So Harry Reid has called for the long awaited Phase II investigation into the Iraq debacle and they are going into a closed secret session to discuss it. The Republicans are squealing like pigs in a slaughter house.
Kyra and Ed Henry on CNN are characterizing it as “bickering” and “working against the interest of the American people.” Interestingly, Frist is calling it a “stunt” and “uncivil.” (No word yet from anyone about the substance.)
The Democrats should not back down on this. The Republicans are going to portray themselves a victimized and martyred, weeping like little bitty babies about “betrayal.” Oh mercy me, pass the smelling salts — that mean Harry Reid has “stabbed” Scarlett O’Frist in the back!
Fuck them. This is what an opposition party does and it’s long overdue. You want to change the subject, motherfuckers? Think again.
Yesterday I got chastised by at least one reader for never offering any solutions, just criticisms. It reminded me that I haven’t gotten on my personal soapbox lately and harrangued my audience with the notion that I think we should adopt a western and southwest red state strategy using a platform of personal liberty, economic responsibility, land conservation, energy independence and effective national security. If you’ve heard this before, feel free to move on. Otherwise, here is my super-duper message package to capture at least a couple of western red states and tip the balance to our side.
I understand that building a coalition of rural western states and big city blue states has its problems. But we have to find common ground with some red states somewhere and this seems like the most fertile ground requiring the least compromise on matters of primary importance to both. That’s the only way a coalition can be successful. You can’t force people into a mold, you have to mold the coalition around shared principles.
In a great post discussing the Alito nomination, Barbara at Mahablog articulates one part of this platform as she talks about the paternalist right wing:
The provision represents another rightie tendency, which is that righties essentially distrust human beings to make their own decisions. We saw that during the Terri Schiavo flap, when all manner of legislation was proposed that would have allowed government to intrude in a family’s end-of-life decisions. To a rightie, human beings are mindless beasts who need to be controlled by Big Brother so they don’t make “bad” decisions; i.e., decisions with which the rightie disagrees. And righties always assume that people who make these “bad” decisions have done so because they don’t think. Notice all the legislation imposed by states intended to make women reflect on a decision to abort, as if women can’t think for themselves. It’s beyond their comprehension that most women who decide to abort do understand exactly what a pregnancy is and realize that abortion is a serious matter.
“Republicans don’t trust people to make their own decisions.” It’s that simple. They want to tell people how to live. I believe that is a simple argument that plays ever so subtly on the Republican mantra that says “they don’t trust you with your own money!” We should steal it since they’ve already trained the ears of Americans to hear that formulation.
Survey USA found that while Utah and Idaho are among the most conservative on social issues in the country, many of the other western red states are quite liberal. Here’s a breakdown on choice:
23. Montana 53 percent “Pro-choice” 26. Arizona 56% 27. New Mexico 56% 30. Wyoming 57% 34. Colorado 61% 38. Oregon 62% 38. Nevada 64% 41. Washington 63% 46. California 65%
We do not need to pander on choice in order to win elections. In fact, we end up being mealy-mouthed and unappetising to both sides. Choice is a majority position and we should consistently articulate it as trusting people to make their own decisions about their personal lives. Period. Don’t get into religious interpretations. Don’t talk about the fetus. Just simply and straightforwardly say that people should be trusted to make their own decisions about complicated personal matters, that it’s nobody else’s business. It will make some people mad, to be sure. But it’s simple and it gets to the heart of the matter. People want to know where we stand and that is where we stand.
People should be able to freely practice their religion as long as they don’t expect anyone else to practice it or pay for it. People should be able to feel secure that their their homes, health and families are in the private sphere, where government has the least interest.
The western and southwestern states are far less amenable to intrusions on personal liberty, far less likely to be hyper-religious, far more “live and let live” than the southern red states. There is less history of racism than in either the south or the big cities (that’s not saying all that much) and they have been leaders in women’s equality. As the Republican party becomes a Christian dominated party of big government, this group is becoming unmoored from the GOP and is open to a new message from us.
