I’ve been riveted to the FDL Libby liveblogging all morning, and if you have an interest in this case you should go over and check it out. Fascinating stuff. The prosecution is pretty much saying that Cheney directed Libby to do whatever he did. It’s pretty amazing. (Atrios has the transcript of David Shuster’s MSNBC report here.)
But I was most intrigued by the fact that it looks like Libby is throwing Karl Rove under a bus — and we are getting a look inside a White House that is divided between the VP’s power center and the president. Very interesting.
MSNBC had a chyron that said Libby’s lawyer put it this way: “Libby was sacrificed to protect Karl Rove.”
Oooh.
From Marcy Wheeler’s liveblog:
Mr. Libby was not concerned about losing his job. He was concerned about being set up. He was concerned about being the scapegoat.
Mr. Libby said to the VP, “I think the WH, people are trying to set me up, people want me to be the scapegoat. people in the WH want me to protect Karl Rove.” [Swopa–you owe me dinner.]
Cheney made notes of what Libby said. Notes show Libby telling VP that he was not involved in leak. [oops, Wells, accidentally said, “not involved in leak to Karl Rove.”
Cheney’s note: “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”
The person who was to be protected was Karl Rove. Karl Rove was President Bush’s right hand person. Karl Rove was the person most responsible for making sure Bush stayed in office. He had to be protected. The person who was to be sacrificed.
And here I always thought the VP’s office was part of the White House.
I suspect that when the history is written we will find more and more proof that Vice President Cheney has been running a shadow government from the very beginning and that much of the malfeasance of this era is a result of incompetent and competing power centers vying for supremacy. It begins to explain the unprecedented level of faulty reasoning and epic mistakes coming from the one administration.
It’s kind of funny that Cheney is calling Rove incompetent in this matter. When it comes to lying and obstruction (the skills required for this cover Cheney’s ass operation), Karl Rove is a consummate professional and Scooter Libby is a joke.
Due to unavoidable problems I was unable to “blog for choice” today as I would have liked. But I have written reams about the issue over the years I’ve been doing this blog and my views are well known.
I come at it first from a fundamental belief in civil liberties. It’s clear what the “right to life” agenda is and it has nothing to do with the fetus these people pretend to care so much for (until its born.) It has to do with sexual behavior. I wrote back in 2005:
I believe that a woman’s right to choose gets to the very heart of what it means to be an autonomous, free human being. Control of one’s own body is fundamental to individual liberty. If the church believes that abortion is morally wrong it should instruct its voluntary membership not to do it. Individuals must always be allowed to follow their own consciences. But there should be no legal coercion on such a morally complex personal matter.
The government could be called upon to arbitrate this complicated issue only if the fetus had an absolutely equal right to life as the woman in whose body it lives. But there is no argument about that. There is almost nobody who believes that an abortion is wrong if the life of the woman is at stake. Indeed, the vast majority (80%+) of Americans believe that abortion should be available at least in cases of rape or incest, so it is clear that the “abortion is murder” argument is illegitimate. No one can believe that it is moral to murder a person because of the way he or she was conceived, or by whom.
Therefore, the right of the fetus is not the real issue — the reasons a woman wants an abortion are the issue. This leads us to ask which particular circumstances are so difficult for a woman that she may be allowed to have an abortion. 80% or so of Americans think that rape or incest are such circumstances. But how about a failing, abusive marriage? A terminal illness? Five other children and no job? Being 43 years old and carrying a child with serious birth defects? Being a foolish 15 year old girl in love? Should we make exceptions for some of those? Any of them? Who decides? You? Me? John Roberts?
This isn’t about murder and it isn’t about the right of the fetus. It’s clearly about controlling women’s personal moral behavior. I don’t think the government has any business doing that.
This is actually a fundamental principle of the Republican party. I wrote back in 2003:
The GOP is revealing itself as the anti-privacy party. They are enabling the state to rummage through everybody’s medical records, they want corporations to be allowed to buy and sell your purchase records and any other information they may have, they are more interested in medical marijuana than the serious issue of identity theft, and they want to make permanent the ill considered Patriot Act which gave the government vast new surveillance powers.
Now, along comes Lil’ Ricky telling a reporter outright that he doesn’t believe there is any right to privacy (an article of faith in the anti-abortion cult), that he thinks gay civil rights are a slippery slope to perversion and that he further believes his view of sexual morality should be enshrined as the law of the land for everybody.
