson and the O'Beirnes, dubbed part of the "Barbarellas" by Bill Bennett after their hatchet work on the Florida recount. Lauded for their "traditional virtue" by Michael Ledeen.
. Played a huge part in the campaign to smear the Clintons -- David Brock in "Blinded by the Right" described her passion to bring them down as "almost unhinged." Served as "chief investigator" for Dan Burton.
. Appointed by Ashcroft to the Justice Department's Director of Public Affairs. According to Murray Waas, strongly suspected of cronyism and ultimate loyalty to the RNC during her tenure there. Waas quotes a question posed to James Comey during his confirmation hearings for his job at the DoJ:Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Comey: "How could there not be an appearance of a conflict given the close nexus of relationships?"
"I agree with you that it's an extremely important matter," Comey said.
. Close ties to Bush family bag man and child torturer Mel Sembler, whom she also brought on to the Libby Defense fund.
. One of the stars of the anti-Michael Moore movie, Celsius 41.11
. Failed to identify herself as a political operative and strategic advisor for Progress for America during the confirmation of John Roberts when she appeared on Fox News criticizing NARAL's anti-Roberts ads.
. Smeared MoveOn.org and misled people into believing that ads submitted to a MoveOn contest portraying Bush as Hitler were actually prepared by MoveOn themselves.
. Suspiciously left the DoJ on October 1, 2003 -- right on the heels of the Plame case being referred by the CIA for investigation.
. Head of the ready-response team that portrayed Tom DeLay as the innocent victim of Ronnie Earl within hours after his indictment; concocted bs excuses about DeLay's wife and daughter being paid huge sums for little discernible work.
. On the Executive Committee of the Susan B. Anthony PAC (with William Kristol) trying to pass themselves off as feminists as they work to dismantle pro-choice (hijacking the language of the left and twisting it for the purpose of dissembling seems to be her specialty).
. She's given money to a bunch of hefty GOP creeps.
. She also appears to be in violation of DC Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct in jumping from the DoJ to work with Scooter Libby's defense fund. Redd will have much more on this later.
It is quite obvious that this woman is a high level GOP operative and the fact that they are putting her at the top of the Libby shit heap can only mean that her job is to build up the Libby narrative, spread filth about those who could damage him and above all keep the cancer from spreading to the other members of the war party who are probably already infected.
The press release she put out yesterday doing damage control for Cheney is a good indicator of what her job is.
We'll have more (and it sounds like emptywheel might have her teeth in some delightful aspects of the story -- man if there is one person in the world I wouldn't want looking into my shit it would be her, she is absolutely dogged when it comes to document retrieval and analysis).
As
anonymous said in the comments, "You know, Comstock loves doing 'opposition research' and then going on TV and bashing people. It will be interesting to see how she likes getting the same treatment back in return."
Thanks to everyone who is participating in the effort. This is really inspirational.
I need a shower.
|
We slog through a lot of partisan muck and unsavory characters every day on this blog, but as
Glenn Greenwald points out, the
NYT article by David Johnston outlining how the partisan hacks at the Justice Department are going after the people who leaked the NSA wiretap information -- as well as the journalists involved -- is ringing all the alarm bells.
Glenn says:
[T]his flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistle-blowers and intimidate journalists are nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas. There is much speculation over whether other eavesdropping programs exist, including domestic eavesdropping programs, as well as whether other lawless programs have been authorized based on the Administration's theories that it has the right to wield war powers against American citizens on American soil.
Our hope for finding out about the existence of other illegality depends upon the willingness of whistle blowers to come forward and journalists to investigate and report such misconduct. That is precisely why the Administration is so aggressively seeking to attack and silence those two groups, and it is why the significance and danger of those attempts really can't be overstated.
As
Digby noted yesterday, with the Democratic party practically pummeled into silence and the press either intimidated or bribed into submission, one of the last hopes for checking the unlimited grasp of the BushCo. criminals are the career people at the Justice Department, and that's why BushCo. has been working so hard to stack it with cronies who will do their bidding. They
pushed Comey out, gave
Alice Fisher a recess appointment, tried (and failed) to crowbar
Timothy "Tyco" Flanigan into the number two seat, and now this. The fact that Tom DeLay now sits on the congressional committee that
oversees the Justice Department (even as they investigate him) is really just the icing on the cake.
The NYT piece does get one thing wrong, and it's quite critical. It claims that Fitzgerald's actions in the Plame case have opened up the doors for this, and while that may be the battle cry of the BushCo. cronies it completely ignores what Fitzgerald actually did and says.
In the recently released
2004 affidavit in the CIA leak case, Fitzgerald gives a very good outline of the need to protect true whistleblowers, and how this is is actually furthered by prosecuting the smear merchants in the Plame case who disingenuously hoped to hide behind "whistleblower" status:
In deciding whether to issue subpoenas to reporters, I have carefully weighed and balanced the competing interests of the First Amendment and the public interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the countervailing interests in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice: namely determining whether a crime was committed and whether someone should be prosecuted for that crime. One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the "source" to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the earlier source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a "whistleblower" (e.g. the source for the September 28 Washington Post column). The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House. Indeed, failure to take effective steps to identify such sources might chill future whistleblowers such as Wilson, this impairing "a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues." (28 CFR Section 50.10).
In ignoring this critical distinction and commencing a witch hunt for the purposes of political intimidation and thuggery, the DoJ is twisting the law to political purposes. And if the New York Times (who clearly have an interest in the matter) doesn't get that distinction, the BushCo. cronies launching this thing certainly won't.
Sometimes I sit here in my pile of papers and my notebooks and wall charts with all the stickies and I watch shit like this go down and I think of all the money and the access and the manpower the GOP corruption machine has at its disposal and I think my god, what hope do we have of combating this. It's overwhelming.
Then I look in the comments section, other blogs and my email and see how smart, how determined, how resourceful and committed people are without hope of any financial gain, based solely on principle and strength of character and I realize that no amount of cash and corruption can beat that down.
|
Jack Abramoff has been a very bad boy,
according to the LATimes. And he's not the only one: boards of directors of charitable organizations have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the donations given to their groups are used in an appropriate, charitable fashion.
By using these groups as a political money laundering base of operations, Abramoff abused the integrity of the charitable process. By allowing him to do so without asking all the appropriate questions, the folks running these charities are now in for a world of headaches --
and they ought to be.
Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why they aren't taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January.
"One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political influence," said Mark Everson, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
Abramoff's use and misuse of nonprofits played a key role in each of the three counts of his indictment: conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion. He admitted evading $1.7 million in income taxes over three years, in part by using nonprofits to conceal personal income from the IRS.
The fast-growing ranks of tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations are tailor-made for operators like Abramoff.
The number of tax-exempt groups in the United States has tripled over the last three decades, but nonprofit groups usually pay no tax, so there is little incentive for the IRS to keep an eye on them.
The lack of oversight is especially meaningful in Washington, where trade associations, public-interest groups and grass-roots lobbying organizations all have tax-exempt status under generous IRS rules designed to foster public debate. Members of Congress are also getting into the act and forming their own charities. (emphasis mine)
So many ways to break the law. So little time to watch them all. It's not enough to watch the bribery and the influence peddling, now you have to look sideways at the charities set up to ostensibly care for children and others in need.
This is beyond disgusting. And it needs to be called for what it is: cynical and criminal preying on the public, dressing up the actions of thugs in the guise of decency.
Your Republican government hard at work -- bilking the public and screwing the poor. Coming soon to a charity near you.
Read the entire
LATimes article. Prepare to be very angry. But it helps to know what we are fighting against. Know thy enemy. Compassionate conservative, my ass.
(Graphic via Village Voice's now defunct (SIGH)
Bushbeat.)
UPDATE: You know, it occurs to me that,
according to the article anyway, Greenberg Traurig may have some issues in enabling and being complicit in some of the schemes if they approved Abramoff's actions on behalf of clients. It would be interesting to know how much cooperation the DoJ's Public Corruption unit is getting from them, wouldn't it? The managing partners have to be unnerved by their inclusion in this article.
And a big thanks to Edward Teller for the reminder on all the exceptional work done on this issue by
Josh and by
Laura Rozen. Both their sites have been on the money (so to speak) on this issue all along. Should have mentioned them earlier, because they have truly done yeoman's work on this. (Oh, and
Josh mentions today that Shelly Moore Capito's (R-WV) name has surfaced on some Abramoff e-mails. Interesting...)
|
Ever felt the urge to out-do the Bard and spell out your love of...justice? To pen a short missive about the importance of...the rule of law? If so, I have found
the idea for you.
I have a new plan: to write Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor, poems. Once a day, I will compose a work of verse—such as this one, based on the rhythm-and-blues song “Let the Good Times Roll”:
“Let The Indictments Flow”
...Come on baby, yes, we’re in a crisis
This is something we just can’t miss
Come on baby, let the indictments flow
Flow all night long
Come on baby, I know this is zany
This is the moment to stop Dick Cheney
Come on baby, let the indictments flow
Flow all night long
Maybe I'm just punchy from finally getting a decent night's sleep, but this idea cracks me up.
Don't actually send them to Fitz, though, because he's very busy and inundating the poor man with poetry seems...well...wrong, frankly, given the amount of hours he already puts in working through legal memoranda and all. I'd hate to be the reason for even more late night pizza orders, all in the cause of verse.
But for a Saturday morning exercise in amusement, I thought this idea would crack everyone else up as well. And perhaps inspire. So, if the spirit moves you, feel free to share with the rest of us in the comments.
Pens at the ready...
UPDATE: Oh, this is hilarious. Guess who got his hands caught in the lying and suborning perjury cookie jar? None other than
Ken Starr. (via
Rising Hegemon) People wonder why we find integrity in government so refreshing? Perhaps because it's become so difficult to find.
Ahh, the delicious smell of irony in the morning. Remember the Clinton years when Ken Starr railed on and on about the integrity of the legal process? When Republicans in Congress were all incensed about lying to the American public? It seems awfully old-fashioned now, doesn't it?
NOTE: In re-reading
the MSNBC/AP article on Ken Starr, this might be a case of an overly eager private investigator -- but as an attorney, you have a responsibility to ensure integrity of the process, meaning Starr and his co-counsel had the obligation to be certain that the statements and signatures were accurate before making representations about them. I look forward to following developments on this one -- should be interesting.
|
We have a mission. In the
comments section regarding the
Libby Defense Fund, Digby has this to say about the head of the fund, Barbara Comstock:
Comstock is key.
Here's a little excerpt from Josh Green's seminal article in the Atlantic called "Playing Dirty," about the 2000 campaign:Political campaigns always attempt to diminish their opponents, of course. What was remarkable about the 2000 effort was the degree to which the process advanced beyond what Barbara Comstock, who headed the RNC research team, calls "votes and quotes"Âthe standard campaign practice of leaving the job of scouting the target to very junior staff members, who tend to dig up little more than a rival's legislative record and public statements. Comstock's taking over the research team marked a significant change. She was a lawyer and a ten-year veteran of Capitol Hill who had been one of Representative Dan Burton's top congressional investigators during the Clinton scandals that dominated the 1990s: Filegate, Travelgate, assorted campaign-finance imbroglios, and Whitewater. Rather than amass the usual bunch of college kids, Comstock put together a group of seasoned attorneys and former colleagues from the Burton Committee, including her deputy, Tim Griffin. "The team we had from 2000," she told me recently, to show the degree of ratcheted-up professionalism, "were veteran investigators from the Clinton years. We had a core group of people, and that core was attorneys."
Comstock combined a prosecutor's mentality with an investigator's ability to hunt through public records and other potentially incriminating documents. More important, she and her team understood how to use opposition research in the service of a larger goal: not simply to embarrass Gore with hard-to-explain votes or awkward statements but to craft over the course of the campaign a negative "storyline" about him that would eventually take hold in the public mind. "A campaign is a lot like a trial," Comstock explained. "You want people aggressively arguing their case."
She is a very highly placed political operative. Her job in this case is to craft the narrative.
Your job, Jane, should you and all the Plameologists decide to accept it, is to put a stop to this evil harpy once and for all. She is Satan's mistress.
Sounds like Ms. Comstock has a bit of a Kato thing going on.
Okay here's the plan: find what you can about Barbara Comstock and leave it in the comments. I'll do some sort of round-up on a subsequent Late Nite. When Digby speaks, we should
all listen.
Meanwhile things are heating up on the Ciro Rodriguez/Henry Cuellar front. DFA have jumped in to back Ciro and they definitely have a
major bone to pick with the Club for Growth who were responsible for so many ads trashing Howard Dean -- and they are supporting the DINO Cuellar.
We're now raised over $12,000 for Ciro just on this blog alone. That comes from 196 people. It would be great if we could have over 200 donations tonight, even if they were small. Five dollars from the heart
means a lot.
(
Update: Forgot to mention that Jacki Schechner mentioned blogs that were fundraising for Ciro today and FDL was shown. Carry on...)
|
Did Dick Cheney have the right to declassify information just on his say-so? Hell if I know.
But irony and hackery abound in his decision to let Scooter release information from the NIE to Judy Miller for no other reason than to
lead her to political kool-aid that contradicted what they well knew to be true. And since the subject of the NIE is a sore spot on my gum that I just like to poke at from time to time this allows me to revisit the topic once again.
Thanks, Dick.
I've actually slogged through the 568 page SSCI report, a document so interminably boring and politically biased it would be unreadable were it not for the periodic outrage it elicits. In one of many bitchfests I've pitched about the NIE I wrote this back in
November 2005:
That NIE (or National Intelligence Estimate -- a compilation from the various intelligence departments of all the available information relating to a particular situation) was a crock from the git-go. BushCo. didn't even want to do one, even though they are typically done before launching any major military operation like oh, say, a war. Unbelievably, Dick Durbin had to make a special request to even get one prior to granting Dubya the authority to declare war (p. 12 of the SSCI).
National Intelligence Officers assert that ideally it takes three months to produce an accurate NIE, but Preznit Itchy Trigger Finger and the Stovepipe Posse claimed that the threat Sadaam posed was so imminent that they couldn't wait.
The NIE was produced in less than twenty days, and its findings were never sent out for peer review or to a panel of outside experts because Bush and company said there wasn't time. (p. 13, SSCI).
At the time they compiled the NIE, an INR dissent was included which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
And what happened to this dissent when the NIE was published on October 1, 2002?
The language on Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa appeared as it did in the draft version and INR's position that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious" was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue.
And what happened when people started to ask questions in July 2003 about the 16 words and wondered why BushCo. had never taken the INR dissent into consideration before
launching a full-scale war?
A senior administration official who briefed reporters yesterday said neither Bush nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety. "They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document," said the official, referring to the "Annex" that contained the State Department's dissent.
Okay so here we have a critical document compiled under duress by people who didn't care for people who didn't want to read it. Except, that is, Dick Durbin, who had also requested that a white paper be prepared at the same time that
wasn't classified so the public could know why the country had to be taken to war. But when the white paper was prepared, there was no mention of the INR dissent. Dick Durbin was having kittens. He referred to it the other day when Abu G was being questioned by the Judiciary Committee on the
NSA wiretaps:
I've been on the Intelligence Committee. And I can tell you that when you're briefed with classified material -- I sat in briefings not from here, just a few feet away and listened to what I thought was very meager evidence about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq.
Based on that, I voted against it. But I couldn't walk outside that room until it became public much later and say this administration was at war within when it came to this issue.
So Dick Durbin had to bite his tongue and watch the country go to war on what he knew to be a steaming pile bullshit because the NIE was classified and he couldn't speak about the INR dissent. The public remained blissfully ignorant and thousands died.
But Cheney told Scooter he could fling it around like a dirty napkin while he and Judy were
buttering each other's toast at the St. Regis for no other purpose than perpetuating a public, ass-covering hoax.
Such is the regard that Dick, Scooter and the rest of the future perps treat national secrets and their own security clearances. People should be screaming at the top of their lungs that these callow political hacks have access to anything more sensitive than a three month old copy of People Magazine.
(graphic by Monk at
Inflatable Dartboard)
|
Some very odd happenings today on the Libby front. Yesterday the blogosphere was alive with the "Libby has flipped" meme after the publication of
Murray Waas' National Journal article which actually said nothing of the sort. But it was evidently worrisome enough to Team Libby that they felt it necessary to make a statement today, and the nature of that statement reveals some very weird goings-on behind the scenes.
Ever since the
Oceans of Motions were released last week, those of us who make it a practice to slog through this shit knew that Libby was claiming Cheney authorized him to release information regarding the National Intelligence Estimate to Judy Miller 10 days before it was declassified in order to shore up BushCo.'s sagging case for war.
Reddhedd noted it, and so did
Emptywheel.
But Fitzgerald's
redacted affidavit and his letter of
Jan. 23 refer to the
testimony Libby has been giving all along to the effect that he was entitled to leak this information because Cheney told him to. It's probably just a reflection of the internal logic BushCo. has been cruising on for a long time, it isn't related to any "new defense strategy" concocted by Libby's lawyers nor is it anything Libby has testified to for well over a year (Libby's last appearance before the grand jury was in 2004).
If anything, it's just a testament to Dick Cheney's arrogance. I'm sure he believes he's entitled to do whatever he damn well pleases with classified information, as his imperious treatment of Valerie Plame indicates.
But be that as it may, a commenter over at
Tom MaGuire's named
Clarice provided a helpful quotation from a new press release that came out today from one of Libby's lawyers, William Jeffres, stating that:
There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby's lawyers have advised the Court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors. Indeed, there has never been any conference call between Mr. Libby's defense lawyers and Judge Walton. We do not know who reporters are relying on as sources for this story, but any such persons are neither knowledgeable nor authorized to speak for Mr. Libby's defense team.
In the comments, emptywheel asked where this came from, and Clarice responded that she should contact Barbara Comstock, "Libby's press contact," and volunteered to help them get in touch with each other.
Barbara Comstock isn't "Libby's press contact." She's head of his defense fund, which essentially seems to be covering Libby's legal defense bills so that they can use his case to protect the other neocons for whom Libby is acting as a firewall.
As we noted
yesterday, one of Libby's other attorneys is John Cline, a greymail specialist. And as
immanentize writes in our comments, this may be an indication that there is a struggle going on within the Libby defense squad, between those who see their job as defending Libby and those who want to protect those he's standing in front of:
[Cline] is a very hard working attorney who works with one of the nation's great criminal defense attorneys, Nancy Hollander. He is tireless in his pursuit of paper and broke the Wen Ho Lee case on the government's own record (as is often the case in these matters) More high profile and lazier attorneys would have let Wen Ho Lee take a serious rap. His experience as a US Attorney certainly taught him a tremendous amount about the pressures, real and imagined that defendants face. He is honest, like Fitz is honest which always makes for the best prosecutions.
What I see in this exchange is a little litigation strategy power struggle. Will it be full-bore grey mail -- which would mean that Libby would have to, in the end, be willing to implicate his "bosses" in many ways (Rove Cheney, Hadley?). What I mean by that is that grey mail forces the inspection, if not the production, of documents and leads which the prosecutor might not yet have. In the end, the prosecution might not be able to use the stuff in court, but the point of grey mail is generally to turn attention to other/bigger fish. Think the Noriega trial and the attempts to drag the CIA and former Reagan officials into the defense in Florida.
The other defense strategy seems to be a "protect everyone" strategy -- sort of a stalling tactic that does not focus on saving Libby's ass as much as it is to delay until a pardon is politically possible (December 2008) without any information being developed beyond Libby. This is a risky defense strategy for Libby because it is not really a pro-Libby/proactive defense. It is a wink and a nod action.
So essentially, the defense that is designed purely to help Libby -- the greymail one -- is by its very nature going to make Cheney et. al. extremely nervous by bringing their actions under scrutiny by both Fitzgerald and the judge. And even though the disclosure of this NIE information doesn't really do that, the people paying Libby's bills are quickly trying to scotch any notion that higher ups could be implicated.
Emptywheel:
Barbara Comstock, of course, is in charge of Libby's defense fund, not Libby's press contact office. So this suggests that the Neocon moneybags didn't like yesterday's big news. Maybe they've even jettisoned the greymail strategy (note, this statement came over Jeffress' signature, the guy who, in addition to being the Nixon lawyer on the team, is also the guy who shares a board room with Bush consligliere James Baker III. It didn't come from Cline, the greymail specialist.) for fear it would tax Cheney's always-fragile heart.
Don't really see that anything that Comstock and Jeffress are trying to do actually helps Scooter.
(graphic by Eric)
|
Glenn Greenwald talks about Comey testifying on the NSA wiretap program and so does
Digby:
All evidence suggests that I would not agree with James Comey's politics, but I can't be sure since he has scrupulously guarded his poltical leanings. I very much doubt that this law and order prosecutor sees the world through my ACLU lens. However, like many of the growing numbers of law enforcement officers who have grown alarmed by this administration's lawless governance, he is by all accounts a straight arrow. He was the number two man in the Justice Department when all the recent affronts to the constitution (torture, spying, the death of habeus corpus, indefinite detention, presidential infallibility) were delivered and from what we know he objected vociferously. It is, therefore, no surprise that this non-political career civil servant is no longer in government.