They don’t like taxes, which is why economics have to be presented in terms of responsibility rather than entitlement, which they are. Nobody likes taxes, but responsible people recognise that taxes are unavoidable if we are to have a decent society. “It is irresponsible to burden business with outrageous health care costs and individuals with the fear of imminent catastrophe — the government needs to fix this problem.” “It’s irresponsible for the wealthy not to accept their rightful share of the burden to keep this country strong.” “It’s irresponsible for the government not to keep our promises to each generation by ensuring that social security stays healthy and that we don’t leave behind a mountain of debt for our children.”
They also don’t like corruption and cronyism. It goes against the western ethos of both rugged individualism and communitarian necessity. The dishonest Republican political machine has to be grating at their very marrow. This issue is, of course, central to our critique of the Republicans generally, but I think it carries extra weight with the anti-authoritarian west. They don’t like Washington much anyway. Washington corruption is particularly distasteful.
They are growing increasingly concerned about environmental degradation. Global warming affects people who work and live on the land — people in the west are more concerned with the environment in general than those in the south. This is an area of common cause. Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana has set forth some ideas about liquid coal that should be explored. Alternative energy is, in my opinion, a winning issue for us all around.
On national security, I think the simple answer is to point out that Republican unilateralism is creating enemies and bankrupting the country. There is a lot of evidence that people are resenting the amount of money that’s being spent on Iraq. The way to deal with this is to say that if the Republicans had followed the model of Bush’s father and worked with a real coalition toward goals that everyone could agree upon, we would not be bearing this kind of financial burden alone. We will never hesitate to act alone if the national security of the US is at stake. With Iraq, the administration claimed that we were in danger from a threat that didn’t exist and we took on the enormous cost of that mistake alone because the vast majority of the world didn’t agree with that assessment. We need to make sure that never happens again.
A few of the areas that are problematic for this coalition are guns, business regulation, unions and immigration. On the first I would adopt a states’ rights position and use governor Dean’s formulation that the rural areas have different concerns about guns than the cities and so there can be no national, one size fits all solution. Big city cops have different concerns than those in Montana.
We should argue that if business acts responsibly toward its community, its customers and its employees, they have no beef with us. Our society depends upon business being successful and there are many millions of them around the country that are both responsible and profitable. They should be rewarded, not penalized, for doing the right thing.
Unions need to take a page from California. They have been enormously successful in re-casting thier image here by simply pointing out that union members aren’t “special interests” they are cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers, state employees. Once people see unions again as average working people instead of the stereotype of mobbed-up “On the Waterfront” crooks or ridiculous patronage machines, they tend to look at the whole issue differently. We should encourage the unions to work together to send out this message of average working people you depend upon every day to take care of you when you are in need. It’s worked extremely well in California and I think it can work everywhere.
Immigration is going to be tough. I think we will have to look at the southwestern governors Napolitano and Richardson for some guidance. This issue is the canary in a coalmine of a faltering economy and it must be dealt with wisely. It’s becoming huge around the country and the Democrats have to find the proper balance. I don’t have the answers on this one.
The other side of all this is that the mountain red state voters need to recognise that the blue states are not the enemy of Real America. It’s a two way street. We should ask them for some consideration of our culture just as they ask us for theirs. These are the live and let live people. If we let them know that we have no interest in turning Helena or Las Vegas into San Francisco, maybe they will grant that it’s ok for San Francisco and Boston to have their own ways too. We have more in common than we have differences.
This discussion of what “real America” is, is a good starting point for launching this coalition. Despite what the GOP is trying to sell, Real America is all of us. The red state west is one element of the current Republican coalition that may just agree with that. We need them — and frankly they need us. Their unique culture of independence and self-sufficiency is far more threatened by what the modern Republicans are doing than anything the Democrats have ever done.
I’m sure there are huge holes in my plan. I’ve never sat down and really worked on it. But others have, people who are in the trenches looking at how we can build a Democratic majority now that the Republicans have a total lock on the south. I’m not saying that we should abandon the south — but we cannot depend upon it. History shows that the south is a voting block unto itself and almost always goes together. It’s a very tough nut for us to crack, particularly if we wish to keep any principles. There are better ways.