This desire and ability to invade the homes and private lives of our citizens is UnAmerican. It goes against every tenet of freedom that George W. Bush constantly preaches about, particularly the All American belief in individualism and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who the hell gave John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum and Jack Welch and Dick Cheney the right to information about me without my permission, to investigate me without probable cause or to tell me what I can do in my own home?
The Republicans do not believe in freedom any more than they believe in equality. This negation of the right to be left alone is coming from all GOP quarters — religious, government and corporate and it is a potent example of their lack of patriotism and any sincere belief in traditional American values. Just what do they think liberty consists of? The freedom to be harassed and coerced by every interest group in the Republican Party until you either join up or shoot yourself in the head?
Sometimes, I think that last isn’t so far fetched. I see a lot of danger ahead for a woman’s right to choose, coming not only from the right but from the Democratic party. And some of it, I think, comes from the fact that the right has simply worn down the establishment elites (who never cared that much about it in the first place) with such an incessant uproar about sex and ickyness and embryos, that they are now ready to throw in the towel. It’s an emerging rightwing model for rolling back progress.
Sadly, I think a powerful new interest group of anti-abortion crusaders in sheep’s clothing are at work within the Democratic Party. I wrote last month:
What we are seeing is a new pincer strategy, with a slow, relentless mainstreaming of the liberal pro-life(and cowardly politicians’) rhetoric which is intended to make abortion a source of shame and guilt so they can tut-tut about it in church — and the ongoing onslaught of the conservative anti-choice agenda which is intended to enshrine the fetus as a full human with rights that trump the irrelevant vessel it lives inside of. The woman with an unwanted pregnancy is getting squeezed by everybody now.
[…]
Abortion is a messy fight, nobody disputes that. I’m all for contraception and sex education and all the other things that these abortion “reducers” are pushing. But it appears to me as if that’s mainly a political ploy to appease the pro-choice crowd into believing that if they just give up a little here and there, the basic right will be preserved. It will not happen that way. With all this talk of “reducing,” and “rare” and fetal pain and snowflake babies and all the rest, they are helping the right prepare the ground for a full outlawing of abortion if Roe is overturned. They aren’t even trying to make the fundamental argument anymore.
I’m a big believer in the fundamental argument which is that if women don’t own their own bodies they are not free. It’s just that simple.
Everyone’s already said what needs to be said about this, but I’d just like to add one other thing. Talking about “electability” is advanced process talk and process talk is cheap and it’s a way of distancing candidates from voters. I’m against it. But I’m not sure, having read the article this post was based upon, that it really was about electability.
Judging solely from the quotes and not the reporter’s interpretation of events, it appears to me that Mark Penn was trying to beat back a media narrative that said Clinton was unelectable because of her negatives. It seemed to me that they were trying to rebut that by saying that it’s her experience in the national spotlight that created those negatives and a national spotlight will create those negatives in anybody who enters it, so it’s not a relevant factor. Maybe he said something more specific about Obama being unelectable, but I didn’t get that from the quotes.
I can’t blame her team for trying to convince people that Hillary is capable of withstanding the beating that the Republicans are about to inflict. It’s a powerful argument that I’m sure they know they need to make explicitly. In conversations in RL, I’ve found people’s instinct is to be immediately exhausted by the thought of another round of non-stop Clinton character assassination. But when you mention that there’s nothing new to learn about her after all those years of investigations and smears, people agree that she might just be the “cleanest” candidate in that way — no surprises. (Gore has that advantage, as well, in my conversations.)
I think we are all going to have to gird ourselves for the fact that Democrats are going to be beating up on each other for the next year at least.(It’s a horrible, horrible time and I actually hate it.) But there’s no other way. My position is that primaries require us to be vigilant in pointing out when candidates cross the line into character assassination or right wing memes that harm the party. (I agree that “electability” is a dangerous meme that makes it look like Democrats don’t care about anything but winning.) I will not hesitate to point it out when I see it and as I said, I hate process talk and I’ll point that out as well. These are bad habits that I think many pols and their handlers have internalized and we can help them see it when they are doing it. But we can’t make them be nice to one another. This is tough bigtime politics and it’s an open field that’s going to get very ugly before it’s done.
Based on that article I honestly don’t think this was one of those “electability” arguments. I think it was a defensive argument against an emergent media meme, which all candidates have to do.
If someone knows what was actually said in that call and I’m all wet, I’ll be more than happy to correct this post.