It is vital that he testify in a future hearing on the illegal NSA spying hearings. I do not know what he will say, and he may even defend the program on some level. But there is a reason why Comey refused to sign off on reauthorizing this program, forcing Gonzales to go to the hospital and try to strong arm a man who just had surgery to sign off on it instead. In his testimony earlier this week, Gonzales implied that it may have been a problem with another program. How very interesting.
We need to know just what in the hell was going on during the period between the time the program was instituted and the time Comey and others refused to reauthorize it. Why was it suspended? We need to know if there were other illegal spying programs. Comey is the man who can answer those questions.
Thanks to everyone who spoke out
here on your desire for Comey to testify, all 549 of you. Your comments were hand delivered to a member of the Judiciary Committee today and I'll keep you updated as I know more.
|
Really top-drawer effort by the White House pool boy Jim VandeHei this morning
in the WaPo:
President Bush met lobbyist Jack Abramoff almost a dozen times over the past five years and invited him to Crawford, Tex., in the summer of 2003, according to an e-mail Abramoff wrote to a reporter last month.
Bush "has one of the best memories of any politicians I have ever met," Abramoff wrote to Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine. "The guys saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids."
In an interview last night, Eisler confirmed the contents of the e-mail and said he recently provided portions of it to the liberal Web log ThinkProgress because he thought he was dealing with a fellow reporter. The blog posted the contents of the Abramoff-Eisler communication.
The Washingtoninan hardly rises to more than a local blather sheet. ThinkProgress is the blog for the Center for American Progress. Why is Deborah Howell quite
proud to tout the information she gets from the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, but suddenly ThinkProgress is a bunch of grubby, uncouth, beer-swilling louts?
Yes we are familiar with the standards to which the WaPo in particular holds itself, and they really need to get off the fainting couch. I don't expect them to start acknowledging that blogs even exist as something other than to excoriate, but the fact remains that we're covering a lot of ground they aren't and there are good reasons our readership is growing every day while theirs continues to plummet.
When we broke the story about Viveca Novak and Robert Luskin it wasn't acknowledged at the
New York Times despite the fact that we
wrote about it first and they got it from us -- and I both sent it to them and discussed it with them so it wasn't for lack of awareness. (
Update: It should be noted that VandeHei himiself followed with his own day-late-and-a-dollar-short version that included a Luskin-friendly story so cockamamie it has yet to be explained. Credit where credit is due.)
Likewise yesterday
Neil A. Lewis of the NYT credited
Murray Waas's (excellent) article with both "first reporting" Patrick Fitzgerald's January 23 letter and breaking the story about Cheney authorizing Libby to release the NIE.
Tom MaGuire does an excellent job of reconstructing blog history on this matter, which Murray would be the first to quickly acknowledge predated his article by a week.
As far as they're concerned, blogs really don't exist for any other reason than to ridicule. Oh and to mine for scoops that go uncredited. And of course to search Technorati for one's own name -- hey Jim,
how ya doin'?
|
Now that we've spent part of our day with Heckuva Job Brownie, it just begs the question: what else don't we know yet?
For an Administration that has been all damage control, all the time, this is turning out to be a heckuva week. What do you get when you try to incorrectly pin the blame for your own failures on everyone else? Or when you try to silence criticisms or sweep everything under the rug and hope no one in America begins to notice the smell from the dung heap that keeps on growing?
Start off with a scrapbook of Niger and Traitorgate
from Juan Cole.
Then move on to
today's Pincus article in the WaPo, wherein a former CIA middle east agent, Paul Pillar, throws down the gauntlet. Can you say deliberately cherry-picking the intelligence in order to bolster your already pre-disposed need to invade Iraq, regardless of the facts, all the while failing to play it straight with the American public? How about liars? Yeah, I thought you could.
Oh, and contingency planning for worst case scenarios in Iraq?
Nonexistent. Nice. I'm sure all our men and women in uniform over there really appreciate the care and concern from the Administration on their behalf. Now, where's that promised flowers and candy, Rummy and Wolfowitz kept going on and on about? Isn't Richard Perle awfully late on his delivery?
CNN reports that Pillar has an article in the new Foreign Affairs. (Hat tip to reader Masaccio for the link.) Am going to see if I can find a copy this weekend (hello, Barnes and Noble), and will report back on the read if I do. According
to CNN:
The Bush administration "used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Pillar wrote. "It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
Though Pillar himself was responsible for coordinating intelligence assessments on Iraq, "the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war," he wrote....
The biggest discrepancy between public statements by the Bush administration and judgments by the intelligence community centered on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, he said.
"The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed."
Rather, "the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood," Pillar wrote. (emphasis mine)
Well, isn't that interesting? Truthiness, indeed. (Take a peek at
this panel discussion in which Pillar participated at the Washington Institute with Barton Gellman and Ely Karmon on Middle East policy issues back in 2002. Fascinating stuff.)
And if that isn't enough, Olberman debunked some of the President's latest illegal NSA domestic spying excuse about the
Liberty Tower Library Tower Los Angeles "terrorist shoe bomb" plot.
Crooks and Liars has the clip.
Call me crazy -- but if you are going to disclose on national television that LA faced a terrorist attack, shouldn't the President or someone on his staff
notify the mayor of the city before opening their yaps? Especially if the threat was previously undisclosed to the public? Panic and all that, you know, because it's not like LA has ever had to deal with riots or anything in the past. I'm just saying. (And a hat tip to Wilson for digging up the link for me.)
Also, Larry Johnson has a great article up at
No Quarter, talking about this particular Administration and its public spin versus facts and all that inconvenient truthiness and stuff.
Sucks when people get in the way of your attempt at ass-saving spin, doesn't it?
NOTE: You know, it occurs to me, maybe the Administration isn't so worried about Brownie's testimony and the hearings today, given that the Winter Olympics begin this evening. It's Friday and most likely a wasted news cycle in a few hours, so they are probably hoping any questions of failure will get lost in the sea of athletes.
And speaking of the Olympics, I'm a total junkie. Please, please, please do not post any Olympics results in the comments before the event has aired here. I try to avoid results because I like to watch the events fresh -- especially figure skating -- but I can't possibly stay away from the comments, so be kind and don't post any spoilers. Thanks!
|
Heckuva Job Brownie is having quite a day of
testimony today.
Brown, who was later removed as FEMA head amid intense criticism of the federal response to the hurricane, said he notified Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joseph Hagin about the levee breach on Aug. 29, 2005.
``I think I told him we were realizing our worst nightmares,'' Brown said of his conversation with Hagin....
Brown today added a new element: that he spoke directly to Hagin and may also have talked with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
Joseph Lieberman, senior Democrat on the Homeland Security committee, asked Brown if he thought the message reached Bush. ``If I've told Joe Hagin or Andy Card, I've told the president,'' Brown responded.
White House spokesman Scott Mcclellan said he couldn't comment on Brown's statements because he hadn't seen them. He said the Bush administration was far less concerned with the cause of the flooding than the flooding itself. (emphasis mine)
Really, Scotty? Is that why the President
stayed on vacation, until forced to return to the WH by public disgust and outcry? Why he told Dianne Sawyer that
no one could have anticipated the levee breach? Why the President said the next morning after Katrina that New Orleans had
"dodged a bullet?" Or are we seeing the leading edge of the White House spin line? Because the President travelling to share a birthday cake with John McCain, to talk about his failed Medicaid program, to get the gift of a new guitar, and then head back to vacation in Crawford for three days after Katrina hit land sure doesn't seem like it was getting the job done for the residents of New Orleans or the Gulf Coast in hindsight, now does it? (ThinkProgress has a fantastic
Katrina timeline, just FYI.)
Oh, and Scotty, maybe you could ask Karl Rove how things are going with him
at the helm of Katrina reconstruction? Yeah, heckuva job there, Karl.
Here's a thought: how about we do the work necessary to make things right for folks in the Gulf Coast, instead of playing duck and cover and pointing fingers? Folks down there are still living in mold-covered quarters, and having no idea whether their lives will ever be anything but upside down.
UPDATE: Reader Anon_1 points to another great Katrina timeline that
Josh has on TPM. Thanks!
UPDATE #2:
Crooks and Liars has some video up of Brownie saying that its awfully tough for Homeland Security to say they weren't getting any information when they were having constant video conferences with him and others in FEMA. (And notice that Heckuva Job Brownie was sworn in to testify before the committee. I'm just saying.)
|
Suddenly, Michael Brown feels the need to answer Congress' questions about the Katrina Disaster.
All of them.
Harriet Miers failed to request that he assert executive privilege for Heckuva Job Brownie, and despite last-ditch attempts by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) to cover the WH by finding executive staffers in the hearing room (any staffers), he's currently in the hot seat. (You can watch the grilling on
C-Span.)
My guess? That the WH is going to play "hang the former staffer out to dry" once he finishes his testimony. They have thus far refused to turn over a number of e-mails and other documents related to the Katrina Disaster -- all material long requested by the committee. If I had to guess, some of those e-mails will either begin selectively leaking -- or they'll be dumped on the Committee wholesale, with tabbed and highlighted copies given to Stevens and other Administration water carriers to hit the message of "it's all Brownie's fault," using the Wurlitzer to propel the message into the public.
Never mind that the President is responsible for hiring him in the first place, for being on vacation and for being utterly uninformed because he's too careless to even turn on the damn television to see what the rest of the country was seeing: people trapped and terrified in drowning New Orleans, citizens in the Gulf Coast region picking through the remnants of their lives, living in tents and their cars for weeks, and scrounging through the remains of local stores for baby formula and potable water.
It's going to be a long day for Michael Brown. He's looking mighty nervous, like a man anticipating the hatchet job of Rove's to come.
At least he still has his
Golden Crony to come home to this evening.
The AP (via WaPo) reports that Brownie says the entire system of disaster response is broken.
"There was a cultural clash that didn't recognize the absolute inherent science of preparing for a disaster," he told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. "Any time you break that cycle ... you're doomed to failure."
He added: "The policies and decisions implemented by the DHS put FEMA on a path to failure."
Well, there's the understatement of the day. Anyone feeling safer, now?
UPDATE:
The Moderate Voice has more on the hearings.
|
The NYTimes is reporting that a FEMA employee notified the Bush White House on the night of Hurricane Katrina that the levees in New Orleans had been breached -- and that New Orleans and surrounding parrishes were flooding, with thousands trapped and fires raging all over the city.
As his helicopter approached the site, Mr. Bahamonde testified in October, there was no mistaking what had happened: large sections of the levee had fallen over, leaving the section of the city on the collapsed side entirely submerged, but the neighborhood on the other side relatively dry. He snapped a picture of the scene with a small camera.
"The situation is only going to get worse," he said he warned Mr. Brown, then the FEMA director, whom he called about 8 p.m. Monday Eastern time to report on his helicopter tour.
"Thank you," he said Mr. Brown replied. "I am now going to call the White House."
But no one seems to have told the President, who famously said the day after Katrina hit that New Orleans "dodged the bullet." And who continued on with his vacation, clearing brush, riding his bike, getting a new guitar...all the while, New Orleans was drowning...for days before the President seemed to get the message.
So either no one told the President what was going on in New Orleans -- or he knew and just went about his business without caring one bit about the disaster that had befallen New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf region.
I'm not certain which is worse.
The WH has a history of informing the President late in the game -- remember that whole
plane threatens WH air space and the President keeps on biking incident? So, which is it: the President can't do his job, his staff doesn't think he can do his job, or he just doesn't want to do his job and has told his staff not to bother him when he's on vacation. You know, I hate to be harsh, but I can't come up with any...ANY...explanation that makes any of this even the slightest bit better. (PDB warning
Bin Laden was going to attack in the US, anyone? Too bad Bush got that one when he was on vacation, too, isn't it?)
If you read the article, the staggering level of incompetence and poor planning at all levels is just painful to read, given that there was
several days notice prior to the hurricane's landfall. But the federal government deficiencies were simply staggering. (Never mind that FEMA had previously done a practice run for just this scenario.) And the fact that we've had years...YEARS...since 9/11, and this was the best we could do with a disaster for which we had notice is terrifying.
Somehow, I think that terrorists aren't exactly the sort of folks who RSVP.
The one bright spot in the entire mess of an article is the way that
the National Weather Service performed its duties.
Representative Thomas M. Davis III, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the special House committee investigating the hurricane response, said the only government agency that performed well was the National Weather Service, which correctly predicted the force of the storm. But no one heeded the message, he said.
"The president is still at his ranch, the vice president is still fly-fishing in Wyoming, the president's chief of staff is in Maine," Mr. Davis said. "In retrospect, don't you think it would have been better to pull together? They should have had better leadership. It is disengagement."
Shameful. Try magnifying that level of dereliction and incompetence and failure of planning to the level of a massive biological or chemical or nuclear attack on a major American city...and see how truly frightening failure can be.
New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are still struggling to rebuild. If you or I acted this way on the job, we get our butts fired faster than you can say "people died on your watch."
UPDATE: Heckuva Job Brownie is testifying before Congress on C-Span at the moment, in case you want to watch. (Thanks to Wilson for the head's up.)
|
Glenn Greenwald sends along the following exchange between Schumer, Specter and Gonzales during the recent Judiciary Committee
NSA wiretap hearings. As Glenn notes in the email, Gonzales seems to agree that Comey could appear under the same rules of testimony as Gonzales, i.e., give his own views of the program but not disclose what he did or said while at the Justice Department:
SCHUMER: It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?
GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.
There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.
I will also say...
SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.
GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.
SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.
GONZALES: Yes, sir.
SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?
GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.
SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?
GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.
And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.
SCHUMER: There are other reports, I'm sorry to -- you're not giving me a yes-or-no answer here. I understand that.
Newsweek reported that several Department of Justice lawyers were so concerned about the legal basis for the NSA program that they went so far as to line up private lawyers. Do you know if that's true?
GONZALES: I do not know if that's true.
SCHUMER: Now, let me just ask you a question here.
You mentioned earlier that you had no problem with Attorney General Ashcroft, someone else -- I didn't want to ask you about him; he's your predecessor -- people have said have doubts. But you said that you had no problem with him coming before this committee and testifying when Senator Specter asked, is that right?
GONZALES: Senator, who the chairman chooses to call as a witness is up to the chairman.
SCHUMER: The administration doesn't object to that, do they?
GONZALES: Obviously, the administration -- by saying that we would have no objection doesn't mean that we would waive any privileges that might exist.
SCHUMER: I understand. I got that.
But I assume the same would go for Mr. Comey, Mr. Goldsmith and any other individuals. Assuming you didn't waive executive privilege, you wouldn't have an objection to them coming before this committee.
GONZALES: Attorney-client privilege, deliberative privilege. To the extent that there are privileges, it is up to the chairman to decide who he wants to call as a witness.
But let me just say that if we're engaged in a debate about what the law is and the position of the administration, that is my job and that's what I'm doing here today.
SCHUMER: I understand. And you are doing your job.
And that's why I am requesting, as I have in the past, but renewing it here today, reaffirmed even more strongly by your testimony and everything else, that we invite these people, that we invite former Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General Comey, OLC Chair Goldsmith to this hearing and actually compel them to come if they won't on their own.
And as for privilege, I certainly...
SPECTER: If I may interrupt you for just one moment...
SCHUMER: Please.
SPECTER: ... you'll have extra time...
SCHUMER: Yes, thank you.
SPECTER: ... I think the record was in great shape where I left it at. If you bring in Attorney General Ashcroft, that's a critical step.
SCHUMER: Right.
SPECTER: It wasn't that I hadn't thought of Mr. Comey and Mr. Goldsmith and other people, but I sought to leave the record with the agreement of the attorney general to bring in former Attorney General Ashcroft.
SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I respect that. I think others are important as well.
But I want to get to the issue of privilege here.
SPECTER: I'm not saying they aren't important. I'm just saying, what's the best way to get them here?
SCHUMER: OK. Well, whatever way we can, I'd be all for.
On privilege -- because that's going to be the issue, even if they come here, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, Mr. Chairman -- I take it you'd have no problem with them talking about their general views on the legality of this program, just as you are talking about those; not to go into the specific details of what happened back then, but their general views on the legality of these programs.
SCHUMER: Do you have any problem with that?
GONZALES: General views of the program that the president has confirmed, Senator, that's -- again, if we're talking about the general views of the...
SCHUMER: I just want them to be able to testify as freely as you've testified here, because it wouldn't be fair if you're an advocate of administration policies, you have one set of rules and if you're an opponent or a possible opponent of administration policies, you have another set of rules. That's not unfair, is it?
GONZALES: Sir, it's up to the chairman to...
SCHUMER: No, but would you or the administration -- you, as the chief legal officer -- have any problem with them testifying in the same way you did about general legal views of the program?
GONZALES: I would defer to the chairman.
SCHUMER: I'm not asking you -- sir, in all due respect, I'm not asking you what the chairman thinks. He's doing a good job here, and I don't begrudge that one bit.
GONZALES: Sir, my answer is...
SCHUMER: I'm asking you what the administration would think in terms of exercising any claim of privilege.
You're not going to have -- I'm sorry, here -- you're not going to have different rules for yourself, an administration advocate, then for these people who might be administration dissenters in one way or another, are you?
GONZALES: Sir, I don't know if you're asking what are they going to say...
SCHUMER: I'm not asking you that.
Would the rules be same? I think you answer that yes or no.
GONZALES: If they came to testify?
SCHUMER: Correct.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the client here is the president of the United States. I'm not sure it's in my place to offer...
SCHUMER: Or his chief...
GONZALES: ... up a position or my recommendation to you about what I might recommend to the president of the United States would not be appropriate here.
SCHUMER: What would be -- I just am asking you, as a very fine, well-educated lawyer, should or could the rules be any different for what you are allowed to say with privilege hovering over your head and what they are allowed to say with those same privileges hovering over their heads? Should the rules be any different?
If you can't say "yes" to that, then that's fundamentally unfair. It's saying that these hearings, or that -- it's saying really that the administration doesn't have the confidence to get out the whole truth.
GONZALES: Sir, my hesitation is, quite frankly, I haven't thought recently about the issue about former employees coming to testify about their legal analysis or their legal recommendations to their client, and that is the source of my hesitation.
SCHUMER: I was just -- my time...
SPECTER: Senator Schumer, take two more minutes for my interruption...
SCHUMER: Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECTER: ... providing you move to another subject.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHUMER: Well, OK.
(LAUGHTER)
Again, I think this is very important, Mr. Chairman...
SPECTER: Oh, I do too.
SCHUMER: ... and I think you would agree.
OK.
SPECTER: If this were a courtroom, I'd move to strike all your questions and his answers, because the record was so much better off before.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHUMER: Well, I don't buy that, Mr. Chairman.
SPECTER: But take two more minutes on the conditions stated.
SCHUMER: I don't buy that. I think we have to tie down as much as we can here, OK.
It was an odd exchange -- Gonzales seems to be saying that Comey objected to
another program. Digby has
long speculated that the questions posed by the Democrats on the Committee indicate they have knowledge of some other surveillance program that they can't talk about, and it would certainly be interesting to hear from Comey himself if he will back Gonzales up on this one. If it's okay for Gonzales to say there was not internal dissent at the Justice Department over the program surely it would be okay for Comey to either confirm or deny this.
I'll believe Gonzales hadn't thought about the issue of former employees testifying before the Committee when Britney and her deep fried Oreos make it onto the New York Social Register. He was obviously very nervous about committing himself on the topic. I have absolutely no idea what Comey would say if he appeared, but since this is a program that needs a whole lot more light shined on it I can't help but feel that his testimony and that of others (like Bob Barr and Grover Norquist) would be anything but welcome.
(graphic by Graham G.)
|
Sources familiar with the potential witness list of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings into the NSA wiretapping scandal say that Arlen Specter has asked James Comey to appear before the Committee, and that Comey has expressed concern that his testimony would bring about a situation where the White House would invoke executive privilege.
For those not familiar with Comey, read Redd's superb post
here. Comey was a Bush Administration appointee to the Justice Department who tangled with them almost from the day he arrived, challenging their positions on torture, illegal wiretapping and the CIA leak case. He appointed Patrick Fitzgerald and gave him the authority and the protection he needed in order to do his job. It was Comey who, when Ashcroft was sick in the hospital, refused to re-authorize the illegal NSA wiretaps in the first place. He eventually resigned from the Justice Department.
There can be no meaningful hearings by the Judiciary Committee or any other committee on this matter without the testimony of Comey who was so integrally involved in raising alarms about the whole affair.
If you would like to see Comey testify before the Committee please voice your opinion in the comments, they will be seen.
|
Murray Waas has a new article up at the
National Journal regarding Scooter Libby and his defense strategy. As the recently released case documents indicate, Libby is trying to pull an Ollie North by claiming Dick Cheney gave him the okay to release parts of the then-classified National Intelligence Estimate to journalists in order to buck up the Administration's case for war. (He does not, however, appear to be claiming that Big Time told him to out Plame.)