When it comes to punishment of those who dare to disagree with the White House, the Wilsons are but the tip of the iceberg. Robert Dreyfuss has a vitally important article in American Prospect about the evisceration of CIA under Porter Goss. Take the time to read it all. Here is a short quote from the end, but you really must read the details Dreyfuss prints to understand the full meaning of the disaster:
Without a doubt, Goss’ team is the most highly partisan ever to run the CIA. The ex–HPSCI staffers were notorious for taking a Republican Party–oriented stance on many issues, especially Murray, who once tried to get classified information released so it could be used against the Democrats. Under Goss, the CIA public-affairs office has been nearly shut down, under the tight control of Jennifer Millerwise — not an intelligence person, but a political operative who worked on the Bush-Cheney election campaigns and for Goss at the HPSCI. The partisan, pro-Bush nature of the current regime at the CIA was underlined when Goss issued a widely leaked memorandum telling agency employees to “support the administration and its policies in our work,” adding, “As agency employees we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies.”
The import of Goss’ memo to staff was not lost on agency veterans. “The meaning was that from now on, there is only one acceptable view, and that’s the neocon view,” said one. For many it was the final straw, convincing them that there was no hope of salvaging independent analysis. “At the [Directorate of Intelligence], they’re wondering, ‘What is our job now, now that our boss doesn’t seem to care about us anyway?’” says Gregory Treverton, who served on the National Intelligence Council under Bill Clinton.
That’s right. Bush’s familiar is systematically undermining the reliability of a president’s main source of proprietary information. Oh, I can easily understand the gray areas where intelligence can be couched for or against a particular policy. But this is different. What Goss is doing, with Bush’s evidently enthusiastic approval, is eliminating from CIA any data gathering and analyses that do not support the presumptions and policy wishes of the Bush White House.
In other words, what Bush is creating is a CIA that, had it existed in 2002, would have been far more wrong about WMD and Saddam/al Qaeda connections than it actually was.
Now, dear friends, for many weeks now, I have been reading a marvelous book by Dr. Lisa Randall entitled Warped Passages which is all about the new physics of branes, strings, and infinite hidden dimensions. Having done some of the most exciting work in this area, Randall not only knows what she is talking about but her explanations are as clear as a bell. Now, that doesn’t mean branes, bulk, and infinite invisible 5th dimensions are easy to comprehend, they’re not and Randall is too honest to spare us (which is great, you can actually learn something new about the world if you can keep an open mind and persist). You can spend several days, if you’re an amateur science lover with little math, just trying to get a slight sense of exactly how a massless neutrino, which is emitted after an interaction with a weak gauge boson, can help resolve an apparent violation of the law of the conservation of energy.
But as mind-bogglingly hard as the new physics is to grasp, it is child’s play next to trying to grok the reasoning behind Porter Goss’s destruction of CIA. Y’see, concepts like branes and asymmetrical elementary particles that only accept a charge when they’re right-handed (or is it left-handed?) get easier to understand the more you think about them. But the more you ponder why any Director would deliberately eliminate from CIA the objective gathering and assessment of data – rather than trying to improve it – the weirder it all sounds, the more incomprehensible it gets.
After a while my head starts to hurt real bad and I feel the only way to clear it is to try to understand something easy. Like modern string theory.
Can somebody explain to me why American interrogation techniques seem to always involve sticking objects up prisoners’ asses? This has got to be some sort of “method” because it is reported over and over again:
“He had two, 10-hour beatings from the Americans and I said to David, ‘Sure they were Americans?’ (because) he said he had a bag over his head and he said, ‘Oh look … I know their accents, they were definitely American’,” Mr Hicks told Four Corners.
“Some pretty horrific things … were done to him.”
The program reported the abuse had included Hicks being injected and then penetrated anally with various objects.
Hicks’ lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence.
His American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, would not comment on the specifics of what information he had.
“I’d say it’s an area that I’m investigating and that I’ve already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring,” he told Four Corners.
Former Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mamdouh Habib, who was released earlier this year, has also claimed that he was abused while on foreign soil.
In February, Mr Habib detailed how he was tortured in a military airport in Pakistan.
During a particular episode of abuse, Mr Habib said 15 men stripped him, inserted something into his anus, put him in a nappy and tied him up.
Is this some sort of American sexual panic or is it official policy that sexual violence is the best way to “interrogate” prisoners?
Every time I read this stuff it makes my stomach churn. What is being described is depraved sexual violence— rape. And I wonder about the men and women who are perpetrating these horrifying acts. This is a license to unleash the darkness which I assume exists to some extent or another in most people — and then they are going to come back into society and we are going to expect them to behave like decent people.