FYI: I am not working for any candidate and just because an ad appears on my site doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing them any more than I’m endorsing Leonardo DiCaprio (although I might come out for him later.) My opinions are all mine, I tell you, mine.
Via TBOGG, this is the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks:
I yield to no-one in my respect for the Clintons’ ruthless brutal demolition of Newt, and that guy who succeeded Newt for 20 minutes, and Gennifer and Kathleen and all the rest.
Oh the humanity! Poor, brave little Newtie was brutalized by the howwible Clintons. (Never mind the criminality, hypocrisy and overall ineffectiveness that led him to be stabbed in the back by his own revolutionary guard…)
*If you ever get a chance to see the documentary “The Rise And Fall Of Newt Gingrich”, do. (Here’s a review.) It’s an incredible look at Newt during the 1998 elections when he confidently predicted a 30 to 40 seat gain and instead they ended up losing 5. That (and his own caucus gunning for him) is what ultimately cost him his speakership. He and the Republicans brutally demolished themselves.
This is outrageous and it’s probably an excellent example of how the administration is going to handle oversight. They will just drag things out until they are safely out of office unless the Democrats get very, very nasty:
Back in July, I reported that, in spite of pressure from CIA analysts, intelligence czar John Negroponte was blocking a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The CIA describes an NIE as “the most authoritative written judgment concerning a national security issue,” and a fresh one was badly needed because the last one on Iraq, which was compiled between 2004 and 2006 and leaked to the New York Times last September, had become outdated. Negroponte was said to fear that given the worsening situation in Iraq a new NIE would, of necessity, be deeply pessimistic, and that such an assessment might get leaked and embarrass the Bush Administration during last fall’s elections.
[…]
The situation came to a head last week, during a closed-door session of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This committee expected to be briefed on the long-awaited NIE by an official from the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which coordinates NIEs by gathering input from all of the nation’s various intelligence agencies. But the NIC official turned up empty-handed and told the committee that the intelligence community hadn’t been able to complete the NIE because it had been dealing with the many demands placed upon it by the Bush Administration to help prepare the new military strategy on Iraq. He then said that not all of the relevant agencies had contributed to the NIE, which has made it impossible to put together a finished product.
Apparently these “dog ate my homework” alibis were badly received by both the Democrats and the Republicans on the Committee, and those in attendance now believe that senior intelligence officials are stalling because an NIE will be bleak enough to present a significant political liability.
I know what you’re thinking. “Hurry up, Schumer! What are the eight words that will save the Democratic Party?”
The truth is, the eight words are far more elusive than you might imagine.
Believe me, I’ve spent two years trying to find them. Slogans are easy. Empty promises, like “better health care,” are easy. But they don’t stand for anything; they’re typical political b.s. To generate our words, we need concrete ideas that clearly and concisely communicate our values. It’s not yet possible for Democrats to boil down our core ideology into eight words. That’s not a knock on Democrats. It took Republicans years to develop theirs. The eight words are the end result, not the beginning of the process.
In part of my book, “Positively American,” I try to start the process by presenting 11 goals, which I call “The 50 Percent Solution.” Taken together, these ideas could help define what Democrats stand for. In the book, I explain each goal, how we can achieve it and why it is important to the Baileys. For example, Democrats should commit to increasing reading and math scores 50 percent by dramatically increasing federal involvement, and funding, in public schools. We should increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent. We should call for reducing illegal immigration by at least 50 percent and increasing legal immigration. We should cut our dependence on foreign oil by 50 percent, and reduce cancer mortality, abortions and childhood obesity each by 50 percent. We should increase our ability to fight terrorism by 50 percent. Sounds like a lot. It is. Together, we can do it—and more. Families, from Appleby to Bailey to Zutter, deserve no less.
What can we predict would be the Republican response?
Only a Democrat thinks in halfway measures. America is worth a 100% effort and that’s what you get from the Republican Party. We are 100% committed to national security, family values, low taxes and small government.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for Dems to understand that political sloganeering and rhetoric are not about 10 point plans and campaign promises. They are appeals to values, hopes, fears, identity and aspiration.
And even when the Democrats do get closer to that concept, (as with their slogan, “together, we can do better”) they miss the point. Doing “better” isn’t an aspiration. Americans want to be the best. Or at least they want their leaders to aspire to it even if they know that it’s not always possible.