Whether it was legal for Cheney to declassify these documents or not for purely propaganda purposes is for legal experts preferably not named Victoria Toensig to debate. Given the fact that Cheney and Libby knew as of June 17, 2003 that the Niger uranium claims were bunk and Libby began this crusade with Judy Miller anyway on June 23, the service to which these documents were put remain safely outside of "ethical" territory.
But more interesting is the graymail question that arises. Libby has hired John Cline, one of North's attorneys who helped keep Ollie out of the clink:
Among his detractors, Cline is what is known as a "graymail" specialist-an attorney who, critics say, purposely makes onerous demands on the federal government to disclose classified information in the course of defending his clients, in an effort to force the government to dismiss the charges. Although Cline declined to be interviewed for this story, he has said that the use of classified information is necessary in assuring that defendants are accorded due process and receive fair trials.
In the Libby case, Cline has frustrated prosecutors by demanding, as part of pretrial discovery, more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief, or PDBs, the president's morning intelligence briefing. The reports are among the most highly classified documents in government, not only because they often contain sensitive intelligence and methods, but also because they indicate what the president and policy makers consider to be the most pressing national security threats. In the past, the Bush administration has defied bipartisan requests from the Intelligence committees in Congress to turn over PDBs for review.
So assuming the judge decides Libby is entitled to any of this, who is it that decides what gets handed over? That is a very good question:
Is it possible that a prosecution of Libby might be impeded or even derailed entirely by the refusal of the Bush White House or its Justice Department to declassify information that might be necessary to try Libby? "Under the current statute, it may well be the attorney general's call-or whomever he designates-to ultimately decide what should be declassified, and what might not be, in the Libby case," said Michael Bromwich, a former associate Iran-Contra independent counsel and a former Justice Department inspector general.
People who have been following this particular soap opera know that in the fall of 2003 John Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame investigation because of conflicts of interest and turned all his powers in the matter over to his then-deputy James Comey. Comey appointed Fitzgerald only to
lock horns with the administration over the NSA wiretaps and other matters and finally resigned last year. Abu Gonzales likewise recused himself from the matter
shortly after being sworn in. Despite BushCo.'s best efforts to put croneys Timothy "Tyco" Flanagan and David McCallum into the Fitzgerald supervision business, Comey did an end run around all of them and delegated his powers to the ethical, non-crony
David Margolis on his way out the door.
Redd says that the DoJ handbook is not clear as to whether Abu's recusal would also mean that his hands would be off any decision to declassify material. I really just cannot imagine that we live in a world where he would not at the very least argue that this is a different matter and thus not a decision Margolis should be making. Nonetheless Abu has already acknowledged his conflict of interest in the case when he recused himself, and by any ethical standards he has an admitted bias that should force him to step back and let Margolis handle it. Not that he will, mind you. But he certainly should.
|
**Put down all liquids before reading. You have been warned.**
As proof that we have some brilliance in the comments, one of our readers has uncovered a secret Osama blog entry. Guess the federal government spending oodles of cash on blog trolling might be a good idea.
Let's take a peek:
"Today, my dialysis machine started making a funny noise. It was scary, but it seemed to be working all right.
"Omar thinks I should get a haircut. He says I'm looking a little ragged. I told him, 'what does it matter? I haven't been putting out any tapes.' He said it was just for my own good. Maybe I should. I haven't gotten enough 'me' time lately.
"The Infidel keeps ignoring me. I mean, after all that shit I pulled, it's a little frustrating that they won't even return my calls. Maybe I should try e-mail, but I might have to go to a public library. I hate touching the keyboards at public libraries, 'cause I suspect there are plenty of perverts who use them to try looking for porn, and then go and whack off in the bathrooms. Who knows where their hands have been. Certainly nowhere I'd want mine to be. Eww. Plus, I can't stand to look at the veins popping out of the backs of the librarians' legs. I wonder if I could get wifi out here. I'll ask Omar.
"Three of my wives have been starting to complain about my sex drive. I considered having them killed, but I guess they have a point. I'm depressed. It's probably from not getting enough sunlight, down in this cave. It's like seasonal depressive disorder full-time. I don't think I've had an erection in weeks.
"Oh, well. Rahim is coming over a little later, so I should probably take a shower soon.
"Current Music: Radiohead - Sit Down, Stand Up
"Current Mood: Tired *_*"
Big thanks to reader
J Crowley for the enormous laugh this morning.
(If you were somehow stuck in a cave and missed the magic that was
Gary Larson's Far Side, they've issued a complete set from 1980-1994. Bwahahaha.)
|
The day has definitely started off on a science fiction and fantasy sort of bent. First, NPR played some Dr. Who music between news segments this morning. Then, as I was driving home from the morning school drop-off for our exchange student, a black cat ran across the road in front of me. And we're on a Monsters, Inc. repeat-loop today, so it's all Sully, alla time.
I've been up since 4:30 am this morning with my barfing toddler (she can't seem to shake this nasty creeping crud she's had for the last coupla weeks, and I'm exhausted), and although I'm grateful for the existence of coffee, I've reached that icky tongue-coated jittery stage from forcing myself awake this morning at such an ungodly hour. Started surfing around my usual blog reads for the morning, and had this deja vu feeling that I was caught in one of those
Philip K. Dick meets
George Orwell sorts of dreams.
But I'm not. I'm wide awake.
The federal government is trolling the internet and beyond, in an all-day, all-night crawl, storing everything in its path and sifting through the datapile, compiling file upon file,
according to the Christian Science Monitor. (via
TalkLeft.) All without any adequate oversight from Congress or any set privacy protocols or research into appropriate privacy technology. Shocking, I know. Completely unexpected from this bunch, I hear ya. Pardon me while I get more coffee to go with my heaping helping of shock.
It's one thing to suspect that something like this is going on. It's another thing entirely to know there is documentary evidence that it is, indeed, an ongoing project and that members of Congress have no clue what the Administration is actually doing because they haven't been adequately briefed. Again.
You remember
Total Information Awareness? Well, it's back with
a vengeance.
"We just don't know enough about this technology, how it works, or what it is used for," says Marcia Hofmann of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It matters to a lot of people that these programs and software exist. We don't really know to what extent the government is mining personal data."...
"It isn't a bad idea, but you have to do it in a way that demonstrates its utility - and with provable privacy protection," says Latanya Sweeney, founder of the Data Privacy Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. But since speaking on privacy at the 2004 DHS workshop, she now doubts the department is building privacy into ADVISE. "At this point, ADVISE has no funding for privacy technology."...
Neither the proposal - nor any other she has seen - provides any funding for provable privacy technology, she adds.
Think this doesn't apply to you? Think again. The GAO reported that there were over 200 Federal datamining efforts -- with only 14 of those concentrating on counter-terrorism efforts. (Just in case you missed it, we had a fantastic discussion
in the comments yesterday about a number of tech issues and the NSA domestic spying. Just FYI.) According to a privacy expert at Carnegie Mellon, 87 percent of Americans can be identified solely by their date of birth, gender and five digit zip code -- sound like some information you've filled out on any websites lately when you were buying
porn sex toys erotic literature celebrity sex tapes a Bible?
And there continues to be a hitch in the oversight giddy-up -- one that the Bush Administration has exploited to the hilt in this NSA/HSA/DoD domestic spying fiasco. Because this was a super secret program related to high level national security matters, and because the Administration started its power grab in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when emotions and fears were running high, everyone involved in oversight appears to have bent over backwards to work with the Bush Administration, assuming that there would be checks and balances later on when things calmed down a bit -- except that never happened with the Dick Cheney Power Round-Up Gang, now did it?
Surveillance is an effective and important tool -- but it is an awful lot of power to be placed in the hands of a single branch of government. And its potential for misuse with no adequate oversight is enormous. "Trust me" isn't exactly the phrase that I would use to describe George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Crony Gang.
How in the hell are people charged with oversight supposed to keep their eye on the ball when they only get little glimpses of it -- and then can't talk to each other about it, under penalty of prosecution for revealing national security matters? (You think Dick Cheney didn't think about that before the power grab started? Please.) Despite registering protests with their briefers about legality and scope questions, and then later with the Administration, members of the Gang of 8 were ignored.
Now we learn
from the WaPo that two separate judges who have headed the FISA court during the time of this domestic surveillance program told the Bush Administration flat out that what they were doing was likely unconstitutional and illegal -- and that evidence obtained via this program was not to be used in their court as the source of probable cause in order to preserve the integrity of the FISA process.
What sort of oversight is it when the people who are supposed to be looking out for the public interest can't even compare notes to check and double check this malignant, lying bunch of power-hungry cronies in the White House? Every parent knows that mom and dad need to compare notes once in a while to be sure they are on the same page. The way we are doing oversight on national security matters at the moment, it's like mom is in Topeka with a tin can and dad is somewhere in Siberia with nothing but an old walkie talkie and some corroded batteries.
It's pathetic is what it is.
"Hello, Constitution hotline? I'm a member of the American public. I'm just wondering when my long-term interests get considered by the powers that be? Do my individual rights factor in at all -- or has everything been thrown the hell out the window in the name of some short-term security by a bunch of Republicans who are scared silly by a very tall man hiding in a cave in Pakistan with his dialysis machine? I'd like to lodge a complaint on behalf of our nation's Founders."
And then there is this bit that
Eriposte caught at the LeftCoaster: when the FISA court gave King George his blank check to spy on people involved with terrorists right after 9/11, the definition of who that might be was left awfully open-ended. Eriposte wonders if those on the "no fly list" and the "terrorism watch list" might be one and the same.
You know, I seem to recall
Ted Kennedy having some difficulty flying at one point, don't you? Curious. I'd be interested to know if other Democratic politicians have had the same difficulties in the last five years.
It's convenient that now the Administration has gotten its hand caught in the domestic wiretapping jar, it's now so willing to
publicly appear to cooperate with Congress. How magnanimous, and what a great attempt at PR, but I'm not buying it. This Administration will allow oversight only so far as it needs to do so to cover its political ass -- and no further.
I smell a rat by the name of Rove giving some political cover to
Heather Wilson and her
hotly contested race in NM. (
Hotline says the race is a "dead heat," btw.)
Let's see: you're Karl and your boss is already caught spying domestically and you have to do some public damage control -- why not use this as an opportunity to allow a Republican in a questionable district to claim a hollow victory for the rubes back home? Might as well manufacture your own silver lining, especially when no one is going to ask you the tough questions when your party controls both houses of Congress, right?
The President's staff promised the media that his morning speech today would give specific information about how NSA spying has thwarted a terrorist plot in the US. He did not do so, but the networks played the whole speech all the way through without interruption nonetheless. The President did refer to "Liberty Tower" in Los Angeles (never mind that he likely meant Library Tower, which isn't even its name any longer -- it's a bank building now) -- but gave no specifics or anything that might link this to the NSA in any way. Erm...trust me. Suuuuuure. (Nice of the President's staff to rush out to all the major networks to correct their boss, isn't it?)
But it's not all scary news.
The WSJ (via
Kevin Drum) says there is opportunity knocking on your door for helping your local phone company enable the government to spy on your friends and neighbors. Is it me, or do you sense a Bush Pioneers business opportunity here?
Well, booyah, cut me in for a slice of the profit pie! The hell with the Constitution, and screw the folks next door, there's money to be made!
(Oh, and in case you thought you knew the half of it? Nope.
Georgia10 at DKos has more on foreign power wiretaps -- and how much more this Administration has been using them compared to its predecessors in office, including all those Presidents from the Cold War era.)
|
In case anyone was wondering, I don't trust the Bush Administration. Why, you ask? Well, here are three reasons just from today's news.
1. Scott McClellan.
E&P has a Presidential spokesman smackdown:
Enough already. If the best that the presidential press secretary can do is offer the 21st century's first true lingual-swindle catch phrase in the face of an issue as critical as spying on American citizens, America may be in more trouble than we think -- and the press has far more work to do than we thought in fulfilling our mission, which, the last time I checked, was keeping the public informed.
With this in mind, you might say McClellan is correct in his assertion that "It is what it is." For the phrase "domestic spying" means exactly what it sounds like: spying.
Any Administration who uses this turd as their public relations face day in and day out has lost my confidence from the get go.
I'd like to think that McClellan, who has taken the press secretary's podium to a whole new level of smarmy prevarication during his tenure, will be pinned down repeatedly by tenacious reporters after the truth on behalf of the American public...but, I'm just going to wait and see how things go at the press briefing. Here's hoping Helen Thomas has had her Wheaties again today.
(2) Oh look, the President performs
yet another budgetary sleight of hand -- this time by inserting social security private investment accounts into the budget without telling anyone he was doing so.
And after he tried his humility act out on Congress at the SOTU and everything, pretending to be Mr. Bi-Partisan Compromise and "let's work together to fix the system." Yep, bi-partisan backstabbing, available to all Americans at a rapidly-increasing deficit price. "Hello, my name is George, and you cannot take me at my word. Ever." (
Swopa has more.)
(3)
Salon has a profile of Alberto Gonzales as the President's clean-up-the-mess man. I dunno, maybe I'm old fashioned or something, but I always thought that the President and the Attorney General worked for the American public -- silly me.
NOTE: Just a reminder on behalf of the gracious folks who have chosen to get an ad on our little blog. Please click through on their ads and see what they are all about. You'll make them happy. Which in turn, may keep them happy with us.
|
I've known Howie Klein since I was a teenage punk rock nitwit in San Francisco and Howie was starting indie 415 Records. Howie went on to become the head of Reprise Records and has now retired from the music business to devote himself to blogging on his site
Down With Tyranny. He does a lot of due diligence with candidates ever since he got conned into contributing to Zell Miller's campaign years ago and he's been trying to make up for it ever since. He's exactly the kind of guy who would get invited to the first fundraiser for Ned Lamont, and
this is Howie's report:
I was a little nervous because all I had read about him was that he was a millionaire businessman. His story is a lot more compelling than that. First of all his a quintessential all-American kind of entrepreneurial guy-- a living embodiment of the best in the American dream. He's as far from a corporate type of Big Business monster as you can be. He completely understands why it's essential for business that reforms like universal health care get hammered out. (He reminded me of Howard Dean when he talked about that.) This guy teaches entrepreneurship in Bridgeport High, a tough inner city school.
Although he was a town selectman, not only is Ned not a politician, he has a vibe that told me that even if he's elected to the U.S. Senate, he'll never become some kind of careerist self-server, but will always look at his role as that of a civil servant and guardian of his constituents' interests.
As soon as he walked in the door, just a few minutes after me and a good 30 minutes before the crowd showed up, I got to chat with him about the issues. The first thing I wanted to get a sense of was how he felt about Iraq. I was wary of hearing any double-talk or weasel words. There were none. He went right to Jack Murtha and showed me immediately that not only does he support a plan for withdrawal but that he has a far better grasp of what the war is all about than old-line Democratic "thinkers" like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about "winning," an absurd concept to begin with). Later when he talked to the whole group he contrasted Bush's (latest) approach (shared not just by Lieberman but by even some well-meaning-- if limited-- Democrats) which is basically that the U.S. will step back when "the Iraqis" step up with a more well-reasoned and thought-out approach which is that the Iraqis will step up when-- and not until-- the U.S. starts stepping back in a serious way. "The invasion of Iraq was a colossal foreign policy disaster." That's clear. That's simple. That's what Democrats running for office should all be saying.
He talked a lot about the harmful trend of the Federal Government increasingly intruding into the private lives of American citizens and how that trend has to be turned around. He told us that for him Alito was not a close call. I have no doubt that he saw Alito as much a dangerous threat to American liberty as I did. In fact, he seems like the kind of guy who's going to carefully consider every issue and come up with the right approach across the board-- kind of a polar opposite of Joe Lieberman.
Howie came away extremely impressed with Lamont. I find this very comforting. You can sign up to volunteer to help Ned rid the US Senate of the dreaded Lieberman
here.
|
Our Name Norah contest is over, and not without its share of attendant drama.
Atrios was accused of
stuffing the ballot box, our Diebold machines broke down when
punaise cast a write-in vote for "Ole 60 Grit" O'Beirne, Wolcott was taking
furious exit polls and TBogg wrote to say that if "Noron" was not the winner I could expect to find Tim Russert's head in my bed.
Fortunately the democratic process has liberated me from this ghastly fate and "Noron" is, in fact the winner. As author of the new epithet,
Dave Latchaw will receive a copy of
Kos's new book, about which we will most certainly be having a discussion upon its release. (
Note: Dave's MP3 of "Preznit Gone" is available here.)Glenn Greenwald is back from his trip to DC and has a great recap of the NSA hearings so far. I wonder what the chances of ever seeing James Comey appear before the committee would be -- now
that would be a hot ticket event.
And because we just can't resist -- reader Nancy T. sends us this missive about Ole 60 Grit herself (reprinted with the kind permission of the author,
JR Ford):
Kate O'Beirne, in her tousled Britney Spears moptop, salmon rucksack blouse, mortician's waistcoat, and Wal-Martian costume jewelry, should think twice before choosing the word "cheap" to describe former President Jimmy Carter, the former pastor who spoke in a church in his home state of Georgia yesterday, lauding the late Coretta King and her legacy. One can only imagine, if it were Mrs. King at the pulpit and President Carter in the sarcophagus, would not her remarks about racial inequity and civil rights have been similar?
O'Beirne, the author of Women Who Make the World Worse, rails against the late Betty Friedan and the feminist agenda, while as a baby-boomer herself, she became one of the glaring beneficiaries thereof when she abdicated motherhood of her two young sons in 1986 to become a Washington insider.
In 1992, while vice president of the Heritage Foundation, O'Beirne was named by George H. W. Bush to the Presidential Commission on Women in the Armed Forces, although she never served in the military.
In 1976, Katherine Walsh married James O'Beirne, now head of the Office of the White House Liaison (OWHL), who may be single-handedly responsible for the post-conquest descent into chaos and disorder in Iraq, and the Pentagon's failure to make adequate plans for the occupation. In 2003, senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy, FERC, and Commerce were denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC contributors. OWHL hired retired military personnel, many of whom had run for public office as Republicans and been defeated in 2002, to staff its recruiting arm. James O'Beirne then staffed the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) with people in their twenties and early thirties who had no foreign service experience. They were put in positions of authority that they had no clue about; their only common criterion being that they had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation.
"Cheap," is a word usually reserved for Bourbon Street madames, and editors in their late fifties who dress fifteen years younger; and who wed incompetent, bureaucratic cronies.
This is the craven, dessicated old buzzard MSNBC hauls on to do George Bush's racist dirty work. Nice choice.
And on the Ciro Rodriguez front, his opponent Henry Cuellar is using the time-tested GOP tactic of proudly claiming endorsements he does not have, this time from the
Texas State Teachers Association. You can contribute to Ciro's
Fight the DINO fund here. We've now raised $11,546 in just a few days. That is quite a bold statement on behalf of progressive candidates.
|
One of the things I noticed when reading over Fitzgerald's newly released
August 27, 2004 affidavit (PDF) was this:
Libby has testified that he spoke with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, when Libby called to complain to Russert in Russert's capacity as NBC Washington Bureau chief about what Libby perceived to be unfair coverage by Chris Matthews of MSNBC (Matthews was reporting that the Vice President and/or his staff knew about Wilson's trip to Niger and thus, in Matthews' view, knowingly allowed the President to mislead the public in the State of the Union.)
This would appear to put to bed one of the rumors that circulated about that Russert/Libby call to the effect that Libby was complaining about Matthews' use of the word "neocon" as being
anti-semitic. Russert could've killed these rumors himself simply by being candid about these exchanges but it's become quite obvious that Father Tim's loyalty is to
slavering at the feet of power and not to performing any kind of news function.
If
Murray Waas's reporting is correct (and given that Murray's coverage of this matter has a far better accuracy record than anyone else's, so it probably is) Cheney heard on June 17, 2003 from George Tenet that the Niger information was bogus. He probably realized some day of reckoning might be at hand. With Joe Wilson speaking out about his early trip to Niger in the NYT on July 6, 2003 and some (though not Wilson himself) connecting the Vice President to this trip, it makes perfect sense that Libby and his fellow OVP jackanapes would kick into overdrive to try and distance Big Time from any association with foreknowledge before Tenet threw himself under the bus on July 11, 2003. Bullying the media is one of their
standard issue bag of tricks, and with classic Cheney overreach they could not stop with merely protecting him, they defaulted to organized crime mode and tried to ruin Wilson as well for what they could only perceive as ratting them out.
No cries of anti-semitism. Just straight-up mob tactics. Fitzgerald prosecuted the Gambinos, after all. He's no doubt seen it before.
|
No I am not drunk.
AP:
Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.
DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.
"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
(snip)
DeLay was able to rejoin the powerful Appropriations panel — he was a member until becoming majority leader in 2003 — because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors.
Somewhere up in the higher echelons of the wingnutosphere they are chortling like a bunch of drunken frat boys over that one.
(thanks to Stacyb)
|
Red State has their comment section, we have ours.