I’m beginning to think that we’re not dealing with interrogation at all. We’re dealing with something insidious and familiar: rape camps. It appears that based upon some strange reading of Islam that says being raped is unusually unpleasant for Muslims, we are using rape as a military strategy. The same thing happened in Bosnia to Muslim women:
…the Mission accepted the view that rape is part of a pattern of abuse, usually perpetrated with the conscious intention of demoralising and terrorising communities, driving them from their home regions and demonstrating the power of the invading forces. Viewed in this way, rape cannot be seen as incidental to the main purposes of the aggression but at serving a strategic purpose in itself
Americans are apparently doing the same thing — to men. There is just too much evidence of this wierd sexual violence and humiliation for it to be a coincidence. We have become the Serbs.
I’m reading a lot of comments in the blogosphere saying things like this today:
“…we’d be far better off politically if Roe were overturned and Griswold were curbed. And if a couple states — say Kansas and Alabama — enacted medieval restrictions that made the rest of the country puke.”
This is a great idea and I don’t know why we don’t use it for everything. For instance, why don’t we stop talking about torture. Our position is “soft” and it turns off the NASCAR dads we need to reach. Certainly, the prohibition against torture, which nobody even considered was in danger of being repealed until a couple of years ago, cannot be easily abandoned. Once people become aware of this medieval behavior, they will “puke” and step in to do something about it, right? Isn’t that how it works? When the right pulls some outrageous stunt, the country stands up en masse and rejects it.
There is a lot of action on the right these days about due process. If we just keep very quiet about the threat to habeas corpus and the right to confront your accuser, trial by jury of your peers — all of these fundamental constitutional rights, people will see how bad it is when our system of justice becomes “medieval” and then they will rebel.
Following this strategy, we should allow the Republicans to have their way on tort reform and consumer rights. Once people get ripped off badly enough they will look at the Republicans and see that they don’t have their best interests at heart and they will vote for us instead. Indeed, I think that we should carefully consider whether or not it’s smart to keep harping on tax policy too, for that matter. If we let the Republicans completely bankrupt the country so that we have a catastrophic economic meltdown, destroy social security and medicare, all those old, poor and unemployed people on the streets will surely wake people up. It will probably make them puke.
I’m not sure why that would lead to anyone voting for the Democrats, though. After all, we’ll have sat idly by and let these things happen without fighting because we thought it would be politically helpful to our cause to force women to have back alley abortions, enable torture, destroy our judicial system, let common citizens be conned out of their hard earned money, and their lives destroyed in economic calamity — in order to make a political point. But hey, it’s a good plan anyway. We’ll run on the “we told you so” platform and everyone will love us.
“Men’s liberation” aside, there are many many people, both male and female, who believe that a woman should be required to inform her husband that she is pregnant — after all, they reason, the baby is his too, right?
I don’t believe that women should have to inform anyone of their decision to have an abortion because it infringes on her fundamental right to personal autonomy. But even those who disagree with that should recognise that it’s not always so simple:
The name of the woman pictured below is Gerri Twerdy Santoro. She was just 28 years old. She was a sister, a daughter, and she was the mother of two daughters when she died a very painful and frightening death.
This New York coroner’s picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri’s picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion. While it was assumed that she died at the hands of a back alley butcher, the family later confirmed that she died the way most women died before Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in this country in 1973; she died from a self-induced abortion attempt.
Gerri was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him. Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon’s baby she was carrying, he would kill her. She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy. That desperation and determination made her akin to thousands upon thousands of women in those days that were desperate and determined enough to terminate their unintended pregnancies in spite of the fact that abortion was illegal. Illegality affected the safety of abortion but it never affected the number of abortions that were performed.
Gerri was 6 ½ months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri’s boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room. She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn’t. How frightened she must have been, knowing she was going to die. She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.
You can go to the link to see the picture, if you need to see the horror.
The new nominee for the Supreme Court voted that a woman today, in the same position this woman was in in 1964, would probably have to do the same thing Gerri Santoro did. Informing her husband would put her in the exact position she is desperate to avoid. And that woman might very well end up the same way Gerri Santoro did.