Like, for instance, simply proclaiming that Democrats believe in “universal health care” not “better health care” which is, as he says, meaningless. What “universal health care” says is that Democrats believe that all Americans have a right to medical care, regardless of how much money they have. It’s a reflection of our values — that no American should have to face losing their very lives or ability to work and thrive because life has dealt them a bad hand and they are without insurance. There are many good practical arguments as to why we should have it but they’re not meaningful on an emotional level. Make the Republicans argue that some people don’t have a right to health care. (There are some Americans who are comfortable with that, but they are not a majority. There but for the grace of God and all that…)
Shumer has his talents, I’m sure. Rhetoric isn’t one of them. Americans will not identify with a party that only aims for 50%. It’s not in the national character.
The Siege of Seattle continues. New York is in flames. The “world’s youngest living person” has tragically died at 18, to the dismay of millions of “fans”. Authorities in the U.K. continue a relentless, SS-style round up of all illegal immigrants, crowding them into Gitmo-like compounds. Most significantly, scientists remain at a loss to explain why a universal plague of female infertility continues unabated into its eighteenth year. These are some of the cheery news headlines dominating the year 2027 in the not so distant, dystopian future of Alfonso Cuaron’s new film, “Children of Men.”
The story is set in (a not so) jolly old England, where we are introduced to glum-faced Theo (Clive Owen), a world-weary bloke working in some kind of vague, low-level bureaucratic job in London. He is not having a good morning. After narrowly escaping death by terrorist bombing on the way to work, he decides to beg off a day at the office, only to be kidnapped by a group of radical human rights activists (that is, as near as I can tell; the political motivations driving many of the characters are a bit fuzzy).
It turns out that the cell is led by Theo’s ex-wife (Julianne Moore), who wants him to use his connections to pull some strings and help out a “very important” colleague, (a female immigrant with a Big Secret). Initially, the reluctant Theo is determined to keep his activist roots safely embedded in the past, but fate and circumstance soon rekindle his old idealism, and he finds himself risking life and limb to help deliver the only known fertile woman in the world to the sanctuary of an organization called the Human Project .
The film ultimately spreads itself a bit too thin as a political potboiler; there are too many confusing factions of insurgents, activists and terrorists running about killing government troops and each other with equal abandon (not unlike Iraq, now that I think about it…). However, the film does become quite gripping as a straight-ahead action-thriller, especially in its final third. Cuaron effectively applies an oppressive, steel-grey visual look to his cold, cruelly bleak future vision. From a thematic standpoint, I thought that the rampant use of Christ metaphor became a bit much (I knew I was headed for trouble when, early on in the film, the Only Fertile Woman In The World “jokingly” answers “I’m a virgin” when asked who the father of her baby is).
There still are enough good reasons to recommend seeing this film, particularly for the uniformly excellent performances. The ubiquitous Michael Caine steals all of his scenes as Theo’s mentor, an aging hippie activist. An honorable mention must be given as well to the always wonderful Peter Mullan (My Name Is Joe, Trainspotting), who really chews up some major scenery as an opportunistic immigration control officer.
And remember- 2008 “was” the year of the Pandemic. (Better get that flu shot next year!)
Not many commenters picked up on one of the points I was angling for in the prior post, which is no doubt a reflection of my writing skill more than anything else. But aimai and carolyn13, along with a couple of others, did accentuate the impact made on society by the changes in communication technology. It seems no small thing that the medium for protest itself has undergone a massive paradigm shift. The current 100 million streams per day on YouTube and google video far exceed the numbers who view the old style ‘teevee’, and though much of what is being viewed over the net is entertainment, there is also a growing body of news and protest video. Think of the taser video of the UCLA student that spread organically and virally across the ether. Ditto for the video of Saddam’s hanging, which circled the globe before the corporate press could get their fat 401k asses out of bed, or Bush strumming a guitar during the destruction of New Orleans, an image that propagated from person to person and surely had some influence on media coverage and public opinion.
The WaPo article I referenced did cite the lack of a draft as the primary reason today’s youth aren’t protesting in the streets, a point which commenters most frequently agreed with. But let me throw in some wisdom and insight from George Washington in a letter to Congress where he references the citizen response at Lexington, and also the notion of a compulsory draft:
We are now, as it were, upon the eve of another dissolution of our Army. The remembrance of the difficulties which happened upon that occasion last year, and the consequences which might have followed had advantages been taken by the Enemy, added to the present temper and situation of the troops, reflect but a very gloomy prospect upon the appearance of things now, and satisfy me, beyond the possibility of doubt, that unless some speedy and effectual measures are adopted by Congress, our cause will be lost.