From
it hurts:
Is there a hotline for black people to call to get eulogy approval? Or approval on how to behave during a hurricane? Or for approval on how many kids we have? Or for what we name our kids? That would make my life so much easier, even though I don't work, but I still have kids and they don't have fathers, but I digress.
As an uneducated black woman, and by uneducated I mean that I want to learn how not offend the likes of Kate O'Beirne, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Don Imus, Matt Drudge and any other offendables, even if they themselves have made racist comments or done things to hurt the world. Oooops, I should remember my place. Sorry about that last dig. I did not mean it.
Debbie:
The black church is one of the few institutions in this country that isn't about white people or white peoples' power. Whites don't understand the black church and what blew their minds about what they saw yesterday is that it's something they don't or can't control (the occasional sellouts like T.D. Jakes excepted). Think about it----a black man told George Bush like it is with George Bush sitting right there to hear it. Can any of you think of a time, ANY time, when ANYONE told George Bush like it is to his face?
Rev. Lowery had all of the power yesterday in the church and George Bush had none and, in the minds of Tucker and Friends, that's not the "natural" order. That's why they're all atwitter.
hickcity:
Too bad David Frum has left the speech writing employ of the White House. Based on the executive branch's view of recent race awareness, New Orleans, Detroit and Atlanta, they could have coined the term 'Axis of Darkness.' I'm sure the media outlets would oblige.
sonofslothrop[T]hey had to consider the possibility that would happen. Amazing coincidence that McCain went on the offensive with Obama at the same time. McCain dashed off his letter even before he received one from Obama.
cleter:
No, I think they really are that stupid. I think the thought was it would make him look statesmanlike. I don't think Bush has a lot of handlers who have, you know, been to a service at a black church. This is a guy whose running mate voted against MLK day. I don't think may other reps voted against that.
Wilson46201 Last poll showed Bush at 2% voting approval amongst African-Americans. Is he actually trying for a shut-out this time?
cleter:
I think the poll was 2% approval, with a margin of error of 3%, so it's possible that the only African American in the country that likes him is Condi.
al-Scooter:
Note to Tweety and Sandpaper S. O'Bierne: nobody booed your Preznit yesterday, or did anything the least bit disrespectful. The speakers and guests were more than kind to him. So what's your problem?
immanentize:
For these racists, Reverand Lowry isn't the founder of the SCLC and a great American who has spent his life bravely and courageously fighting injustice, he is a partisan no-name black preacher that doesn't understand his place before the President.
leftAhead:
Since Kate O'Bierne was tapped to provide commentary on Dickhead's show, does that mean Kanye West gets to do the same at Dick Cheney's funeral?
Digby got more
right wing hate mail on
yesterday's post calling them on their overt racism than ever before. Boy you hit the wingnut bigot flipper and they light up like a pinball machine, huh?
|
From the
Left Coaster:
President Bush was humiliated at Coretta Scott King's funeral yesterday by Reverend Lowery and the thunderous applause for the Clintons. What the blogosphere has termed The Mighty Wurlitzer just got cranked up in response, for public, televised put-downs of The Almighty George cannot be countenanced under any circumstances.
The Wurlitzer -- talk right radio, backed up by cable TV news and eventually harmonized with network news -- will endlessly blather on for the next 48 hours how uncouth, crude, and disrespectful-of-all-that-is-decent those liberals and democrats were yesterday at the funeral; semi-freaks like that surely can't accurately reflect the All America Love that the US basks in for Bush.
Bubble boy didn't like a bunch of uppity darkies talking like that to his face so he dispatched his doughy bigoted foot soldiers out to
put them back in their place. With that kind of paper thin skin he ought to think about a job with the Washington Post.
This is an emblematic
cry from the right:
I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being.
They really don't seem to like being called racists. After putting so much effort into it you think they'd be proud.
Update: Froomkin:
Bush and his aides are known for going to great lengths to avoid such public confrontations.
Bush has broken with presidential tradition by boycotting the annual NAACP convention. After his administration came under fire for its bungling response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush reached out to black leaders -- but only in closed-door meetings cloaked in secrecy. (See my December 9 and December 22 columns.)
Always nice to be reassured that the WaPo still has people with the courage to speak the truth to power and hasn't become a complete swamp of simpering kow-towing pantywaists.
|
We learn this morning from
Josh that tea leaf reading may be in high gear for Republicans on the illegal NSA surveillance.
Heather Wilson is a Republican from a tenuous swing district centered around Albuquerque. (Today her opponent released a poll showing her tied in the low-40s in her race for reelection.) Every position Wilson takes is finely calibrated to keep her politically well-positioned since she'll probably never have a truly easy race in her district. You may remember that early last year we had some fun trying to get her to actually come clean on whether she would reveal her position on phasing out Social Security.
Is this just a decision on the merits in her role as subcommittee chair? Or does she have a read on the politics going into November?
Josh is talking about the article in
today's NYTimes, which features Rep. Wilson's concerns about the illegal NSA activities and her call for oversight hearings in the House. (One has to wonder how Karl is dealing with such
insurrection in the ranks, but I digress...)
The Administration has trotted out Dick Cheney to frighten the troops
into submission.
But "we have all the legal authority we need" already, he said, and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials.
"It's important for us, if we're going to proceed legislatively, to keep in mind there's a price to be paid for that, and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information," Mr. Cheney said.
Hmmm...or is Cheney's real fear of a price being paid that of Mr. Bush's job -- should
the dreaded "i" word continue to gain momentum with folks on the Hill who are now genuinely worried that the President may have, in fact, committed felonies, along with multiple members of his national security staff. At what point did the Republican party become all about their own fear and the hell with the Constitution?
CNet News spends some time detailing the technical possibilities of domestic spying via the telecom and internet access portals, and the picture they paint is a substantial web of information gathering. I don't have the technical know-how to fully interpret some of their inferences, but if any of our readers who do have the technical expertise could give this a read and comment, I'd be grateful. I think we will all benefit from a better understanding of potential ways and means with this issue.
And if you read nothing else, today, take a peek at
David Ignatius' op-ed regarding the difference between men who serve as President and boys who play at being king. That national security matters should not be turned into a partisan shouting match but, instead, ought to be a bi-partisan concern over the balance between civil liberties and national security, and the balance of power between our branches of government, ought to be obvious to everyone. That the Machiavellian-lite machinations of Karl Rove have taken over the coarsened discourse should come as no surprise -- but they ought to be called for what they truly are: cowardly attempts to change the subject from the truth to anything else.
Pathetic.
That Republicans are looking toward the 2006 elections this Fall, and seeing some handwriting on the wiretap that says to question the President is a bad sign for this Administration. Here's hoping it is a sign of more things to come.
(Photo via
Murali and Nandini's Photoblog. Great shot, done with some excellent perspective and detail.)
UPDATE: Meant to highlight this as well, so thanks to John Casper in the comments for the reminder.
Glenn Greenwald has a good think piece up today on what next with the illegal NSA domestic spying and the Democratic and netroots response. It's worth a read and quite a bit of discussion.
UPDATE #2:
Laura Rozen has a very important graphic up on the subject. Go and read. You'll thank me later.
|
Yesterday's funeral for Coretta Scott King sure has stirred up a hornet's nest among
right-wing pundits and blogs. How gauche, how distasteful, how horrible that mourners would use the occasion of Mrs. King's funeral to speak truth to power, we hear from folks who would tell those who marched with Dr. and Mrs. King that they don't know how to behave in public.
Well, that's just a whole load of malarky.
And the condescending tone used by critics of Rev. Lowery, a man who helped to found
the SCLC with Dr. King and others, who fought on the front lines of the civil rights movement beside Dr. and Mrs. King and so many others, and who has dedicated his life to the principles of equality and liberty and peace -- to say that he had no right to speak as he did ignores the whole history of
the civil rights movement.
"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," Lowery said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."
And it just goes to show how used to hand-picked audiences and shutting out any and all criticism this Administration and its supporters have become. Cowards, hiding behind their wall of secret service agents and GOP gate-keepers.
Sure, some of the rhetoric was a bit pointed. That President Bush had to sit there and take it had to be rough on occasion -- and he gets a point or two for showing up (instead of ducking the occasion like he's done with
the NAACP the
last five years) -- but Coretta Scott King did not duck the hard truths in her lifetime, she faced them head on. So why should the President's supporters think he is any less responsible
for facing truth as the leader of our nation?
If you missed the funeral yesterday,
Crooks and Liars has a wonderful montage of clips that was put together by
Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The love, the respect and the honor for Mrs. King shines through in so many of the faces and the words.
The King legacy is not one of sitting on the sidelines, trying not to hurt anyone's feelings and keeping silent in the face of injustice. That Republican pundits are trying to shush voices at Mrs. King's funeral is appalling, and condescending, and incredibly ignorant about the whole of Mrs. King's life and her life's work.
I think former President Clinton said it
best yesterday:
"Her children, we know they have to bear the burden of their mother and father's legacy," Clinton told the crowd. "We clap for that, but they have to go home and live it." He challenged the mourners. "You want to treat our friend Coretta like a role model? Then model her behavior."
The best way to honor Mrs. King is to live by her example. Speak truth to power. Be kind to those who need a helping hand, and stand up for what you believe to be the right thing, even when that act of standing is difficult in the face of overwhelming odds.
One voice -- one single, solitary voice -- speaking truth into the darkness can become a beacon for the entire world. Dr. and Mrs. King were such lights. Such courage and insight is difficult to find, and although we may never see their like again, we should be that change we wish to see. And in doing so, we honor all those who have walked the long march before us in the name of liberty and freedom.
(Photo credit to
Ozier Muhammad via The New York Times.)
UPDATE:
The Left Coaster has more. As does
Taylor Marsh. And
the Boston Globe adds some of Mrs. King's own words and sentiments.
UPDATE #2: From Wilson46201
in the comments:
Jeff Greenfield on CNN this morning explained clearly how it worked. He pointed out that Drudge had the whining up on his website before the service was even finished. Hannity and Limbaugh then picked it up. Kate OBeirne then whined on MSNBC with Tweety. That's how the story was developed.
Mehlman and Rove are laughing all the way to the polls: "angry, disrespectful Democrats trash dignified funeral!"
Behold, the Mighty Wurlitzer, in all its gorey.
UPDATE #3:
ThinkProgress has a transcript and some video of Rev. Lowery explaining the concept of speaking truth to power to Bow Tie Boy.
|
Matt Stoller reports on
MyDD that Joe Lieberman finally planted the knife in Obama's back this morning on Imus.
Well, on Imus this morning, Don Imus interviewed Lieberman....Imus asked Lieberman about the fight, and Lieberman alleged that it was all a big misunderstanding and that both men had were interested in getting a good bipartisan bill out of the process. He implied that both men had cleared up the misunderstanding. Imus at that point interjected that McCain stands by his letter, and Lieberman changed course. Lieberman then said that McCain stood by his letter, and Obama stood by his letter, except that Obama probably wishes he were a little clearer.
...Finally, Lieberman added that he hopes it's a one day story, on the third day of the story, on Imus. Later in the interview, he bragged about his work with McCain on some legislation. Looks like he made his choice.
Oh, and earlier in the interview, Lieberman agreed with Imus that there was "some nonsense" at Coretta Scott King's funeral.
Guess we all have a much clearer idea of where Joementum stands on speaking truth to power, now don't we?
(Picture courtesy to
Bushspeaks.com.)
|
It's nice to know that whenever MSNBC needs something said that is so ugly, so fulminatingly rancid and dog-whistle racist that even Bill Bennett will not show up and do the honors that a vile, bilious hatchet-faced nag like Kate O'Beirne is
always at the ready (see video at C&L).
Why didn't she just come out and say "negroes don't know how to act at funerals?" Because that's exactly what she meant.
Digby ,
John and
Gilliard think almost as much of Kate for having the courage to come out and scold the coloreds about remembering their place on the day of Coretta Scott King's funeral as I do.
We have slightly more hope for Norah O'Donnell, who has now entered the MSNBC pantheon and must needs earn a nickname to equal the status of her male peers Tweety, Pumpkinhead and
Banjo Boy. Rather than deliver it to her by fiat, we are using the democratic process and have now narrowed it down to five candidates. Here are the finalists:
Nora Bora
Ignorah
Norbot
Noron
Spinderella
Please vote only once, Norah's blogospheric future depends on your careful deliberation.
Atrios and
Kos both posted today about their page view-to-donation ratio for the Ciro Rodriguez fundraising drive. I'm quite proud to announce that we have the highest percentage of donors relative to readership of any of the three and we also have the highest donor average. And we've now raised almost
$10,000 for Ciro's campaign. Need more reason to dig into your mad money?
Cuellar supports more more more war, while Ciro voted against Bush's war authorization. People do a great job around here of getting involved, writing their representatives, penning damn-the-torpedo LTEs and in general celebrating their right to participate in the democratic process. The blogs will begin to be taken seriously as a political force when we prove we can enter a race and back a winner, so please treat yourself and enjoy kicking a little DINO ass by contributing to Ciro
here.
|
In reviewing John Dickerson's
Slate piece this morning, one thing becomes clear -- Time Magazine has been doing an awful lot of ass-covering for BushCo. that does not exactly accrue to is journalistic integrity.
In August of last year, the
LA Times published a story that indicated Time did not ask Rove for a waiver until the summer of 2005 because:
Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year.
The story concludes: "The result was that Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."
Refuse to cooperate in an investigation that might not reflect well on the Administration in an election year? Perish the thought. Much better to obstruct everything until Bush was safely ensconced in a second term and things cooled off, because reporting the news obviously takes a back seat to other considerations.
As Dickerson noted in his
Slate piece last December, he was aware that his name had been one that Fitzgerald had searched for in White House emails. But according to his story this morning, he was never the recipient of a leak about Valerie Wilson's job at the CIA -- which probably explains why Fitzgerald has never questioned him. To date, Fitzgerald seems to have stayed true to his original mandate to investigate the outing of a CIA agent. While Dickerson makes his bid for the hottest ticket in DC (a trip to the grand jury) it's not clear that the story adds anything to Fitz's investigation if conspiracy charges are not at the moment being pursued.
If Dickerson's story contradicts anything he's already heard, Fitz can just haul in the two Senior Administration Officials who spoke to him and tried to smear Wilson. Dickerson indicates that both have spoken to Fitzgerald, and the only hint that their stories might not jibe with his is with regard to the dates involved.
In his
January 23, 2006 letter (PDF) Fitz notes that:
...we were not aware of any reporters who knew prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame, Ambass. Wilson's wife, worked at the CIA, other than: Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak, Walter Pincus and Matthew Cooper.
Dickerson indicates that he was informed by Matt Cooper on Friday, July 11 that Rove had told him Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If any of this is news to Fitzgerald it is probably that, although Matt Cooper sharing information with a fellow reporter on a story is hardly a crime. As Jeff indicates over at emptywheel's, there seem to be quite a few
time inconsistencies in Dickerson's story that it would be nice to see reconciled.
But it is Time Magazine's role in all of this that becomes extremely alarming. As Dickerson tells it, he was walked up to the story by two SAOs on July 11, 2003 while traveling with Bush on his Africa trip. Dickerson himself has
identified Ari Fleischer as one of the people who pushed him toward the Wilson story (so it's funny he doesn't mention it now) and as
emptywheel notes he is probably
Dickerson's SAO #1. Both
Walter Pincus and
Howard Fineman have reported that Dan Bartlett also had a hand in this so it's likely he is Dickerson's SAO #2 (hat tip
pollyusa).
Robert Novak's hit piece on Wilson appeared on Monday, July 14. So did Time's print edition, which carried the Administration's water about Joe Wilson. As Dickerson notes, the story did not originally report about the coordinated attack by the Administration on Wilson. And Dickerson more than hints that this was over the objections of the writers:
Our editors delayed publication of the Web piece, uncertain there was enough evidence the White House was trying to undermine Wilson's credibility. That was frustrating, since by that time the White House spokesman, Fleischer, was undermining him on the record. Bob Novak's story revealing Plame's name had come out, but those of us working on the story in Washington, which now included Massimo Calabresi, thought we still had a few facts Novak didn't. Our piece finally ran on the Web on July 17, 2003, six days after Cooper had learned about Wilson's wife.
How helpful that the story which turned out to be one of the most hotly debated of the past two and a half years was kept out of the widely circulated print edition.
And then as
Media Matters notes, despite the fact that Cooper and Dickerson knew that Rove had been one of the principal Plame outers, as did editor Michael Duffy, Time felt no compunction about printing a story on
October 13, 2003 suggesting that Rove had nothing to do with it:
When word spread last week that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was launching a full criminal probe into who had leaked Plame's identity, Democrats immediately raised a public alarm: How could Justice credibly investigate so secretive an Administration, especially when the investigators are led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose former paid political consultant Karl Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak? A TIME review of federal and state election records reveals that Ashcroft paid Rove's Texas firm $746,000 for direct-mail services in two gubernatorial campaigns and one Senate race from 1984 through 1994. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are "ridiculous." Says McClellan: "There is simply no truth to that suggestion."
As
Viveca Novak wrote in her Time Magazine piece covering her questioning byFitzgerald, Rove's involvement in spreading the Plame story was not exactly a huge secret at Time. Under what journalistic principle is a magazine obligated to print bold, outright lies perpetuated by Administration spokesmen that it knows for a fact are untrue?
While Dickerson's article is one of the better ones to date acknowledging his involvement in all of this, his name is on that October 13 article. He does not appear to be particularly happy about Time's willingness to spike aspects of the story critical of BushCo., and one would imagine he wouldn't be too happy about having his name appended to outright propaganda. If he's thinking about a follow-up story, as the only one of the original writers no longer tethered to Time he has the opportunity to write about what the hell was going on behind the scenes in all of this.
It grows ever more apparent that Time Magazine's hands are exceptionally dirty here, joining the New York Times and the Washington Post in the Plame Hall of Shame. It would be nice to see someone step up and address what actually happened.
|
John McCain did his part for the GOP slime machine in
talking to Barak Obama like he was an errant child and fabricating a "character issue" for the rising Democratic star. As
Matt Stoller notes, it should be on Joe Lieberman to jump into this one and come to Obama's defense:
There were two other people at the meeting - Susan Collins, moderate Republican from Maine and Democrat Joe Lieberman, the moderate Democrat from Connecticut. Lieberman can and will weigh in on this conflict, and were he a reasonable man I would imagine he would take one look at the series of letters and realize that John McCain was way out of line. Now, this is the critical point to keep in mind - Lieberman is the only Democratic Senator who was in the room at the time, so the press will pay special attention to what he says. Lieberman can call out McCain on his partisan slash-and-burn strategy, and buttress Obama's claim to bipartisanship. Or he can participate in the smear and ask both sides to calm down, even though this attack is entirely one-sided and it is very clear that Obama is seeking a bipartisan good ethics bill.
That's what I'm watching. Will Lieberman support his fellow Democratic Senate colleague in pursuit of a well-structured bipartisan approach to ethics reform? Or will he support John McCain's (who he quasi-endorsed for President) attempt to derail the whole process?
On the good news side today, Ned Lamont is
officially a candidate in the Connecticut race now -- he's created a candidate committee, named a campaign manager and has begun searching for a headquarters. It would be nice if, after this November, we didn't have to just
assume Lieberman was going to stick the knife in -- the only question always seems to be how hard he will twist it.
|
John Amato has
a fantastic article up regarding a meeting with Rep. John Murtha. I highly recommend the read.
Amato had an opportunity to talk with Jack Murtha at Arianna's home, and you walk away from this article with the feeling that Murtha truly is the real deal. Here is a man who served his nation in uniform proudly, and then suited up for public service in Congress -- never realizing he would have to do battle with a President of the United States and his crew of hatchet men to defend his own honor and the safety of the military men and women Murtha has worked so hard for
over the years.
After serving our country for many decades, John Murtha has never seen an administration run quite like this one is. An administration that is so unwilling to reach across the aisle and come to some sort of a common ground. He talked about Bush 41, his knowledge of foreign policy and how his interactions with the Democrats paved the way for many fair outcomes. What surprised me was that he couldn't understand how his original words back in November struck such a chord with the American people. I told him it was not so surprising to understand. When a man is so committed and honest in his beliefs while speaking with a fire that burns from desperation many a naysayer becomes persuaded.
Go over and read the
whole article. Everyone needs a little good news about a hero every now and then, and today I can send you to some great writing about the genuine article. Big kudos to Amato.
(Oh, and
Froomkin rocks my world again today.)
|
That's it. The Bush Administration has declared
a budget war on Elmo (via
Brandoland). Bush is proposing a budget cut of around $157 million to the public broadcasting system. Again. (Didn't we just fight this battle last year?)
Let's get something straight right up front: I am a huge supporter of public broadcasting. I grew up in a tiny little town (around 1700 people) in West Virginia. We had no city ballet. No symphony. No theater. Nada.
I learned to read by watching Sesame Street and the Electric Company. I saw my first opera on PBS -- Aida -- and fell in love with music. I learned to play the piano, then the violin, the flute and the baritone because I fell in love with symphony performances and begged my parents to let me take some lessons and later join our school band.