Now, I’m sure there are many on the right who believe that this poor woman deserved what she got for being unfaithful to her abusive husband. Her crime was having unauthorized sex and she should have had to “pay the price” by bringing a child into an angry abusive marriage — or perhaps being killed by her violent husband.
Indeed, great thinkers on the right are now saying this right out loud.
The sexual revolution that liberated (especially) female sexual desire from the confines of marriage, and even from love and intimacy, would almost certainly not have occurred had there not been available cheap and effective female birth control — the pill — which for the first time severed female sexual activity from its generative consequences.
[…]
Her menstrual cycle, since puberty a regular reminder of her natural maternal destiny, is now anovulatory and directed instead by her will and her medications, serving goals only of pleasure and convenience, enjoyable without apparent risk to personal health and safet
[…]
Her sexuality unlinked to procreation, its exercise no longer needs to be concerned with the character of her partner and whether he is suitable to be the father and co-rearer of her yet-to-be-born children.
How touching. If it weren’t for birth control we could pretend we’re in Victorian England and have a nice cup of tea. Sadly, his little fantasy wasn’t even true during that time for any but the richest Mayfair heiresses (who were also bartered off like cattle) and it sure wasn’t true for women who had no means.
I think it’s time to call upon some down home wisdom from somebody red staters revere about the “character” of partners and the “generative consequences” for women in a life without repropductive freedom:
You wined me and dined me When I was your girl Promised if I’d be your wife You’d show me the world But all I’ve seen of this old world Is a bed and a doctor bill I’m tearin’ down your brooder house ‘Cause now I’ve got the pill
All these years I’ve stayed at home While you had all your fun And every year thats gone by Another babys come There’s a gonna be some changes made Right here on nursery hill You’ve set this chicken your last time ‘Cause now I’ve got the pill
This old maternity dress I’ve got Is goin’ in the garbage The clothes I’m wearin’ from now on Won’t take up so much yardage Miniskirts, hot pants and a few little fancy frills Yeah I’m makin’ up for all those years Since I’ve got the pill
I’m tired of all your crowin’ How you and your hens play While holdin’ a couple in my arms Another’s on the way This chicken’s done tore up her nest And I’m ready to make a deal And ya can’t afford to turn it down ‘Cause you know I’ve got the pill
This incubator is overused Because you’ve kept it filled The feelin’ good comes easy now Since I’ve got the pill It’s gettin’ dark it’s roostin’ time Tonight’s too good to be real Oh but daddy don’t you worry none ‘Cause mama’s got the pill Oh daddy don’t you worry none ‘Cause mama’s got the pill
Loretta Lynn 1972
Scalito doesn’t want women to have family leave when they get pregnant, and he thinks that women should have to inform their husbands if they want an abortion (at least until he can outlaw it all together.) Considering his views are considered to be in the same ballpark as Scalia, I assume that he thinks that Griswold should be overturned as well — all the best right wing fascists do.
Good luck with this. If these guys have their way it’s going to be a rude awakening for the women in this country.
Update: Excuse me, I just found out that Scalito believes that there should have been an exception to the “inform the husband” provision — she would have had to go to court and reveal all of her private business to a judge in order to get permission not to tell her estranged, abusive husband. The supreme court found that to be an undue burden. I’m sure he and Nino will take care of that nonsense the first chance they get.
Alito, schmalito. Of course, he stinks, and stinks worse than usual. You expected a reasonable nominee from Bush? Are you joking?
Now look. Of course, if Alito isn’t vigorously opposed and if he gets to the court, the extreme right will advance one more ominous giant step along the road to establishing the US as a Christian Taliban state (and no, rightwing nuts: I don’t think they’ll convert baseball stadiums for use as mass execution centers of heretics, liberals, abortion doctors, their patients, and gays. Well, at least not for a few more years, anyway.)
But look at where we were up to 1 second before Bush announced Alito’s name, and where we still are. Bush is perceived by the press and politicos as wounded. And the wound is serious: The perception of his administration’s ability to protect us, to keep our secrets, and to tell us the truth is heavily, perhaps permanently damaged. With Bush injured, now is the time to press harder exactly where it hurts, and vigorously rub it with salt.