It is in vain to expect that any (or more than a trifling) part of this Army will again engage in the service on the encouragement offered by Congress. When men find that their townsmen and companions are receiving 20, 30, and more dollars, for a few months service it cannot be expected without using compulsion, and to force them into the service would answer no valuable purpose. When men are irritated and the passions inflamed, they fly hastily and cheerfully to arms. But after the first emotions are over, to expect among such people as compose the bulk of an army, that they are influenced by any other principles than those of self-interest, is to look for what never did, and I fear never will happen. The Congress will deceive themselves, therefore, if they expect it.
I don’t think human nature has changed much in the last two centuries. Self-interest is the primary driver for most people, whereas “the disinterested,” as Washington called them, the people he said were “actuated by principles of honor,” are fewer in number, and always will be. People will go to war when they believe it’s in their best interest to do so, and they will oppose going when they believe it is not. Why do you suppose the military is unable to raise recruits for the current mission?
Both my teenagers asked a dozen questions about Vietnam and the street protests after watching Going Upriver, a documentary that revealed a true American anti-war hero in John Kerry. Watching Kerry, their eyes welled up with tears, as did mine. They later watched the bumbling press conferences of President Bush and hold him in contempt, and speak out against him. They pledge to vote against him and others like him whenever given the opportunity. My daughter pointed me to When The President Talks To God, the protest song by twenty-something indy-rocker, Bright Eyes. That song, which Bright Eyes made free to anyone who wants it, has now been heard by millions. The video of him performing the song on Leno has been viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions. My daughter ended a friendship with someone who became radically opposed to gays because of what that person’s fundie parents had taught her. The culture battles are playing out in the schools and I believe the side of reason has the edge. Though it might not hold the visual drama of a street protest, per se, it is the rejection of bad ideas and beliefs.
So, I admit to being optimistic about the younger generation, what with their sensibilities and the new uses of technology. Having information spoon-fed by the monolithic media empire is being replaced by consumer-selected information sources. Print circulation is dropping and the networks are laying off staff as the MSM is out-flanked by the emerging, wired community. It’s the wired community where you can find the bee-line to the truth, if you want it. As I see it, protest is still there, but it’s perhaps a bit more efficient, subtle, and less obvious to those we’re protesting against. Hopefully, this way leads to a greater gathering of numbers, and more sustainability as the precision-memory of digital reporting, coupled with smart governance, leads to a better world. I think the kids will figure it out.
In a course called, “From Reform to Revolution: Youth Culture in the 1960s,” a Harvard professor and his students study something they call the New Leftists:
Some of my students suggested that they might not even be capable of experiencing the kind of indignation and disillusionment that spurred many baby boomers toward activism. In the Vietnam era, the shameful dissembling of American politicians provoked outrage. But living in the shadow of Vietnam and Watergate, and weaned on “The Simpsons” and “The Daily Show,” today’s youth greet the Bush administration’s spin and ever-evolving rationale for war with ironic world-weariness and bemused laughter. “The Iraq war turned out to be a hoax from the beginning? Figures!”
The students who took my seminar were a particularly serious-minded and delightful bunch. Most of them came to admire the pluck and panache of the New Leftists we studied, and they were quick to recognize how frequently the concerns of Vietnam-era protesters dovetailed with their own complaints against the Iraq war. Some even wistfully remarked that they would like to be part of a generational rebellion.
But they doubt that this is likely to happen. “Just like [in] the 1960s, we have an unjust war, a lying president, and dead American soldiers sent home everyday,” one student wrote me in an e-mail. “But rather than fight the administration or demand a forum to express our unhappiness, we accept the status quo and focus on our own problems.”
Interesting article, and certainly some valid points. No mention, though, of the changes in communication technology and the radically different outlets for expression, such as the internets. Nor is there any mention of the extended reach one can accomplish with blogs, YouTube, MySpace, text messaging … whatever. My kids aren’t protesters, but they do feel utter contempt for the president, and they talk about it around school and through their own communication venues.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson intends to take the initial step toward the Democratic nomination, hoping his extensive resume will fuel a campaign to become the first Hispanic president.
Richardson plans to announce Sunday that he will soon file the papers to create a presidential exploratory committee, several officials with knowledge of his plans said Friday. The governor is scheduled to appear on ABC’s “This Week.”
His entry would make the Democratic race the most diverse presidential contest in history. Besides Richardson’s bid to be the first Hispanic chief executive, Sen. Barack Obama would be the first black president and likely candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the first female president.