We weren't rich. We couldn't just hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C., to see a show or the latest performance on Broadway, but through the magic of our PBS station, I could see them. I could experience the brilliance of Tennesee Williams, or haggle with William F. Buckley, Jr., or contemplate the latest in Washington political news or float along on the voice of Beverly Sills (that tells you how young I was when I started loving opera, doesn't it?). And so much more -- Nova alone opened an entire realm of science and space.
I have learned so much from PBS and NPR through the years, and I try to repay that debt by giving back to them during pledge drives when we've had the money to do so in our budget (which wasn't much during my lean law school years, but I still tried to do my part, even then).
This is so indicative of this Administration: if it doesn't do something for Bush and his cronies, then why should he care?
Well, here's a reason why -- because poor children in this nation face school systems that have less then adequate resources, since the federal government has given them a ton of "no child left behind" mandates without funding them, and PBS represents a stop-gap for a lot of these kids in terms of early childhood learning. Since you've already cut the budget for head start, for child support payments and for medical assistance for these poor children, I'm drawing the line at Elmo.
It's time to hit the fax machines and the phone lines, gang. Contact your Representatives in Washington and tell them this is a budget cut too far. Do it for Elmo.
|
You know what happens when you assume? You get
the Bush budget plan. And the
American public gets screwed (well, at least the non-country club portion of the public,
anyway).
After a difficult political struggle that badly divided congressional Republicans, lawmakers muscled through savings from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, federal child support enforcement and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Before Bush has even signed that legislation, he is coming back for more. His budget proposes to wring out $4.9 billion more in savings from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, $17 million from child support enforcement and $16.7 billion from the federal pension insurance program through 2011.
Because, you know, the new Medicare Prescription Plan is going so well already. Not. And poor children who already have trouble getting insurance and child support money from deadbeat dads? Screw them. Pensions that American workers have broken their backs for a lifetime to earn? Not important to this President.
And that's not even the half of it.
GOP Senators?
Not happy with this budget. Sucks when your own side thinks your budget stinks.
And what does Bush say to seniors, the disabled, the poor, and children of families on the margins?
Screw you, again.
"[T]he budget relies on cutting Medicare and Medicaid, rather than focusing on skyrocketing costs [in] the health care system." He said, "Arbitrary caps on Medicare will mean that providers or beneficiaries will have to make up the difference through lower payment rates or higher cost-sharing. Over time, this will create a crisis in quality and access to health care for older Americans."
How do Republicans support the troops and veterans?
Not very well -- they deliberately underfunded veterans benefits again this year. (Yep, they've done it before.) As Bob Geiger says, wonder how many of these folks have ribbon magnets on their cars -- nice of them to support the troops by cutting their benefits yet another year.
Lest you think that it's only veterans, the poor, the elderly and children -- oh, no. There's more.
Bush Administration to farmers?
Screw you.
Bush Administration to working families?
Screw you.Bush Administration to first responders on the Homeland Security front lines?
Screw you.Oh, and just in case you missed this one -- the city of New Orleans has had to
appeal for foreign aid because the Bush Administration has failed to live up to its promises. So much for that whole backlit speech in the Big Easy when the President's poll numbers needed a big photo-op.
Move on, folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of empty promises and false bravado. If you aren't an oil man sitting on a pile of big ole profits or a big party donor waiting in line for that next Ambassadorship to open up, well too bad for you.
Welcome to George Bush's America. Need a hand up? Look elsewhere. Compassionate conservative? Don't make me laugh.
NOTE: Just a reminder that Glenn Greenwald will be a guest on
To The Point on NPR.
Glenn says he'll be on as the 2:10 pm ET guest.
|
Well, look who has had to resort to political blackmail
to protect his boss's ass:
Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.
"It's hardball all the way," a senior GOP congressional aide said.
The fact that some GOP aide is talking about Rove's tactics while they are still ongoing says to me that some folks in the party aren't happy about being pushed around by Karl. Or being told what they ought to think or do in terms of the Constitution -- by a fellow who clearly doesn't care one bit for protecting it, since his sole interest seems to be shutting down any potential for impeachment.
Ends justifies the means, much?The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.
Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.
So, let's see: the Republican Party stands for (a) the Constitution, the nation and its principles or (b) whatever Karl Rove tells them to stand for, because they are big wimpy babies who aren't allowed to think for themselves and who pee in their pants every time Karl says jump? You choose.
Here's what I know about national security -- you paint it as a political issue, you weaken the nation as a whole. because you split the nation in half as people take sides on an issue where we should all be united. Why does Karl Rove want to help the terrorists by tearing the nation in two?
Guess Rove's "win at all costs and protect the boss" strategy means he doesn't give a rat's ass about the safety of the country -- or the long-term health and principles of the Republican party, for that matter. Isn't it time someone in the media started asking about this?
How's that political blackmail working for you now that your own side is outing your dirty tactics directly to the media, Karl?
Looks to me like a whole lot of GOP folks on the Hill are pulling back the curtain on the once powerful Oz, and letting the politicos in Washington get a gander at the smarm-merchant behind the curtain. Tough to maintain that veneer of power when no one respects your heavy-handed tactics any longer. Here's hoping.
(Photo via
Bush's Brain. Hat tip to reader Stacyb for the article link.)
UPDATE: I meant to also point out the fact that Rove is more than willing to screw the party to save Bush. Witness the willingness to withdraw any party aid to people who don't do Karl's bidding. Screw the party and any re-election plans for those folks -- Karl's revenge is more important. Whatta team player.
|
Well, well, well...can you say concerted effort to discredit Wilson, planned carefully by folks at the White House, executed with precision planning, and...conspiracy? John Dickerson, formerly of Time Magazine, has a doozy of a
two-part story on Slate. He lays out the timeline of his involvement in Administration leaks on Joe and Valerie Wilson. And it isn't pretty.
If Fitz was trying to flush something out of the underbrush with his letter to Libby's lawyers, he's gotten a whole brace of fat pigeons with this missive. And if I were representing Karl Rove, I'd be puckering this morning...along with several other Administration officials. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
First of all,
Dickerson is snide. You have to like that in a correspondant, don't you? And his detailed narrative suggests a man who takes copious notes or records things to a mini-cassette -- or who just has a great memory for details, which makes for some great reading. Would that everyone involved in this had such a great memory...*cough* Judy *cough*...but I guess we can't expect miracles or anything. (Especially when certain journalists might be protecting their pals or their own asses. Amazing how a real journalist can actually report facts and details and stuff, isn't it?)
Second, how can you not love a reporter who gives a
hat tip to FDL for reporting on Traitorgate and
catching Dickerson's name in the Libby docu-dump in the first place? Thanks, and back at ya.
Dickerson does a good job of describing the Libby strategy in
Part I, and then systematically pokes holes in it through his re-telling of events as he lived them in
Part II. And in doing so, Dickerson paints a portrait of an Administration in full-out damage control mode -- willing to throw the CIA and George Tenet under a bus to save the President's butt -- and willing to toss out the name of a covert CIA operative without a thought to the consequences (Rove, Libby, anyone?), hoping to discredit her husband, whose criticisms could not be allowed to gain any more traction with the public, and shut up critics in the CIA who weren't comfortable taking the blame for the President's and other Administration officials' false public statements.
A whole lot of people in the Administration, including the President himself, tossing the CIA out the window...in a coordinated, press-forward effort.
That this was a planned, coordinated effort is obvious in reading Dickerson's two-part piece. And when you read it in concert with everything else we know about the Traitorgate case, you have to think that Fitzgerald is sitting on a whole lot of information we have yet to see. (If you are sensing a Cheshire cat grin on my face, you would be on the mark.)
In this time frame, the President himself cast blame on the CIA for "the 16 words" in the SOTU, and Condi went back to the press cabin on her own to throw the CIA under the bus. At no time did any of these Administration officials reveal that Stephen Hadley had been warned that the Niger yellowcake bit was crap and that the CIA had previously asked that this information be removed from the President's speech in Ohio -- nope, it was blame Joe Wilson full-on damage mode. That lots of people at the CIA were involved in the decision to send Wilson? Nope -- let's just blame the missus and all will be well. Liars.
Here's what I see from reading Dickerson: He spoke with two "senior Administration officials" during his trip to Africa, on two completely separate occasions, but each within an hour of the other's conversation with Dickerson -- both of whom fed him the exact same line on questioning Joe Wilson's credibility and that Dickerson ought to look into who sent Amb. Wilson to Africa in the first place. He finished talking with them around 10:30 am DC time.
During that same time period, Rove contacted Matt Cooper and planted the same seeds -- with one addition, that Joe Wilson's wife was the one who sent him on the trip. (Never mind that this was false, but that's a whole n'other post.) And Scooter Libby served as the confirming source for Cooper on this fact. (Can you say WHIG damage control group? I sure as hell can.)
Dickerson and Cooper spoke around 1:00 pm DC time, and compared notes -- remarkably similar notes, but for the Rove addition of Wilson's wife. Strange how so many people in the Administration scattered across the four corners of the globe -- from DC to far-flung, difficult communication areas on the African continent -- all had the same story line to feed to the press, isn't it? Almost as though there was substantial coordination of message and facts, or something. (Can you say conpiracy? I thought you could.)
Cooper got confirmation on this story about Wilson from Libby, after speaking with Dickerson. (Again, hello WHIG media confirmation circle jerks.)
And, based on what Dickerson writes in Part II, the "senior government officials" with whom he spoke are likely to have testified before the grand jury or at least have been interviewed by investigators -- because he references conversations with them about e-mails he had exchanged on the subject and their testimony, along with Coopers.
At the end of the article, Dickerson leaves us with this
quite interesting tidbit:
I came back from the trip harboring a suspicion that only fully made sense when I learned Plame's CIA cover had been blown. It seemed obvious that the people pushing me to look into who sent Wilson knew exactly the answer I'd find. Yet they were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive.
You know, you would be awfully careful not to let a name slip if you knew you'd be committing a felony and treason to do so, wouldn't you?
But, say, you want the name out there in the public domain, and you plant a kernel of "seek and ye shall find" with a journalist that you know will do his job to sniff out a story...and then you can sit back and let someone else reveal the name of the CIA NOC, and pretend your conscience is clear. Except for one thing: if you are the official who set the journalist on the story in the first place, along with a whole lot of other adminsitration officials who are trying to set the same scent trail for the journalistic hounds to follow, then you are, at best, part of a conspiracy to attempt to reveal classified information.
And if, say, one of the members of the conspiracy reveals the name or the identity of that covert CIA operative (you know, by saying something like "Wilson's wife"), then every single member of that conspiracy can be charged as if they all revealed her identity. Because that's what it means to be part of a conspiracy -- you all get tagged with the worst conduct of any one of your members, because you were all working toward the same common goal and purpose -- so long as each member took some step in futherance of the conspiracy, they are all chargeable with the same bad conduct.
In this case, it would be to silence an Administration critic before his words did lasting damage and to bring the CIA to heel before the public learned that the Bush Administration had lied all along about there being any threat from Saddam Hussein and yellowcake, and Condi's big old lying mushroom cloud analogies.
Oh, and those "senior administration officials" who spoke to Dickerson? I sure hope they were fully forthcoming in their interviews with the FBI and their testimony to the grand jury. If not, I'm thinking John Dickerson can expect his subpoena any day...because those officials might be staring down the length of a potential obstruction/perjury/false statements indictment of their own.
Which lends intself to these questions: who might be ripe for the flipping? Who else is Rove willing to throw under the bus to save his sorry ass? And how long does Libby have before the Administration considers him the sacrificial lamb and cuts him loose to the wolves -- and how will he and his family feel about being thrown out like yesterday's stale trash?
Another day, another piece of the puzzle. This time, the pieces come with flashing warning signs: "Beyond this point, there be dragons."
I'm working on some timelines on this, and will try to flesh this out further as time permits today -- but read the Dickerson piece and see if you can spot all the bombshells. It's been an intriguing coupla weeks in the Traitorgate saga, hasn't it? The more I think about it, the more I wonder about Team Libby's release of that letter -- and who might have been the intended recipient of some pretty heavy smoke signals.
(Hat tip to reader narexbyrnes for the link.)
|
Remind me that there's no such thing as an easy post. Okay we have the nominees in the Name Norah O'Donnell Contest, and we are going to narrow it down to the top 5 vote getters and have a run-off tomorrow night (with the normal caveat of "if the news cycle cooperates"). Although I bow to no one in my appreciation of the vulgar (actually that's probably not true but I like to think so) I took the liberty of trimming out some of the more coarse references, I do have a few principles left.
Norbot
Trixie
Noclue
NorOdd
No-no Dunno
Neither-nor
Dumbass O'Dumbass
NoHo
Norah O'Don't
Abhora O'Donnell
S'nores
Snora
Whora
No Morah
Trixie NoClue
Noodle
Rah Rah O'Donnell
Norah Don'tKnow
No'Donnell
Nora Bora
Thumper
No-Mora
Sweet Nell
Nod Off
Norah Oh' Don't know
Norathetic
Ding-dong
Cupcake
"Empty" O'Donnell
Whistling Nora
Nora in Wonderland
Porah O'd Nell
Donut
Snora O'Noodle
Ignorah
Bore-ya O'Donnell
Noodles
HODO
Noodle Head
Tinkerbell
Nora O'Newsbabe
Mary Worth
Prom Queen
Ol' Don't Know
Emily Latilla
Robo-Noro
Noron O`Bot
Norahbot 0-3000
Norah the Barnacle
O'Dodo
Duh'Nora
Whorah O'Do Me
Norah Bore-ah
Senora Drone-on’ll
Cruella
NORAD
Cat Eyes
Bloody Norah
Rahrah O'Dumbbell
no o'do
Princess Perfect
Ding Dong
The White Ho
NorAmnesia
Tweety O'Donnell
Numb Norah
Dazey
Rahs, Oh Donkey
Ignora
Lambchop
No-ah Dontknow
No-Morah
NoKnow O'Donnal
norah o' duuuuuuuuuuh
Norah Titoff
Bobbles
Duncel in dis dress
Noodle Ho'donnell
Slow Donnell
Slodo
Nora Bora
Spinderella
Spinsanity
unnosy nora
NORA WHITE H. HOBOT
Nancy Shrew
Madame Huh?
M. T. Head
Twinky
Tweedle-Dum
NORAD? Donhell?
no'nelly
Vicky3
Nora IDunno
nora blank
nora o'gannon
Pollyanna
Bubbles
Borbie O'Doll
Hairspray
NOD-off
Hard-on Loony |
ignorahamus
ignorahant
Mind the Gap
Norah the Explorer
Kris Matthews
Norad Mobile Moon Unit
Agent 00G-Dub
Luvya O'Dubya
Lois Flame
Novocaine Nora
norosis
dumb as a box of hair
ROSY O'DONNELL
Norazine
Nell
Nello
Pretty Empty
Repugnorah
NorDello
Norton
Norah "the Parrot" O'Donnell
Norah Newsmodel
Snoozie Buttons
The NODster
CATWOMAN
O-No
"Kneepads" Nora
Ingnorah (d'fact) O'Donnell
Nora O'Funnel
Wet-Spot
Doe-y McLipgloss
Tallulah Blankhead
Norah "Big Asset" O'Donnell
Britknee
Becky
Numb Norah
NoDoz
Lois Lame
Robogirl
Vacuumous
Norstradonus
Nod
Nomorah
Nodder
HOTLIPS
Norah-phenephrine
Noprah
Norah Affront
Norosis
The Helmet
Rah-Rah
Spinderella
noodell
Snorfel
Empty Dress Nora
Noddy O'Dozey
NorDuh
Bambi
NOrod
Snorah Borah
Venus fly-trap
Oh Donna
"Rah-Rah" O'Donnell
Toto
Ignorah O'Donnybrook
Clownsnack
dumbie o'donnell
Cookie
noodle-O-s
N.O.R.A.H. 3000
Norah O'Duh-nell
No Se Norah
Norah O'Dammit
Boopsie
Lunchbox
NoDoz
Snort
No nutin' Nora
No-D'oh
Noron
The Noralator
Princess Kittykat
noodle-O-s
Noravia
Norphine
Norepinephrine
Noradrenaline
Norplant
No'reilly
Norphine Mo'Coddle
N'Odoul's.
horn laden loon
Ms. Crabtree
o'donilicious
HAL 2006
Cathy O'Brien
Eyes Wide Shut
NoNoNorah
Little Miss Sunshine
O’Norah bin Lazy
NoKnow O'Donnal
|
Don't Know, Norah Do I Care O'Donnell
Nora-gard for the truth
Neither a care Nora clue
Our Lady of the Kool-Aid.
Nitty Nora, the bug-explorer
The winner will receive a copy of
Kos's new book. Please vote only once because I hate it when I have to take my shoes off to count.
It's looking like tomorrow's heavyweight bout is going to involve Glenn Greenwald, competing in the
flyweight division:
Tomorrow at 2:10 p.m. EST, I'll be on NPR's To the Point to discuss the NSA hearings with Powerline's John Hinderaker. John is confused that there are any hearings at all, because there is nothing to discuss; it's so clear that the President had the right to eavesdrop outside of FISA that there's no issue at all. I'm looking forward to that discussion.
And Kos has
this bit from Ann Richards' former campaign manager about Ciro Rodriguez' opponent, Henry Cuellar:
Cuellar, like Sanchez from Laredo, was an Hispanic-surnamed opportunist who readily agreed to work over Sanchez behind the scenes. And he did. Cuellar had been elected some years earlier as Democrat to the state House. He began his twisted, self-loathing, race-baiting among his former House colleagues. Cherub-faced, Cuellar played the innocent. He himself leaked a story that Sanchez had a private eye investigating rumors about his sexual preference.
This is the kind of guy the GOP is recruiting to run in Democrat-owned districts to further weaken the Dems. He represents everything that's wrong with the party and then some.
I got a nice note from Ciro's campaign thanking us for all the money we've raised, now close to $8,000. Atrios has raised
$16,460 and the group page is up to
$32,815. The primary is going to be in early March so if you like the idea of unseating a DINO and replacing him with a true progressive, you can donate
here.
And special thanks to everyone who has already contributed. To you the doggies say "namaste."
|
No, not
Larry Johnson:
Some of the Bush apologists, such as Byron York of the National Review, are still insisting that Plame's covert status is in doubt and that no damage was done by seizing on a paragraph in a recent letter from Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's attorneys. In a December 14, 2005, letter to Fitzgerald, Libby's lawyers asked for "Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee" in a December 14, 2005 letter to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald's response stated, "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document."
This much I do know. The CIA, as matter of standard operating procedure, conducted a preliminary damage assessment once Valerie's identity was publicly compromised. Human intelligence assets who had worked under Valerie's direction were damaged. Their lives were put at risk (I don't know if anyone died) and their ability to serve as clandestine assets reporting to the United States was destroyed. Remember, Valerie was working on projects to identify terrorists and criminals who were trying to procure weapons of mass destruction. Part of this information was the basis for the referral to the Justice Department in September 2003 to investigate this as a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Although the CIA has not completed a formal written report that is available to outsiders, such as the House or Senate Intelligence Committees, it has done a damage assessment.
Other material contained in Tatel's review of the case contains the following substantive nuggets:Vice President Cheney told Scooter Libby that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division in mid-June 2003.
Both Cheney and Libby, by virtue of their longstanding work with CIA and on national security issues, knew that CPD was an intelligence collector and not an analytical shop. They also have had enough experience with intelligence matters to know that the vast majority of folks involved with intelligence collection are undercover.
But how about:
Andrea Mitchell:
I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance.
Bob Woodward:
They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage.
And king of the Yellow Elephants,
Tucker Carlson:
In fact, as NBC's Andrea Mitchell has reported, an internal CIA investigation found that Plame's outing caused no discernible damage to anyone.
Say it with me:
liars.
|
The GOP playbook for these hearings is becoming a bit threadbare. Once again everyone is supposed to get their hopes up because, as
Digby notes, Goober Graham picks the hayseeds from between his teeth and sets himself up as "Republican with a conscience," asking a few questions that seem to indicate he's got some concerns about All Of This. He thereby positions himself as the centrist moral authority, only to use this to give the Administration a free pass in the end. It's crap. It's a schtick he runs every time they have one of these things.
The second shell game they're running is the pearl-clutching woman. This time around it was
Deborah Burlingame, sister of pilot of the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. Teed up by Jeff Sessions, she assures us -- dripping with righteous victimhood -- that the President must engage in willful and deliberate violations of the law in order to protect the babies from the boogeymen, as Digby likes to say. The media focus will now be taken away from Senators grilling Abu Gonzales with complex questions he flat out refuses to answer because that's a fucking Kodak moment, that one.
Oh and then there is the obligatory Jeff Gannon question thrown out at the press conference, this time by one of the Power Tools who pitches an adolescent temper tantrum when
Dick Durbin calls him on open shillery and belittles his "Pajamaline" credentials. "I bet Dan Rather has heard of us!!!" harumphs the Third Tool like a twelve year-old slamming his bedroom door on parents who Just Don't Take Him Seriously.