By contrast, Alito is for Bush as Oxycontin is for Limbaugh. Alito is intended to ease the pain of Fitzgerald’s indictments and continuing investigation by changing the subject. Bush, Cheney and Rove expect us to play along on their timetable, which requires that the country get distracted quickly from the brief glimpse Fitzgerald provided everyone, even Kristof, of the enormously fetid swamp of crimes and traitorous behavior behind the sealed gates of the Bush White House. No one, except Bush’s base, can be anything but disgusted at what was revealed on Friday.
And Bush’s base will rally around Alito no matter what. They have their carefully honed defenses of Alito ready to roll out. But they are not planning on having the country stay focused on Traitorgate. And that is why I’m saying we must.
I’m NOT saying ignore Alito. What I’m saying is DON’T LET BUSH CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Yes, we should attack Alito hard, but only when it’s entirely to our advantage to do so, and not when Bush thinks we will, when it he expects it to work mostly to his advantage. And so, don’t forget:
It’s Traitorgate, stupid.
It’s the foul stench of betrayal of country that will follow Libby around for the rest of his life. And in the mainstream (and even some places on the right), the sense that Rove and even Cheney have engaged in utterly unacceptable, if not outright criminal, behavior has begun to catch on as within the bounds of acceptable discourse. Look at what Reid said, he’s calling for Rove to resign regardless of indictment! (And he’s right.)
And so, it is on Traitorgate we should push. Alito can wait a bit for that heavy concerted effort to oppose him. Please, folks, think twice before jumping whenever Bush snaps. It’s Traitorgate right now, not rightwing courtpacking. Let’s make sure no one forgets it.
Let me be frank: it has been a long political nightmare. For some of us, daily life has remained safe and comfortable, so the nightmare has merely been intellectual: we realized early on that this administration was cynical, dishonest and incompetent, but spent a long time unable to get others to see the obvious. For others – above all, of course, those Americans risking their lives in a war whose real rationale has never been explained – the nightmare has been all too concrete.
[SNIP]
So the Bush administration has lost the myths that sustained its mojo, and with them much of its power to do harm. But the nightmare won’t be fully over until two things happen.
First, politicians will have to admit that they were misled. Second, the news media will have to face up to their role in allowing incompetents to pose as leaders and political apparatchiks to pose as patriots.
It’s a sad commentary on the timidity of most Democrats that even now, with Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, telling us how policy was “hijacked” by the Cheney-Rumsfeld “cabal,” it’s hard to get leading figures to admit that they were misled into supporting the Iraq war. Kudos to John Kerry for finally saying just that last week.
And as for the media: these days, there is much harsh, justified criticism of the failure of major news organizations, this one included, to exert due diligence on rationales for the war. But the failures that made the long nightmare possible began much earlier, during the weeks after 9/11, when the media eagerly helped our political leaders build up a completely false picture of who they were.
So the long nightmare won’t really be over until journalists ask themselves: what did we know, when did we know it, and why didn’t we tell the public?
It’s hard to believe how isolated a voice Krugman was from, say, about Spring 2000 to about January, 2004. There was all but nowhere else in the mainstream press where Bush’s total absence of presidential qualifications, his incompetence, and his lack of personal integrity were being honestly discussed.
And no one believed him. He was ignored and ridiculed by fellow journalists as shrill, he went mostly unread by mainstream politicians. He was disbelieved by ordinary readers including literally all of my milieu, who seemed desperate to believe that Bush – whose negligence and incompetence were crystal clear to me even when the towers were still smoking and the networks were overwhelmed with ominous reports and rumours – would actually save and protect us from the horrible fate that befell our fellow New Yorkers.
So now, if Krugman wants to tell the country and especially his colleagues, “I told you so,” he deserves to. He told us exactly so. When no one else dared.
Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush’s own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president’s closest aide would not be charged.
Holy Shit. Can someone tell me why Fitzgerald would go to President Bush’s personal lawyer on Friday to tell him that Bush’s “closest aide wouldn’t be charged?” Is it in any possible sense ethical for the prosecutor to be telling the president’s lawyer information that isn’t available to the public about members of the president’s staff in the middle of an investigation?
If this is true, I think Mr Fitzgerald has some splainin’ to do, otherwise it might look like he’s got some back channel communication with the White House about a case that directly affects it. This would not seem in character for Mr Fitzgerald, who is by all acounts a very ethical prosecutor. If this is true, it’s a bomb shell. Fitzgerald has no business discussing Karl Rove with anyone but Karl Rove and Karl Rove’s lawyer.