These are the simple tricks that the con artists in some medicine show would repeat endlessly as they traveled from town to town selling a bunch of useless crap. We may be tired of being on the receiving end of such cheap come-ons but the sloppy drunken roundheels of the press seem to fall for it every time.
Update: tjschill in the comments:
I worry more about Specter... as the last questioner today at about 6 pm-- with the room nearly emptied--he laid it squarely on Gonzo's jaw-- making it patently clear that Bush's program was illegal in his estimation... Now, the left has been waving his comments like a flag, and will likely do so again... if he cuts a deal with BushCo and does an about face, alot of Dems on the Hill will be left in a lurch about this being a patriotic and not partisan issue...
I think this is a very legitimate worry and it is more than likely part of the snake-oil show.
Swopa cautions that rather than ally themselves with GOP politicians whose ultimate loyalty to Dubya is a foregone conclusion, the Dems should be looking toward the whistleblowers who came forward to the NYT and WaPo.
|
I'm with
Digby. What a lame, sissified, cowering bunch of milquetoasts the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee are. They're so afraid of Dubya's playground bullies they sit with their thumbs up their asses, too simpering and quivering even to defend their own power as they completely abdicate the oversight responsibilities they were elected to carry out on behalf of their constituents:
These men who spent years running on Madisonian principles ("The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse") now argue without any sense of irony or embarrassment that Republican Senators are nothing more than eunuchs in President Bush's political harem. They have voluntarily rendered the congress of the United States impotent to his power.
(snip)
We are looking at fifty-five of the most powerful people in the country. Collectively the Republican Senators represent almost a hundred and fifty million citizens. And they have allowed a callow little boy like George W. Bush along with his grey eminineces Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to strip them of their consciences, their principles and their constitutional obligations. What sad little creatures, cowardly and subservient, unctuously bowing and scraping before Karl Rove the man who holds their (purse) strings and dances them around the halls of congress singing tributes to their own irrelevance at the top of their lungs. How pathetic they are.
On the other hand, Glenn Greenwald was superb on CSPAN this morning (
clip at Crooks & Liars). Some crazy loaded Freeper called in and said Glenn and the ACLU should've been in the towers the day they went down, and Glenn was so succinct and direct in his refutation it will leave you feeling really confident that there are people out there with the intelligence and conviction to get the country back on track and beat this nonsense into the ground.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled GOP jellyfish festival.
|
DEWINE QUESTIONING: 50 USC, Sec. 403(b) – for Gang of Eight. All they do is receive reports with regard to covert action. But saying that they have been notified of this program – they have no statutory authority to do anything as defined in this particular section. AG goes into the notice requirements again. DeWine pretty much thinks the AG is wrong. Period. DeWine says he’s a strict constructionist – and the Administration is bending the interpretation to essentially try and cover their own asses, and DeWine is having none of it. (RH: Mweee heee) Is your probable cause standard different from the usual legal understanding of that term? AG: No, I wouldn’t say that. Is there "reasonable grounds to believe that a party to the communication is a member of al qaeda or affiliate organization?" Gen. Hayden described it as a "softer trigger" than that under FISA? AG says they are the same. (RH: Hmm, so he does occasionally disagree with Gen. Hayden.) DeWine says it is a procedural issue – one requires you to go through more hoops than the other. DeWine asks how individual NSA officials are trained to apply this standard, since it is the NSA agents who are making the decisions on this on a day to day basis? AG says the general counsel’s office at the NSA is doing that training. DoJ has provided some guidance, but the NSA has been primarily responsible for this – the General Counsel’s office at NSA should be held accountable. DeWine says it is in nation’s best interest and the War on Terror’s best interest for the Preznit to come to Congress and brief the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees fully – rather than sneaking around behind our backs.
KENNEDY QUESTIONING: Discussion about the need for bi-partisan cooperation on this and why the President has bypassed Congress. Then asks about whether President has authorized other operations outside of this one FISA end-run – AG not going to answer this question. Kennedy then trying to ascertain whether phone or other tellecom companies or internet companies have been given cover by DoJ for releasing information. AG says he can’t answer the question. And says the media has reported some things inaccurately. (RH: I’d note that if the President had fully informed Congress about this in the first place, they wouldn’t be asking about any of this in a public hearing today, now would they? How pathetic is it that members of Congress have to pull their oversight questions from press reports because this Administration is so disrespectful that they refuse to cooperate with lawful oversight. But I digress...) Kennedy then tells an amusing story about J. Edgar Hoover having 500 wiretaps the day before his testimony, then pulling them so that he could testify that they had 20 wiretaps, and then putting back up the 500 wiretaps the day after testimony. Not, of course, suggesting that your Administration would do that, AG. Ahem.
Specter now talking about renewing the Voting Rights Act.
SESSIONS QUESTIONING: Offers letter from H. Brian Cunningham, someone who worked for Clinton and Bush Administrations and likes the NSA program. And now is introducing Deborah Burlingame – the Sessions all day long human prop. (RH: Why not just tattoo 9/11 on your freaking forehead, because you have no other message today other than fear, fire, foes, you nasal yahoo.) Sessions now arguing that the President showed respect for the Congress for his end-run of FISA. And please investigate who revealed this program and prosecute them. (RH: And the hell with our covert CIA operatives, just so ya know.)
BIDEN QUESTIONING: How exactly have we damaged anything by talking about this program, because the terrorists have known we are surveilling them all along? AG says terrorists are stupid. (RH: Well, so are criminals, so I’ll give him that point. If you knew some of the crap people say on wiretaps, you’d laugh your butt off.) Do you know how many of these wiretaps and/or e-mail intercepts have resulted in anything? AG says Director of FBI said it’s been very valuable. (Well, that’s not really an answer is it?) FBI and Hayden says this has helped protect and prevent here and abroad. Biden: Any arrests? AG: Dodged an answer. What do you do with conversations that don’t result in anything useful? AG: Well, we have some procedures that may exist that would govern what happens to that information. Does anyone know what those procedures are? AG: The NSA does. Have they told anyone in Congress or the Courts? AG: I dunno. How do we know whether anything is being done properly? Doesn’t someone do oversight? The Cold War lasted 40 years – this is likely to go 40 years or more – is “trust us” the best you can do? AG passes the buck to the Inspector General at the NSA. What goes into the re-authorization every 45 days? AG says it isn’t automatic, looks at threat from intel information. Is al qaeda a continuing threat – is that the criteria, rather than whether this program is working? AG says would only use a tool if it was effective.
Break.
(Sorry, I had to run our exchange student to a basketball game – so I missed a bit of the hearing.)
GRAHAM QUESTIONING: Fifth column movement – wants check and balance. Emotions run high in a war, and we have done things in the past that were wrong in the cool light of day. It would be very easy for an innocent citizen or business person to have bad things happen to you by a bad actor pinning actions on you that you have not taken. By having Congress on your side, you will be in a stronger position – AG says “we’ll listen to what you have to say.” (RH: Shorter AG – screw you, we’ll still do as we please.) If the Congress cannot regulate and protect the troops, then the Administration is saying that the Congress has no power during a time of war (with regard to Bybee memo and torture memo arguments). Come to Congress and work through this issue, because we don’t need tensions between ourselves, we need unanimity.
DURBIN QUESTIONING: Where did 45 day review requirement come from? Arose via schedules. (RH: Really – so when did that start? Just 45 days into the program, or much later when they realized there would be a problem without some CYA review?) Durbin – so what you are saying is that this oversight occurs only within the executive branch – isn’t that a significant departure from what we have normally thought of as oversight? AG says not sure he understands what Durbin is saying and whether this is unique. Durbin: If you want to wiretap, you must go to the Judiciary and they give oversight. In this case, you go only to yourself. Chertoff recently said that the government is culling through thousands of phone calls to pull out threat words and others. Durbin says that ordinary citizens who have had contacts with persons overseas in the course of ordinary business have been spied upon – can’t get any answers because Administration will not confirm or deny that this may have happened. We cannot give you a blank check.. (RH: Bottom line, no one trusts you – you’ve burned those bridges by consistently lying to us. Repeatedly.) AG says if we were to brief you into the program, how could we be assured that the rights of citizens would be protected? Durbin says that those Senators who have been informed are sworn to secrecy and cannot disclose that information publicly – and no amount of saying that Senators have been briefed excuses the Administration taking actions that are unlawful. Durbin: Well, then, what about Jane Harmon saying that you ought to be using FISA? You haven’t listened to that, have you? Durbin introducing Monica Gabriel and Mindy Kleinberg – statement read into record. Maintaining civil liberties is just as important as winning war on terror.
CORNYN QUESTIONING: Back on the Intimidation of Whistle Blowers Brigade – Cornyn is clearly the designated hitter on “prosecute the people who exposed that the Preznit is breaking the law.” btw, Cornyn is willing to just say that the Preznit has authority under the AUMF to do whatever the hell he wants. (RH: wonder if he’s willing to stop getting a paycheck, then, since he’s now irrelevant?) AG says after 9/11, we realized that our capabilities were inadequate. (RH: I know Cornyn isn’t going to ask a follow-up on this, but since the Administration has had five freaking years to think about it – couldn’t they have asked for an amendment or two to the law? Oh, I guess that would require them to actually give a shit that they were breaking the law or respect Congress or something. Silly me.) Military force can be solely authorized by Preznit when the US is under attack – Cornyn gives AG extended time to talk about unitary executive/military executive theory.
KOHL QUESTIONING: Asks about how many Americans have had phone conversation and/or e-mails intercepted without a court order? AG: Can’t answer that. What changes have had to be made? AG: Can’t tell you. (RH: Anyone notice that the AG hasn’t had trouble answering Republican questions? I’m just saying...) Went into the non-success of this program according to media reports. AG: Can't really talk about that, other than to disparage the media for talking about the program.
BROWNBACK QUESTIONING: Begins, again, by talking about how scary terrorists are and how this sort of program might have prevented 9/11. (RH: And on that wild-assed speculation note, I’d like to add that we were already surveilling several of the hijackers and lost them before the attacks because we weren’t taking terrorism threats from al qaeda quite so seriously at that time in the Bush Administration, as evidenced by the Preznit completely ignoring a briefing entitled “Al Qaeda to Attack In US” because he was too busy golfing and cutting down shrubbery on vacation. I’m just saying...) What takes so long on the FISA applications? AG goes through a long litany of things that have to be listed. (RH: I just want to say here that I have never had to do a FISA application, but a lot of what he is listing out as required is a similar requirement for a DEA wiretap warrant or for other wiretap surveillance that prosecutors do every day. I put together huge surveillance warrant requests weekly with two cops who couldn’t type if their lives depended on it, a part-time secretary who was no help with specifics, and days in which I had fourteen scheduled hearings and a lot of interruptions for emergencies. I’m sure FISA is complicated, but the bottom line is that you get the freaking job done if it needs doing. And whining about the procedure is useless when you are the freaking person who can go directly to Congress and ask for a change of procedure. You can’t do the job as it stands now, ask for changes – you are sitting in front of the Committee who could make the freaking changes.)
SPECTER QUESTIONING: Just so you know, Abu, the historical context in which you try to place the Preznit’s actions – that’s before Congress enacted FISA, and I’m not buying your tap dance. Carter strongly backed the FISA enactment, and codified that in his signing statement on the bill when it was signed into law. AG – well, Carter couldn’t waive Bushie’s rights to throw out the Constitution. Then goes into specific language versus generalized language – “well, that is false on its face.” The FISA language is more specific than the AUMF language. AG: Um...well, the AUMF is more specific as it relates to al qaeda. (RH: Man, I have to say, that is incredibly weak. Pathetic doesn’t begin to cover it, if that’s all they have on this.) Specter then asked about the Daschle statement that the request was made to add in this surveillance – AG says that he checked with the Congressional Research Service, and there is no record of that ever happening. (RH: Shorter AG – we’re going to challenge the veracity of Sen. Daschle because we refuse to answer the actual question on the grounds that it might make us look bad if Daschle actually told the truth..) AG: Does Congress have statutory authority to encroach on Preznit’s ability to surveil? Specter: You can’t hide behind some constitutional screen when you have circumvented a plainly written law from Congress. Your position that you have not circumvented FISA defies logic in plain speaking meaning. (RH notes: Specter is pissed about this – nothing like having the AG think he can just repeatedly lie to your face and not be held accountable for it at the end of the day. Total disrespect.) You may have the Article II authority – but I do not think that any fair reading of the AUMF gives you the authority to do electronic surveillance. Goes to the Jackson opinion: without Congressional authority, Presidential power is at its lowest ebb. Express will of Congress to the contrary, and when the President seeks to violate that, then he is disregarding express Congressional will. This must be scrutinized with caution – “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our Constitutional system.” Need oversight somewhere along the line – perhaps in the Intelligence Committee – but you cannot measure the President’s inherent authority without Congressional oversight – you do not have a blank check, it is not unlimited power. I hope the Intelligence Committee is going to come down to brass tacks here – and I hope it is the Committee, and not just the ranking members, because they need presentation to lawyers to square things up with what the law is. Take this entire issue to the FISA court, lock, stock and barrel.
Finished for today.
NSA Hearings, Part INSA Hearings, Part IINSA Hearings, Part IIINSA Hearings, Part IV(Proof of superior canine intelligence. I'm sorry, but I forgot to make a note of who sent my this photo. But it cracked me up, and I thought everyone could use a giggle as well.)
|
LEAHY QUESTIONING: When did Administration come to the conclusion that it could authorize this wiretapping within the US? AG: Occurred subsequent to AUMF and prior to Patriot Act. I can’t give you specific dates. Leahy says AG had to sign off on it – what date did you do that? AG says he won’t answer the question – says it is an operational detail. AG says that they decided they could do this from the outset. Did you tell anyone in Congress that you needed greater extension of FISA? Nope. Anyone on the Judiciary Committee asked for changes or told about the FISA end-run? Nope. Does this allow you to go into people’s medical records in this country? AG says Preznit clearly allowed to do electronic surveillance of the internet. Leahy says you didn’t answer my question. Who told you that you could do this wiretapping – and when did it occur? Intel committee people were consulted some time in 2004? Leahy – oh, so four years after you started doing this? (RH: Nice to know.) Leahy – you found out newspapers had discovered your program, and you came up for some oversight at that point? Does this sound like CYA on your part – you don’t even ask the Judiciary Committee, who has to write the FISA law, for changes? Thank goodness the press is letting us know that this is going on, because your Administration isn’t being straight with us about what you are doing. Did you tell Intelligence Committee about this FISA end-run prior to passage of the Patriot Act? AG: As I recall, we told them shortly after Patriot Act was passed. Does Preznit have authority to wiretap e-mails, phone calls, etc., in this country, if they are involved in suspicious activity? AG not comfortable answering the question. Says not what we are talking about here. Are you doing that under some other program? I’m not going to answer anything to do with operations.
HATCH QUESTIONING: Hatch now steps in to tell AG what he should have answered to Leahy’s questions. Blah blah blah Congress can be mean blah blah blah terrorists are scary, fear them blah blah blah. AG: If AUMF didn’t exist, then it’s a difficult Constitutional question whether or not Congress can limit Presidential actions during a time of war. Hatch brings things up regarding Clinton administration actions re: opinion from Walter Dillinger. (RH: Dillinger is critical of the current NSA spying program, so Hatch is doing some pre-emptive character assassination should Dems call Dellinger to testify or try to use his arguments.) AG: An important component of our argument involves Constitutional avoidance. (RH: See Prof’s notes on this in
the Comments.)
FEINSTEIN QUESTIONING: Has response from Jamie Gorelick – called her during the break. Response will be entered into the record.
Now Hatch and Sessions are trying to pretend like they were not attempting to smear Gorelick and the Clinton Administration with the same broad brush.
Feinstein also goes on to discuss statutory requirements for reporting sensitive intelligence matters in writing to the Intelligence Committee. AG disagrees with what Feinstein says was legal notice requirements – and Roberts agrees with AG (He’s relying on 413 (a) (A) and 413 (b) (B).)
Why didn’t you come to Congress for Amendments? The only thing that I can conclude is that this program is much bigger and much broader than you want the public to know. AG – I can’t confirm or deny that, beyond what the President has publicly revealed. At the time of the In Re Sealed case (which is pure dicta), did the Administration tell the Congress or the Court that warrantless wiretapping was going on. AG: Nope. Since passage of FISA, has Supreme Court made any holding on warrantless spying for foreign surveillance purposes? AG: Nope. Was this program mentioned to the Court in the Hamdi case? AG: I dunno. Feinstein: Find out. Feinstein: Has any President ever authorized warrantless surveillance contrary to a statute that was on the books saying not to do so? AG says he thinks Roosevelt may have done so, but not sure. Feinstein: Find out. Is your argument that if the AUMF doesn’t provide for warrantless spying, then FISA is unconstitutional? AG: Not what I meant. Argues that Youngstown is not analogous to this spying. This deals with core right of the Commander in Chief. Any statute that infringes on that raises serious Constitutional questions. Not prepared today to say FISA is not constitutional today, however. Feinstein: You sidestepped FISA. NSA is part of the DoD – and Congress has the right to make regs for the military – Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution. AG: Not sure you can say the NSA is part of the military. (RH: I think a lot of the folks at the NSA would be surprised to hear that.)
GRASSLEY QUESTIONING: Snooooooore. (RH: Sorry, need tea.) We are careful in our work in seeking a FISA warrant because we want to get it right. (RH: That’s why we chose to break the law – we didn’t want to file an improper warrant. The FISA court judges must be really, really scary.) AG says that the FISA judge might notify someone under surveillance that they had been surveilled should a warrant not be granted. (RH: I’d be interested to know if this has EVER happened – because, in my limited experience, judges do not tend to be excited about tipping off potential criminals that they have been tagged as possibly breaking the law. That doesn’t sound right to me, but then I’m not a FISA attorney. If anyone has experience with this and can let me know, I’d be grateful.) Grassley is pissed that a Democrat compared this NSA spying program to the Nixon Administration. (RH: Why do Republicans now hate Nixon?) AG compares Preznit to Roosevelt. (RH tries not to spew tea on her keyboard.) Terrorists pose a new kind of war. (RH: Guess that whole Soviet threat of nuclear annihilation was just a made-up fairy tale, then?) AG says they have monthly meetings at NSA to be certain the program is consistent with President’s authorization. (RH: And since Abu says that he never disagrees with Gen. Hayden, I bet those are some pretty short meetings.)
FEINGOLD QUESTIONING: Do you know of any President who has acted outside of FISA since its inception in 1978? AG: No, can’t think of anyone. When the Preznit said in the State of the Union that Federal Courts have approved this sort of wiretapping, that wasn’t really accurate was it? (Feingold just walked Gonzales through the fact that there are NO federal court cases that okay this action since FISA was passed.) Gonzales now stammering. (RH: Oops.) I think the Preznit’s comments in the SOTU were highly misleading. The members of this Committee are highly supportive of your actions under FISA – illegal actions are another story. (RH: Gonzales is deliberately making Feingold repeat questions and asking him to explain things to run out his time. So transparent and so pathetic.) Are there any other programs we should know about that are not before the committee today that the Administration is conducting or has conducted that raise questions under FISA? AG: Can’t answer that. Russ: Well, I prefer that to you saying you can’t answer a hypothetical. Feingold then asks who in WH approved and reviewed Mr. Chris’ testimony, and his highly misleading statements to Congress. AG says he will find out underlying information on this. Feingold now asking about internet and telecommunications companies, and whether FISA or high ranking DoJ official has issued certifications to relieve them of liability for providing information? AG not willing to answer the question in open session.
KYL QUESTIONING: Kyl starts be being peevish about Feingold saying Preznit’s SOTU was misleading. Informed leadership of Congress and Intel. Committees. Kyl thinks the Judiciary Committee is less important than the Intel Committee for amendments to the FISA laws. (RH: Jeebus, is the Administration using Kyl as their clean-up the testimony boy?)
SCHUMER QUESTIONING: Schumer asks how surveillance without a warrant is different from searching a home or office without a warrant? AG says he can’t answer the question – to his knowledge, this has not happened under the terrorist surveillance program, and not going to answer any further than that. How about placing listening devices in American homes without a warrant. AG: Can’t answer that. Have you monitored political enemies? AG: We aren’t going to do that. (RH: Really? Talk with CIFA before you say that for certain.) How many times has this been authorized? AG: That is a classified number – ask the chair of the Intel. Committees. Schumer says FISA makes public the number of FISA applications per year, why can’t the President make the number public? AG: I can’t answer that. Schumer gets into the Church warnings and the increase in technology capabilities today raising even greater questions. Has there been any disciplinary action taken against any person involved in abuses in this program? If there have been some abuses, we ought to know about it? AG: I can’t answer those questions. Sometimes there are mistakes made, as you know, but I can’t really answer your question because the NSA takes care of that. (RH: Ummmm....good oversight, that.) Could you commit to tell us when you come back whether there have been abuses within the NSA? AG: Not really – I’ll see what I can do.