Michael Isikoff repeats this line as if it is a matter of objective truth, but there is no way to know that, of course. This prosecutor doesn’t leak so this is coming from Rove’s lawyer, Luskin, or Bush’s lawyer, Sharp. I’m unaware of any leaking from Sharp but there has been a ton of it from Luskin over the past few months. I think reporters like Isikoff should probably take a little inventory of all the blind alleys they’ve been led down by Robert Luskin these past few months. Here are just a few of the highlights:
“Karl has truthfully told everyone who’s asked him that he did not circulate Valerie Plame’s name to punish her husband, Joe Wilson,” Luskin said. Asked if that included President Bush, Luskin said, “Everyone is everyone.”
Added Luskin, “Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else … Who outed this woman? … It wasn’t Karl.” Luskin said Rove “certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information.”
“If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it’s not Karl he’s protecting.”
Luskin is a defense lawyer. It’s part of his job. I’m not criticising him for it. But, he and Rove are working overtime to get Rove out of this jam — and prepare the ground for a big PR push if Rove is indicted — and all reporters should think carefully about credulously repeating what they are saying.
You’d think Luskin would be very careful before he charges Fitzgerald with unauthorized discussions of the case with Bush’s lawyer. If it isn’t true, Fitzgerald might just get a little testy about it.
Karl Rove is spinning like Tanya Harding at the nationals right now, telling everyone who will listen that he wasn’t part of any conspiracy to leak Plame’s identity to the press, that he has a major case of CRS disease (can’t remember shit.) But it just doesn’t hold water.
One thing we do know is that Official A in LIbby’s indictment has been acknowledged to be Rove. Here’s the passage that refers to him:
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.
Interesting phrasing, isn’t it? Rove knew that Novak was writing a story “about Wilson’s wife” — not about Cheney’s non-involvement, not about Joe Wilson never submitting a report, but “about Wilson’s wife.”
And here I thought Karl was just trying to warn reporters off Wilson’s allegations and mentioned Wilson’s wife to Cooper as an afterthought. Byron York interviewed Rove’s lawyer Luskin back in July:
“Look at the Cooper e-mail,” Luskin continues. “Karl speaks to him on double super secret background…I don’t think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson’s wife.”
According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are “indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out.”
Yet Karl “Official A” Rove specifically informed Libby that Novak would be writing a story “about Wilson’s wife.” Perhaps they were just idly sharing small tid-bits of their conversations with journalists over the urinals, but it certainly would seem that Karl had an interest in “Wilson’s wife” as opposed to Wilson’s alleged misstatements.
I am not a lawyer so I’m probably missing something vitally important here, but can someone explain to me why this item is included in the obstruction count? From what I gather the obstruction charge rests on the fact that he lied so often and so completely that the Grand Jury concluded that he was actively obstructing the investigation. But it does not appear that he lied about this conversation, or at least it isn’t mentioned in the enumerated lies in the perjury counts. So, what does this conversation with Rove have to do with Libby’s obstruction activities?
Karl, of course, has been telling everyone who will listen that he’s only potentially on the hook for perjury about Matt Cooper and that he just forgot. Luskin has been spinning this as Karl presenting evidence at the eleventh hour that gave Fitzgerald “pause” because Karl never mentioned his conversation with Cooper to his flunky so he must not have remembered it. (I think Jane has the best take on that silly defense.)
Karl has a history of memory lapses about his ratfucking activity going way back. But it’s always been a little bit hard to swallow, since he can recall the most arcane electoral information for any district in the country and can recite passages of books he’s read verbatim. You see, Karl doesn’t just have a good memory, or a prodigious memory — he has a photographic memory.
[His sister Reba] told journalist Miriam Rozen the family used to rely on Rove’s photographic memory for evening entertainment.
“The game was, “see if you can stump Karl,” she said in an interview published in the Dallas Observer. His older brother Eric would read a passafe from abook Karl had read the week before. That challenge was to guess which word his brother had intentionally left out. (Bush’s Brain, p.116)
Once people with photographic memories see something they remember it. If Karl Rove wrote an e-mail, he remembered it.