NSA Hearings, Part INSA Hearings, Part IINSA Hearings, Part III(More great artwork from the
Propoganda Remix Project. Please take a peek and purchase some artwork if you are moved to do so -- this is some clever stuff.)
|
Hearings have begun anew after the lunch break. Beginning with Sen. Feingold, who starts by kicking ass and taking names. Boooo-yah.
FEINGOLD QUESTIONING: Begins by saying that he thinks AG ought to have been sworn in. Listing Republicans who have publicly disputed that AUMF authorizes domestic wiretapping. Problem is not that the Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world – the problem is that the Preznit has a pre-1776 view of the world. (RH: SLAM!) Must protect the US without violating the Constitution and without putting the Administration above the law. You have been violating the law, and misleading the American public to try and justify it. Serious questions about your (Gonzales’) credibility and about the forthrightness of the Administration itself. Russ: You were fully aware of the NSA program at the time you testified to Congress regarding your appointment in Jan. 2005, yet you were less than forthcoming about my surveillance questions. AG: Well, that depends on what the meaning of “illegal” is. You let a misleading statement about a key issue dealing with your confirmation stand, rather than tell the truth to the committee about this NSA program. AG: Um, we don’t think we are breaking the law, so I’m going to dance around the fact that I failed to honestly answer your previous question. Feingold calling AG on the false premises raised regarding past actions by Presidents who were not subject to FISA since it had not been yet enacted.
GRAHAM QUESTIONING: Gosh, you sure are nice and honest. I don’t always agree with you, but I’m not going to ask you any questions that you can’t answer. And it’s Congress’ fault that the Preznit is breaking the law. When I voted for AUMF, I did not dream that I was giving the Preznit an end-run around the FISA law. And I suggest to you that the next time the Preznit needs a force resolution, it will be much harder to get one – because Senators have long memories – don’t think that Republicans are going to let you take this too far, either. (RH: Well, that was an interesting public exercise in threats, wasn’t it?) Then gets into UCMJ requirements on anti-torture and McCain amendments. Does Congressional rule trump – or does your interpretation of the Constitution allow the Preznit to do what he wants? AG tries to dodge and weave. Graham goes after the fact that Congress could pull funding from military if need be – points out Bybee legal reasoning on torture was strained and violated an existing body of law under the UCMJ. Can you see how this is analogous to FISA laws being violated? Taking the inherent authority argument too far cuts out any check and balance. AG says maybe he hasn’t been as precise with words – not saying “inherent, exclusive authority,” just saying “inherent authority.” (RH: Anyone for what the meaning of is is?) If we don’t buy your AUMF argument, then all you are left with is the inherent authority argument – and that argument has no boundaries for executive decisions at a time of war – and I am not comfortable with that. AG tries to backtrack and say, “Oh Congress, we sure do appreciate your input.” (RH: Publicly anyway, because we could give a rat’s ass about what you think based on how we’ve conducted ourselves over the last five years.)
SCHUMER QUESTIONING: We think surveillance is important, as is protecting our national security. But we must do so and protect liberty – don’t you agree? AG: yes, we must protect civil liberties. Reiterates the names of Republican Senators who question the program, as well as the fact that there were a number of high-ranking lawyers within the Administration itself who questioned the legality of this program. AG agrees. Brings up James Comey’s problems with the program. AG hedges on this response – he says there has not been serious agreement about the program that the Preznit authorized that we are talking about today – but there apparently were disagreements with programs they aren’t discussing? (RH: Where the hell is the follow-up question on this?) Says Administration wouldn’t object to Ashcroft being called – but not waiving executive privilege. To the extent that there are privileges in place, then wouldn’t...ummm...really object to Comey and others being called, Schumer asks. AG weaves around a bit. Tries to pin down whether the Administration would have same rules for critics of the WH program as there would be for the AG today. AG not really answering. Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment also cover questions under the Constitution – not just your so-called inherent authority argument? (RH: Good – get into the “pick and choose” philosophy of this Administration when it comes to Constitutional theory.) Has there been a situation brought to your attention of an internal US call? AG says he won’t respond.
CORNYN QUESTIONING: Blah blah blah people should not question our President, I don’t like that blah blah blah. (RH: Oh lordy, Cornyn is getting into espionage laws. Anyone in the media want to ask Cornyn whether Karl Rove ought to still have his classified security clearance? I mean, he is asking that reporters be prosecuted for publishing the information now – so how about Karl?)
DURBIN QUESTIONING: Durbin asks about circumventing or ignoring FISA. AG says up is down – “we aren’t breaking the law, by conducting ourselves in a way which is outside of the law.” Why didn’t you come to Congress and ask for changes, when you knew that we have supported you in every request that you have made for assistance in fighting terrorism? Why go behind the backs of Congress? AG dances around an answer. Not a single reference in the AUMF to surveillance. AG: Not a single reference of detainment of American citizens either. Durbin throws language of Hamdi back at the AG – you are warping the reasoning of the Court, and O’Connor’s language is very instructive of this. Reads language on commitment to protecting Constitutional rights at home as we promote them abroad. AG again refers to Sec. 109 of FISA. This President is reaching far beyond what you have described today – that is our greatest fear – the fact that you have done this without asking for changes in the law, but instead doing it behind our backs. Ordinary Americans are getting no answers whether or not they are being spied on without warrants and, I’m sorry, but we cannot trust “career professionals” to not make bad decisions without some oversight.
BROWNBACK QUESTIONING: Begins by saying essentially that terrorists are scary – fear them, and allow the Preznit to do whatever he wants because you are afraid. AG – I never have a different opinion than Gen. Hayden. (RH: Well, so much for that internal oversight.) Brownback troubled by possibility of a “forever war” – and asking what changes in FISA law could make things less cumbersome for the Administration, based on their complaining about it, but also allow for oversight which Brownback feels is necessary. AG not willing to talk abotu specific changes without talking to “experts” in his department. (RH: Um...preparing for the hearings is hard work.)
NSA Hearings, Part INSA Hearings, Part II(Poster courtesy of the
Propoganda Remix Project. Please take some time to browse this incredibly well-done artwork -- posters and other materials are available for purchase from this group, including a couple of books of the artwork.)
|
Why is it that the cable news networks show President Bush giving the same speech over and over again without interruption -- on social security, on the war in Iraq, you name the topic -- but they cut out of the NSA hearings the moment Arlen Specter started asking a mildly difficult question? I'm just saying...
Let us give a moment of thanks for
C-Span.
(Poster courtesy of the fantastic
Propaganda Remix Project.)
|
Still watching NSA hearings on
C-Span.
GRASSLEY QUESTIONING: Blah blah blah inherent Constitutional powers blah blah blah. (RH: According to Sen. Grassley, outing a CIA NOC is a two-bit nothing compared to the leak of this illegal NSA domestic spying. Nice. I’m sure our covert agents in the field appreciate the support from a Senator.) Gonzales argues that these actions are different from those in Youngstown – but doesn’t give factual information to distinguish, so I hope that someone delves into this much further. Relies on Sen. Roberts opinion submitted to the Committee – Specter admitting letter from Roberts into the committee record.
BIDEN QUESTIONING: Points out that Roberts is not planning on holding any hearings for Intelligence Committee, which Biden says is bordering on abdication of Congressional duty. Biden starts by saying that the Administration lacks credibility because their past actions have raised questions about truthfulness. How will we know when this war is over? AG: When al qaeda is destroyed – which is not today. Biden: So, you’re going to argue for continual authority to do whatever the Administration feels is necessary for so long as you feel there is a threat – which under your terms is pretty much forever, considering how al qaeda has morphed into a multi-group organization. Biden then asks if President is truly interested in fully protecting the public, why not listen to domestic calls – is it public relations or because you see that as unconstitutional? Gonzales dodges answer, pretty much, by not really giving rationale other than talking about balancing rights versus protection. How many people in NSA doing this monitoring? AG: I don’t know. (Fobbing off the responsibility for this on NSA and intel personnel. Again.) Then discussion about minimization requirements and FISA – Gonzales stammering again, discussing that they are classified, and Biden points out that this information has not been shared with the Intelligence Committee beyond perhaps the “Gang of 8" and Biden wants to know why not? Biden: Can you assure us that you, Gonzales, that you personally know the details of this and that no one is being eavesdropped on in the US under this program? AG: No, I can’t give you that assurance. (So, basically, we’re doing some domestic spying. Suck it up.) Biden takes a swipe at the Intelligence Committee and Roberts that oversight is absolutely necessary for this program.
Leahy adds in objections contained in a letter from Bruce Fein and others to this NSA program.
KYL QUESTIONING: Says some humility is called for in the Committee. (RH: Coming from Kyl, that’s amusing.) Kyl trying to paint FISA as ineffective – and the AG actually comes back with an argument that FISA is effective, but only in peacetime. In wartime, apparently, under the Bush Administration, no laws need apply. (RH: Good heavens, Kyl is raising the fear mongering question while discussing the need for constitutional review. Someone must be up for re-election this year in a state where Western libertarians don’t like governmental intrusion on their liberties.) AG says he has not been present at all briefings with members of Congress, but that there have been questions raised by some members, and will take Kyl’s concerns back to Administration. (RH: Wow, mighty nice of him. *snerk*)
KOHL QUESTIONING: Was there any debate within the DoJ? There was a great deal of debate, but Gonzales is poo-pooing any questions about constitutionality and trying to downplay those questions. Back to discussing amending FISA – saying we don’t need to do so for peacetime surveillance purposes – so they are staking out the argument as “wartime versus peacetime.” (RH: Guess the Constitution just goes shit out the window during wartime.) Kohl: Anything the )Preznit can’t do during time of war? AG argues that Preznit is acting within the law based on the AUMF. What is done with the information collected? AG dodges the question, and says he can’t talk about specifics but the information is collected, retained and disseminated to protect the privacy interests. Kohl: So, you are saying the information is retained? AG: Um, I’m not answering that. But we’re going to publicly give lip service to privacy interests, because it sounds good on camera. Kohl: I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that you aren’t gathering information on al qaeda in this country. AG: We’re not admitting to doing that publicly – and we are worried about what the public reaction would be were we to admit doing so publicly. (Ok, sure, I’m paraphrasing, but I’ll link to the transcript and see if that isn’t what he was saying.)
We have a screamer in the back of the room, who is now leaving. Sen. Sessions has now responded to the protester on the record by saying that Gonzales is not a fascist. Nice of him to do so.
DEWINE QUESTIONING: President is stronger in foreign relations and intelligence matters when Congress has oversight and approval. Need Intelligence Committee oversight. (RH: This is a building theme – Republicans in the Judiciary Committee appear to want to fob off oversight onto intelligence, since they could do the hearings in secret presumably and then bury the information gathered, presumably.) DeWine quotes concerns from Mueller in 2004 – talks about having current information that there is a back-log of mechanical problems within FISA and at DoJ with this process – can you explain? Congress cannot tolerate a backlog of applications – and you need to request more resources from Congress if you need them. AG fobs this off on his staff, who are “experts.” (RH: What the hell – this is so indicative of this Administration. The buck always stops on someone else’s desk. Did he prepare for these hearings or not?) AG says that there is some small delay at times on some applications, and that is why the President decided to just break the law instead of requesting amendments to the law. (RH: Oh, that’s reassuring. And DeWine doesn’t even bother to follow up on this.)
AG goes back to a point for Sen. Kohl. Domestic to domestic – to the extent that they can engage al qaeda domestically, they are doing so. Going back to CYA to be certain that the public perception is that big, bad Bushie is fighting the terrorists (even if he has to trample on the law to do so).
FEINSTEIN QUESTIONING: This is not about continuing surveillance – we all agree that this is necessary. What this is about is that this Administration has said that it does not have to follow the law. And any discussion that the Intelligence Committee knows about this is a flat out lie, because they have not been briefed on the details. The President lied to the American public that wiretapping requires a warrant, do you agree? AG says the Preznit was being honest. Splitting hairs. (RH: Anyone for a discussion on what the meaning of “warrants” is? We are now splitting the hairs based on whether the Preznit was discussing “roving wiretaps” as opposed to warrants. Lovely.) Feinstein says that Hayden told her that they had fully briefed the Intelligence Committee on these programs. Says full Committee has not been notified of this before public reporting. AG says nothing excuses false statements before Congress. DiFi: You have advanced the theory that the Preznit’s power is unchecked during war, and that he is not bound by law – the AUMF provides authority or, if that doesn’t apply, the Constitution gives him unlimited power. What do you have to say about Daschle’s statement that he expressly refused to include authority on this – and that the Preznit went ahead with the violation of FISA law anyway? AG says authority to use military force gives the Preznit a blank check to do whatever he deems necessary. DiFi calls hi8m on his FISA “escape hatch” argument – says you have 15 day provision and 72 hours. AG says section 109 “except as authorized by statute.” (RH: I’ll take a look at this when I get time.) AG: Um...and if you don’t agree with this, we believe this is a fairly possible ruling, but maybe we can find something else that will work. (They are relying on a conflicting interpretation legal hairsplitting argument.) DiFi asks about other programs where the Preznit has invoked that authority? AG not comfortable answering. Can Preznit suspend posse comitatus? Not comfortable answering. Can Preznit suspend law prohibiting otherwise illegal propaganda? AG dodges answer. (RH: DiFi is really getting to the heart of the constitutional questions on this. Good on her. Slippery slope is absolutely right here.) DiFi: Has any Supreme Court case since FISA held that the President can wiretap Americans without a warrant? AG: says in re sealed case from 2002. Acknowledges that the Court did not address that specific issue, though.
SESSIONS QUESTIONING: Gosh, Mr. AG, I sure do like you. And the media has been mean. Anyone who questions what you are doing is unpatriotic. And I sure do think you are a truthful fellow – anyone who questions your truthiness is unpatriotic. Gosh, I sure am grateful that the Preznit doesn’t have to follow the laws, because thinking about terrorists makes me almost pee my pants in terror and our Constitution can’t possibly hold a candle to how much I need to feel protected. (RH: Okay, sure, I’m paraphrasing. But I have to do so, otherwise my brain might explode having to listen to Sessions whiny-ass, nasal voice and his constant need to kiss the Adminsitration’s ass without doing any critical, independent thought.) And gosh, doesn’t the Hamdi case affirm how powerful the Preznit is? Listening in on a citizen without a warrant sure is less intrusive than throwing him into a cell with no trial, isn’t it? (RH: Oh yeah, that’s a winner of an argument. The Preznit is breaking a lesser law – good one.) Oh good heavens, now we get to the warrantless physical searches by Clinton – which, again,
were not covered by FISA at the time that they were conducted AND when Congress brought those searches under the auspices of FISA, the Clinton Administration did not object to that. Could he make a more factually disengenuous argument?
Break for lunch. Will resume at 1:45 pm ET.
NSA Hearings, Part I
|
Am watching the NSA hearings on
C-Span. Will try to summarize for as long as I am allowed to do so by the peanut. Ought to be an interesting day.
Sen. Pat Leahy is starting the day on fire. There has been an ongoing argument as to whether or not Alberto Gonzales ought to be sworn in as a witness -- Sen. Specter has played the "we have more votes than you do" partisan trump card, and Gonzales will not be sworn in for his testimony.
The Committee is proceeding with opening statements.
Leahy detailed history as to why the Nixon "enemies list" required that the FISA oversight be established, and other history of the government spying on Americans. That the FISA laws have been amended five times since 9/11 to enhance the Preznit's capabilities for surveillance -- and yet the President and his advisors saw fit to break the law anyway.
GONZALES:
NOTE: Prepared statement can be found
here. (Hat tip to reader Dru for the link.)
AG Gonzales begins his opening statement with the fear card -- and is given 20 minutes to give his opener. It's all fear, alla time thus far. "Use every lawful means to prevent a terrorist attack." He's comparing the NSA spying to a "scout team" sent ahead to do recon. But says that the Preznit is committed to protect civil liberties. (No explanation as to how breaking the law is consistent with this commitment, but I digress.) Gonzales tap dancing around the legal requirements of FISA -- not mentioning them at all in conjunction with the "program," and saying that the bi-partisan leadership of Congress has been informed for "years" and never asked that the program be discontinued "in the course of the briefings." (Well, that's shaving things quite fine, isn't it?)
Stating that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution without oversight from other branches of governemnt in terms of intelligence gathering. (Can you say unitary executive theory -- and that the Congress is irrelevent to this President? Here's hoping some Senatorial egos are a bit bruised by this blunt "screw you, and what are you going to do about it" phrasing.)
By its plain terms, FISA prohibits surveillance “except as authorized by statute.” The AG is using this phrasing to end-run the law by arguing that the AUMF supercedes the FISA laws (calling it a “safety valve.” I have to say that this tortured reading of Congressional intent by Yoo and others is creative – but ought to be a chilling moment for members of Congress.)
SPECTER QUESTIONING: Begins by asking whether the FISA court wasn’t a 24-hour court, that was available for approval at any time. Gonzales danced around this answer. And says he has no idea why Judge Robertson resigned from FISA court. Specter makes point as to what assurances AG can give committee that only al qaeda is involved in surveillance. (Getting to that issue of trust.) Gonzales passing off the answer to the intelligence folks, and not giving a definitive answer of his own knowledge. Not exactly confidence inspiring answer, I must say. Specter pressures Gonzales to say on the record that he has no objection to Ashcroft testifying before the committee. Specter then asks about legislation being obtained – Gonzales says that they decided not to ask for legislation to make actions legal because they determined that legislation could not be obtained without disclosing the nature of the program (i.e. we couldn’t get Congress to act without exposing the fact that we had been breaking the law).
LEAHY QUESTIONING: Did you reach the conclusion that you could conduct warrantless spying prior to the AUMF on 9/14/01 – are you aware that others in the Administration came to that conclusion? Gonz.: Not aware. Are you aware of others coming to that conclusion prior to the Preznit signing the resolution on 9/18/01? Gonz.: Stalling. (Man, Leahy is pissed this morning. Good questions.) We came to conclusion that President had the authority – says short period of time after AUMF. (Am going to find exact transcript on this segment because it is great questioning and I’m thinking Leahy has something in his pocket on this.) Leahy hits Gonz. with the fact that he was WH Counsel at the time – and wants to know about when these deliberations took place. Brings up Patriot Act and amendments to FISA, and its relationship to this NSA program. Leahy directs him to find out answers for his afternoon appearance today. Is there anything to stop you from wiretapping without a warrant for any reason? Gonz. says it is a narrow program, subject to 4 amendment. Leahy stops him and says you are picking and choosing what you are subject to – where in AUMF there is specific language that authorizes you to ignore FISA? Gonz. – no, can’t show you specific language. Leahy: If you don’t like FISA, why not request changes? References Hamdi. Gonz. Getting flustered in his response – clearly not used to be questioned on this. Leahy: can you search mail, e-mail, bank records, whatever, without a warrant, under your interpretation, of Americans? Gonz.: Dodging and not answering. Not going to answer the question. Filibustering by talking about wild speculation – not going on here, he says, only focused on international communication – but not answering question as to whether these acts are being done.
HATCH QUESTIONING: Begins by lecturing about potential Constitutional issues and providing cover for Preznit. (WH has coordinated Hatch’s questioning, because Gonz. has prepared answers ready for each question as Hatch tosses it out.) Hatch asking about case law which authorizes intelligence gathering for foreign intelligence – no mention of Youngstown or any of that line of cases, though, on restrictions for intelligence gathering within the US. (RH: Hatch is such a political tool. The Republican line is clearly going to be “constitutional inherent power” versus rule of law – and the fact that they are ignoring an entire line of case law (a long line, in fact) that deals with liberty and freedom is appalling.)
KENNEDY QUESTIONING: Talking about phone companies and other communications companies, and linking in substantial discussions as to how members of the Administration had questions about legality and whether Congress would approve of what WH wanted to do. Talking about how other Administration’s have dealt with these questions. Did you check with any outside Constitutional authorities who spoke with you about how these actions might have been inadvisable or unconstitutional?
BREAK until 11:15 am ET.
|
Glenn Greenwald is currently on C-Span, debating
Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia. (Who is speaking from Virginia, and clearly has some students doing research for him off-screen because they are handing him texts as props.)
Glenn is doing a fantastic job: very clear, very straight-forward, very much a non-bloviating lawyer -- unlike his counterpart, who is frankly taking me back to my law school days when staying awake in certain classes became an exercise in self control and priming with espresso shots.
The NSA hearings begin at 9:30 am this morning. C-Span will be covering them, and I will try and live-blog for as long as Fiona will allow me to do so.
Glenn has made some great points this morning thus far:
(1) This is an American scandal and about the President breaking the law. Republicans as well as Democrats are apalled by this, and there must be some oversight -- some check -- on this power of surveillance, or we live in a nation where the laws no longer apply.
(2) Democrats and Republicans alike want surveillance. But the President must follow the law. The President asked for, and got, amendments to FISA in the wake of 9/11, and then turned around and started spying in secret anyway -- after publicly praising the amendments. The President asks that we "trust him" on this matter -- but he has repeatedly lied to the nation about whether or not warrants have been sought.
And in case you were wondering, Prof. Turner appears to be just the sort of fellow for whom the unitary executive theory holds great promise -- I'm not certain that there are any limitations in his mind on Presidential power during a time of war. Which makes that whole "
forever war" a looming problem for the entire country in the world that Prof. Turner inhabits.
And a note on the folks calling in -- the "fear factor" that Rove has been playing has a very strong pull. There is a great need for combating that fear -- but getting through the constant fear with facts is going to be a tough, uphill battle. Let's start talking about ways to effectively cut through that pee-your-pants fear that Rove and company have been stoking in this country since 9/11. We need a strategy -- now -- and I'm confident that the great minds in our comments can come up with some great ideas on this.
(Picture via
Matrix Reloaded.)
UPDATE: OMG, I am laughing so hard, and I've spewed coffee all over myself. Prof. Turner just said that terrorists may be imbedding messages in Viagra spam. Mwahahahahaha.
And
Attaturk caught the same bit. From
the comments:
Turner had perhaps the most insane hypothetical of all time -- "Osama might embed messages in Viagra Spam"
...wtf?
Erectile dysfuntion emails,
IF YOUR BOMB DOESN'T EXPLODE AFTER 4 HOURS PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN
Jeebus.
Man, I'm going to be laughing about that one all day today. *snerk*
|
Our very own Glenn Greenwald is going to be CSPAN tomorrow at 7:45-8:30am EST debating
University of Virgnia Professor Robert Turner (who has advocated in the WSJ and other places that Congress has no right to limit the President's ability to pick his teeth with the Constitution). Glenn also got an advance look at
Ted Kennedy's questions, and he will be
live blogging the hearings starting at 9:30am EST, as will
Leah of Corrente. No doubt Reddhedd will be doing so here if Fiona is in the mood for a little am bloviating.
Meanwhile, since Norah O'Donnell has been assigned to cover the extremely complicated Plame case for reasons unfathomable, Alvord suggested that she needs a new nickname. I heartily agree so we are going to have a "Name Norah O'Donnell" contest. Whoever comes up with the winner gets a copy of
Kos's new book.
The nominees to date are:
Boopsie
Lunchbox
NoDoz
Snort
No nutin' Nora
No-D'oh
Noron
The floor is now open for other nominations. We will have a runoff later in the week as the news cycle cooperates.
And we have now raised almost $6,000 on this site for Ciro Rodriguez. As if we needed more reason to support Ciro,
John at Americablog lets us know about his positive voting record when it comes to gay rights. And
Chris Bowers has more on the neanderthal DINO voting record of his opponent, Cuellar.
Our Actblue page is
still here and it isn't going anywhere.
Update: The General has more to say about the undeserved military honors that add a little zing to a man's bearing, and over at Kos they are showing Joe Lieberman
how much they appreciate his Alito vote.
|
Well
this is interesting:
On Thursday, February 9th, Kate Michelman, President Emeritus of NARAL Pro-Choice America and women from across Rhode Island will launch "Women for Matt Brown," a coalition of women supporting Brown in his campaign for U.S. Senate.
"Matt is the only candidate who has been a strong and vocal advocate of equal justice for women and consistently stood up for a woman's right to choose," said Michelman. "He embodies the commitment to womenÂs rights we desperately need in the U.S. Senate."
Like Brown, Michelman has been a vocal opponent of Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to.
Michelman was the head of NARAL up until 2004, and was replaced with current president Nancy Keenan. This has to signal some real contention over Keenan's decision to resolutely support Republican Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island senate race and dismiss his vote on Alito as "not significant." Somehow a vote on the Supreme Court nominee that shifted the balance of the entire court and cleared the way for overturning Roe was worth a massive 15 year fundraising effort but Chafee's support of this was no big deal.
I certainly hope other prominent members of the women's movement say "enough of this shit" such that NARAL's battered housewife devotion to Lincoln Chafee gets severed (as well as ties to Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). The pro-choice vote is very strong in Rhode Island and NARAL was successful in pushing Democratic pregnacist
James Langevin out of the race early on. I really do not get the logic of turning their back now on the possibility of filling a Senate seat with a candidate who would actually support what they are purportedly trying to accomplish. It's nice to know Keenan's perverse logic is missing Michelman, too.
Time to break up the Gang of 14.
Update: NARAL is encouraging you to
write the senators like Lieberman and Chafee who "voted against the Alito nomination" and fucking
thank them. I believe they voted against his confirmation but WTF. Yeah please smack us around some more, we just can't get enough. (thanks to neojoe in the comments)
|
As the Libby case goes back on the front burner it's pretty clear that defending Libby is but one of the objectives of his defense team, and not necessarily the first. Consider who is involved in
financing this pricey little fiesta (the fund has now reached $2 million), and take another look at what they are trying to get their grubby hands on.
As
emptywheel notes:
After all, this is only nominally the "Libby Defense Team." In reality, Libby's team of lawyers is attempting to ensure that the Plame scandal reaches no further than Libby, that it doesn't taint the rest of the Neocon cabal who participated in outing Plame and, more importantly, made the false case to bring the country to war. The fund is managed by a lifetime Republican operative, Barbara Comstock and chaired by Mel Sembler, Ambassador to Italy when the whole Niger caper was planned. In addition, the fund includes such notable contributors as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Bernard Lewis, and James Woolsey. These folks are not just trying to bail out (literally) a good friend. They're trying to prevent their entire Neocon project from being severely damaged by the trial.
So what do I think they're after, this Neocon Defense Team with their motions? Well, they're after stuff that Libby knows about--but that the Defense doesn't know whether or how Fitzgerald knows about. They're trying to ascertain, I suspect, how much evidence Fitzgerald has against other members of the team. And if they can figure that out, they may adjust Libby's defense accordingly.
Evidence of their handiwork can already be seen in the
Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery of Information Regarding News Reporters and Organizations (see page 14), as Paul Lukasiak notes in the
comments:
Once the defense gets further information about the sources who disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment status, we can investigate whether these sources were in communication with any reporters in the NBC Washington bureau prior to July 14, 2003, or if they talked to other individuals who might have passed this information on to NBC's Washington reporters.
As Paul notes, "in other words, Libby's people are demanding everything that Fitz has on Rove, Hadley, and everyone else..... and if you think that Libby's attorneys will keep that a secret, then you don't know who is paying Libby's legal bills..."
Remember, Libby was given a "hero's welcome" at the
Cheney Christmas party. And he's now pulling down
big wingnut welfare at the neocon think tank Hudson Institute. US troops may have to scavenge for body armor in Iraq but the Scooter firewall to Dick Cheney and George Bush will be tended at all costs.
|
I'm still trying to track down all the documents that have been released in various places regarding the Libby trial of late. I want to include everything that's been released in 2006 so if I'm missing anything, please let me know and I will add it:
. Jan. 31, 2006 filing of Libby attorneys: Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery of Rule 16 and Brady Material in the Possession of Other Agencies. 25 pages.
. Exhibits A, B & C: A - Dec. 14, 2005 letter from Cline to Fitz; B - January 9, 2006 letter from Fitz to Cline; C - January 23, 2006 letter from Fitz to Jeffress, Wells & Tate. 16 page document. 16 pages.
. Exhibits D, E & F: D - Transcript of Fitz Oct. 28 press conference. E - Oct. 1, 2003 WaPo article by Dana Milbank and Steno Sue. F - Letter from Abu Gonzales to staff telling them to preserve documents (fat load of good that did). 25 pages.
. Proposed order by Judge Walton ordering Fitz to disclose certain information to Team Libby. 3 pages.
. August 2004 Fitzgerald affidavit on In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller. Originially redacted, released to the public on February 3, 2006. 38 pages
. Feb. 3, 2006 order by Judge Reggie B. Walton setting out timetable.
. Copy of Feb. 15, 2004 decision regarding In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller that includes the 8 previously redacted pages (relevant pages are p. 31-39 of Tatel)
. January 26, 2006 Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery of Information Regarding News Reporters and Organizations. 27 pages.
. June 23, 2004 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Non-Party Tim Russert's Motion To Quash Grand Jury Subpoena. 19 pages.
. June 16, 2004 Government's Response to Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena. 48 pages.
. June 4, 2004 Motion of Non-Party Tim Russert to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena. 22 pages.
Hopefully this will put us all on the same page going forward. Much thanks to
Jeralyn and
Tom MaGuire for their heroic efforts in locating this stuff.
|
Newsweek reports that a Justice Department official discussed the possibility that the President ought to be able to order assassination on US soil under the current AUMF.
Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
Interesting. Does that include assassinating US citizens -- without a trial, without properly ascertaining whether or not they are innocent or guilty, without anything other than the say of the Preznit? Do you trust this Administration to make these sorts of choices without messing up?
Would you bet your life on it?
Sure, there are options for dealing with suspects who pose an immediate physical threat -- say holding controls for an explosive device or an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall. But a Presidential ordered assassination without any particular showing of exigent circumstances and immediate need? That's a Constitution of a different color altogether.
Given what has happened with
Jose Padilla, is anything truly beyond imagination from this Administration in terms of trampling on liberty without any adequate oversight or notification? Who would stop them if they were about to kill an innocent citizen -- and who would call them on it, even if they did?
Law enforcement must have trust in order to effectively do its job. It's part of the social contract between those who protect and those who need protection. This Administration does not have the trust of its citizenry -- it has forfeited that trust by its own improper actions, time and again, and it is high time we called them on just that.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said on today's Face the Nation that "[w]hen you authorize our military to use force, they can kill the enemy without a Miranda warning." (C&L will have video up of this later on today and I will link when they do so.) Well, that may be true on the battlefield -- but what about on the streets of the United States?
When we throw out due process of law, can we continue to call ourselves a beacon of liberty and democracy? Or are we just another two-bit dictatorship? Should we re-animate Stalin now, or what?
UPDATE:
Crooks and Liars has the Sessions video up from today's Face the Nation. Worth a watch if only for how untroubled Sessions is by what he is saying. Do these people think about the long-term ramifications and constitutionality of anything -- or is this all some sort of us v. them video game to them?
|
Guess the Chewbacca Defense Squad can take a vacation. Morons.
Oh, and in case you missed it:
Valerie Plame Wilson was covert. As in, on the NOC list. You know, an agent whose mission is so top secret that she ought to have been protected by her own government at all costs -- instead of being outed by a White House that was more interested in bringing her agency to heel and getting even with her husband.
Nice of
Newsweek to catch up to the lefty blogoverse. It's about time.
Not holding my breath for that Clifford May retraction or anything, but maybe someone could ask Victoria Toensing if she'd like to take back any of her fact-free invective and spewing?
And I see that
Atrios reached the same conclusion. It's all part of the newly un-redacted Libby opinion from Judge Tatel and company. Facts, coming to a media outlet near you.
Who is going to be the first reporter to ask anew about Karl Rove's clearance and how in the hell the WH can justify him having access to classified information on a daily basis after all his admissions of talking with reporters about Wilson's wife? Talk about "the laws don't apply to this Administration." Can you say hypocrites? I thought you could.
|
I don't trust the Bush Administration to do the right thing. Period.
That's the bottom line for me with the illegal NSA domestic spying mess and every other problem that has come down the pike: I don't trust this Preznit to make a decision based on what is right for the American public -- but, rather, I believe this Administration will do whatever it takes, no matter how illegal or immoral, to prop themselves up and maintain power. Perhaps it's my own personal bias -- I haven't felt this way about any other Republican Administration, to be honest, so it's not a liberal versus conservative thing, but something that I find inherently wrong about this particular group of malignant cronies.
Sell out liberty? Check. Manipulate religion, and thus true believers, into doing whatever is necessary to maintain a hold on power? Check. Cynical Orwellian "truthiness?" Oh yeah...check. Ruin someone's life if they get in your way, including not giving a rat's ass about the consequences of using wedge issues to divide and conquer? Check. Ends justifies whatever means necessary? Check and double check.
The WaPo has another fantastic article on the illegal NSA domestic spying, written in part by Barton Gellman -- a first rate journalist who has been hitting this story particularly hard. The article reveals that the wholesale sifting of information by the NSA has led to a single digit number of citizens who might even have any connection whatsoever to any threat to our nation's security. Single digit -- as in less than ten people per year, out of the thousands of people who are being illegally surveilled -- and even then, there is no hard evidence that any of these single digit folks have posed any threat whatsoever.
That's a program that could be dubbed abject failure by any national security measurement. And how many resources and manhours have been devoted to this program that has yielded nothing whatsoever? Who the hell knows -- because this Administration doesn't do oversight or cooperation
very well.
Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, "wash out" most of the leads within days or weeks.
The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. Other officials said the disclosures might shift the terms of public debate, altering perceptions about the balance between privacy lost and security gained.
So, let me get this straight: we have limited resources, budget and manpower. We are devoting a large portion of those to a program with little to no success, and which relies on some ability of tracing "patterns" via constantly changing watch-words and throwaway cell phones and little else. And which has serious questions of legality -- simply because this President will not, under any circumstances, admit that an error in judgment has been made and that we need to change course.
We keep doing the same failed action, over and over, netting nothing but a lot of false leads and dead ends, and in doing so what are we missing that we could have devoted manpower to that would have been more effective? Five years of this incompetence, and nothing to show for it. Bloody brilliant. (Allow me to pause for a moment to bang my head on the keyboard.) Never mind that the most successful method of gathering information continues to be human intelligence -- but with our heavy-handed approach to everything in the Middle East (read: Iraq), recruiting potential allies for humint gets more and more difficult every day. (More head banging.) Let alone the damage done by our government outing our own CIA NOC and her entire network of CIA associates and all of their assets in the field. (Arrrrrgh!)
You think there hasn't been lasting damage to our ability to recruit CIA and other intelligence agents and assets? That's not what I am hearing in all of my e-mails from current and former folks involved in intelligence matters. Just ask
Larry Johnson what he's hearing these days. Who wants to work for an Administration that holds the lives of its agents so cheaply that it is willing to sell them and their families out for petty political payback?
How often have we seen this disregard for the facts and the truth: Katrina? "Mission accomplished?" WMDs, anyone? Medicare, part D? Plenty of troops to get the job done? "Last throes?" Not spying without a warrant? What have I missed -- there's so much...
Whan you have an Administration that is lying even to its allies, how can you possibly trust
anything they say?
The NSA had assured him, Bamford said, that it was following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law Congress passed in 1978 to end government spying on its people and to require a special court's approval for U.S. wiretaps....
The danger is greater now, Bamford said. "Church said that when there was no e-mail, no cell phones, no Internet."
After 9/11, then-NSA director Michael Hayden probably "came up with a lot of ideas" to seek out terrorists, he said. Yet the NSA still couldn't monitor calls and e-mails here without presenting probable cause to a court, when often it had just suspicion or reasonable belief.
For every American who thinks this doesn't have anything to do with them, or that if they aren't doing anything wrong, then why worry about it --
think again. All that outsourcing of call centers to India that we've all been bitching about? Well, how many Americans do you think have been getting calls from outside the US from those call centers -- triggering all sorts of monitoring -- and then a big pile of data that this Administration is apparently just holding on to forever. You think you aren't in that pile? Please. And for what -- because your cell phone company wants to sell you more services? You think that justifies completely ignoring the Constitution -- and the President claiming to be above the law?
Republican partisans are already trying to turn this into an "us versus them" argument (in
today's NYTimes) -- a straw man who doesn't want any actions toward safety versus the Limbaugh-esque presentation of the he-man Republican Alberto Gonzales and a Preznit who is more superhero than politician.
What a joke. The hard choice is to follow the law -- to go to Congress and request modifications of the existing statutes, rather than sneaking around behind everyone's back and seizing power that is against the law because the President is too much of a chicken shit to be honest with the public about what he thinks is necessary. To respect the Constitution and our long history of liberty against short-term expediency and panic and being scared shitless while pretending to read My Pet Goat.
Surveillance is absolutely necessary to fight a war against terrorists who use technology as a part of their strategy. That is a given, and not something that any sane Democrat would argue against. But that doesn't mean you throw out the Constitution and the entire history of our nation because the President and his staffers pee their pants in fear over a few militant nutballs hiding out in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. Are we a nation of laws -- or a bunch of scardey-pants babies who don't deserve the rights our Founders fought so hard to gain us at the inception of our country?
You wonder why I don't trust this President to make the right choices? Look at the ones he's made up until now: reward his cronies; punish his perceived enemies -- not the terrorists, because Osama is still running around making videos, but his "enemies" as defined by anyone who would dare question anything George decides to do; silence any criticism, no matter how justified and fact-based it might be; run anyone out of the Administration who might ask difficult questions about how things are being done; win at all costs.
This isn't a thoughtful President with the entire nation's best interests in mind -- it's a playground bully who wants everyone's lunch money so he and his pals can get more candy after school.
No trust. None.
I've gotten a lot of questions from readers about what they can do to help with the upcoming hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the NSA spying issue. Here's one thing: we constantly expect Democrats in Congress to have our backs, to stand up for our issues. But it is just as important that they know we have their backs on this. Send a note of support -- a "kick some ass" sort of missive, if you will -- and let Democrats on the Committee (and Republicans, if you happen to be represented by one) know that this is an issue you find troubling, and that you support their getting some answers.
It's time the "silent majority" became not so silent. Call in to your local radio talk shows. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Republicans have been working the local level for years -- it's time we met them on the same ground and started kicking some fact-based, reality ass. Let's take back this country for the good guys -- and we can start by taking the little steps to wean people off the "Republican truthiness" kool-aid. Now, let's kick some ass.
NOTE: I meant to thank
Taylor Marsh for getting my thoughts rolling on the local action idea. Then
Jane kicked it into higher gear last night. Credit ought to go where it is due, and they started my brain whir on those ideas.
UPDATE: Doug r makes a good point in the comments. All those folks with Blackberries out there have their traffic routed through Canada. You prepared to say "Howdy" to Big Brother on every business e-mail you have bouncing back and forth out there -- with no oversight allowed, because Bushie doesn't need no stinking oversight? You think the boards of directors of Enron and other corporations under siege for violations of law aren't now wondering if they were targeted via wholesale data mining? You think it stops there? Please...
|
Betty Friedan passed away on Saturday
at the age of 85. She is a fantastic example how one person's voice, speaking up on an issue on which they are passionate, can change the landscape for generations to come.
Friedan was a graduate of Smith College, my alma mater, and I once had the privilege of meeting her during her visit to campus. I had, of course, read The Feminine Mystique, and had tried to absorb what it meant at the time it had been published, reading it several years later when I was a teenager -- and what it meant to me growing up in a small town in WV where the thought process was still that girls weren't supposed to be smart and ought to be taking home ec. instead of physics.
Her words helped me to understand that, despite the external social pressures of my current environment, I could make my own choices as to what my life would be, instead of allowing my life to be defined by outside expectations and constraints. It was a revelation, and meeting her in person, I became a stammering fangirl -- but she was quite gracious about it, and I eventually summoned the nerve to thank her for showing me that I was more than capable of standing on my own two feet. She had a quick, and ornery grin, and although it was something she had likely heard a bazillion times before, she grabbed my hand and squeezed and told me that I had a lot of bright choices to come as well -- to never stop growing and reaching for my dreams.
It's good advice, especially coming from a woman who wrote about a world that ought to be pro-choice, gender neutral in employment advertisement, supportive of maternity leave...all things that today's younger women take for granted as a given, but which were nonexistent in her post-Eisenhower environment when she was writing it. Friedan founded the National Organization for Women as a reaction to the inaction of the federal government on women's issues.
For all women who have found their own voice, stand on their own feet, and make their own choices -- whether to work or stay at home, whether to have children or not, whatever. We all owe a debt to Betty Friedan.
PBS did an interview with Betty a few years ago, and it is just as fresh in the reading today as it was back then.
It's not really either/or. I mean, you say, "Well, do you get more thrill out of the books you've written, or your kids?" You can't compare, can't compare. I wouldn't give up at all, ever, the experience of having my kids and the joy they've given me and now the grandkids. That's a great part of life, very satisfying. But so is the fact that I have written several books that had an impact on my life and times, you know, the life of my time, as you might say. And there's a great satisfaction in whenever I take time to think about it, which is almost never. To have used my life in a way that opened up possibilities of life for those that came after me. So I feel good about that.
Thank you, Betty Friedan. For daring to open the world to everyone, and for putting into words what so many women were feeling in 1963 -- and for taking that next step in moving your thoughts forward into action.
NOTE: Here are
the guests on the Sunday Talking Head shows. It's a mixed bag today.
UPDATE:
David Ehrenstein reminds me of the "Lavendar Menace" and Friedan's history with lesbians in the feminist movement. This
wiki article is worth a read for more of the history of this conflict. I tend to agree with reader fauxreal that human beings are complex and we can't simply take a single instance of behavior as the sole representation of the whole -- but then again, you can't exactly ignore the bad exclusively for the good either, can you? (Or at least, you ought not do so, anyway. Because then you'd just be Fox News. Mwahaha.)
|
