"There is "close to a zero-percent chance," he [Gore] insists, that he would ever run for office again."So much for 2008. But then again, the blogosphere boosted Paul Hackett. Maybe we can convince Gore to run in 2008. . . Tags: Al Gore, 2008, Democrats|W|P|112286923698362823|W|P|Current TV and Al Gore|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
cash at home|W|P|Hi, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!I have a the lead network site. It pretty much covers the lead network related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)
Bob's pulled out the siren for something big at noon, CST today. Make sure you stick around the Swing State Project or here to find out what the big news is. Tags: Paul Hackett|W|P|112282623429066090|W|P|OH-02: ALERT!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too. When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on.""A couple of things. First, it confirms the speculation that Marc Grossman was a critical figure in this leak and smear campaign, as was Carl Ford. Secondly, it seems to certainly add to the fact that Rove and others in the White House learned about the marriage not from media sources, as they have claimed, but that it was common knowledge being passed around the west wing. Finally, the information from McLaughlin is a bit sketchy, but that fact that he looked into and "passed...on" the facts seems to convey the message that the State Department memo really was drafted from fact at the CIA. My speculation is that Grossman reproduced the State Department memo, as the Undersecretary of State would be able to do. The new information is definitely not good news for Karl Rove and others, like Scooter Libby. It contradicts many of the reports they've given and could be the prelude to some indictments and some cuffs. I'm sure Patrick Fitzgerald would love to disrupt an August DC vacation by dropping the announcement of indictments on the quiet Eastern town when they're least expecting it. I'm not so sure that would happen, but it'd be fun to see. Anyway, see Editor and Publisher for more. Tags: Karl Rove, PlameGate|W|P|112282797131394148|W|P|Rove story gets boost from Time|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Shuttle Discovery commander Eileen Collins, pilot James Kelly and mission specialist Charles Camarda, and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former astronauts Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn; former Chrysler chief executive Lee Iacocca; and Collins , Kelly and Camarda. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.); space shuttle deputy program manager Wayne Hale; C ollins, Kelly and Camarda. MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin; Collins, Kelly and Camarda; and Washington Post columnists David S. Broder and Eugene Robinson. LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.); Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif; Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak Rubaie; former acting CIA director John E. McLaughlin; former Department of Homeland Security inspector general Clark Kent Ervin; and John Miller, Los Angeles Police Department counterterrorism chief.Tags: bobbleheads|W|P|112278711250820011|W|P|Bobbleheads and site news|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|My prayers will continue for the crew of the Discovery. I had lost interest in the Space Program until so many lives were lost. I'm once again watching and praying for a safe return. My Question Of The Week has been posted, I hope you will stop by to answer it.God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|I pray for the crew of Discovery and hope NASA will finish ahead of schedule its shuttle replacement space planes. They are supposed to be completed by 2010 but at the rate things are going, the shuttle program is slowing progress down on other projects as NASA tries to band aid the fleet together for the final run. Godspeed brave souls!
|W|P|It's too bad the Cincinnati Enquirer endorses Paul's opponent. This area doesn't need more of the "same old, same old." The lack of endorsement won't dishearten Hackket backers, who I know will rally the troops and GOTV.Work to win on Election Day, August 2nd!
TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
"[A] Google search on the above spelling shows that the AP's story has run in a number of papers. The basic point, though, is still right: this story has gotten amazingly little interest or coverage, with the exception of a few outlets like the Sun."Only, John isn't being honest. If you perform a Google News search of "Vladimir Arutyunian + AP" you get 102reports. If you leave off the "+ AP" you get 628 reports. I admit that the interest might be low like John says, but that's probably from the fact that Bush wasn't killed--hell, he wasn't even injured. But a combined 730 Google News hits seems like a decent amount of coverage to me. Not to mention that the search with the AP added onto yielded results from 17 states, and major cities like Fresno, Sacramento, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. Hell, even their favorite network Fox News ran the story on their webiste--which means its almost a given that it appeared on their actual television broadcast. I'm sure it also reached an even bigger audience in the local media and print papers, which is still where a majority of Americans get their news. Lament all you want, the story was covered, John. Sometimes you even have to deal with "your media" slipping up sometimes. Tags: Bush, assasination attempt|W|P|112277992614109628|W|P|Assasination attempt coverage|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jack|W|P|This is a great site! Nice to see an Iowa blog up, I'm extremely interested in Democratic politics from conservative states. I added you to our link list, I'd appreciate a link so I can get some more midwesterners to the Jersey Perspective.The rumors about Gov. Warner are that he is going to try and challenge Allen in the 06 senate race. He is a popular governor and Allen seems to have little appeal to moderates, unlike the senior senator of the state, John Warner. If Sen. Warner retires, it's only good news for Dems if they can take the seat, as Warner has proved to be one of the only moderate voices in the increasingly radical GOP caucus. For instance, he was recently voting with Democrats on gun control during the Lawful Commerce Act.
-Jersey Perspective
"It has become all too clear, however, that this is a war the Bush administration is spectacularly ill-equipped to fight, handicapped as it is by a worldview that revolves around our enemies' intentions rather than their capabilities. Democratization is a strategy to change the behavior of our enemies by draining them of hatred. But we cannot fully erase hatred, and Bush's "hope and compassion" are thin defenses against a nuclear weapon. A better tack would be to strip our enemies of the ability to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place--a difficult goal, but an achievable one, given that there is a finite amount of the fissile material needed to make nuclear weapons and that, by themselves, terrorists can't produce more. Alas, the very ideology that has led Bush to embrace democratization has also mired him in a nonproliferation strategy that emphasizes regime change while eschewing diplomacy. The administration is consumed by the idea that the character of states is of primary importance to U.S. security. This ideology, this conservative fixation, explains why, for much of Bush's presidency, his administration focused on Iraq to the exclusion of North Korea and Iran. It explains why Bush stood by while Pyongyang moved to produce enough plutonium for half a dozen nuclear weapons. It even explains why he has acted so slowly in securing the hundreds of tons of vulnerable nuclear material in Russia. Indeed, an examination of the Bush administration's ideology shows that, not only has it made some bad decisions for U.S. security, but that it is constitutionally incapable of making the right ones."The threat is real and Scoblic's piece makes sure to mention the hypocrisy of the United States continually pushing for conflict in Iraq on the suspicion of globally dangerous weapons while North Korea was publicly stating and showing evidence of a booming nuclear program--with much thanks to Pakistan, our ally in the GWOT (Global War on Terror; now known as GSAVE-Global Struggle against Violent Extremism, which is still a bad title). Matt Yglesias talks more about it here as well, in a post that actually would be right to call this a boondoggle. And just for any commenters out there, I don't believe that Scoblic is equating conservatism in the broadest of senses as being the harbinger of nuclear terrorism upon the United States. Quite to the contrary, he is equating President Bush's social conservatism and neoconservative economic and security policies to the lack of ability to effectively stifle nuclear terrorism. Tags: terrorism, nukes, North Korea|W|P|112276196724088380|W|P|Conservatism and nuclear terrorism|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Kira Zalan|W|P|It is clear - North Korea is delusional. Apparently, it has dreams of taking the place of the Soviet Union simply by opposing the West. The delusion is manifest in their imagination of themselves to be of any significant importance in the world (economically, politically or culturally), as the Soviet Union certainly was.Attempting to deal with North Korea is like attempting to perform a root canal on yourself (the latter may actually be more pleasant). By comparison, the Soviet Union then, and Russia now, is a refreshing bastion of reason and humility.
"These guys are obviously cranks. The by-products of ethanol production are going to be produced anyway, so it certainly makes sense to credit them somewhat for the overall energy they are saving for the United States. When we get to the point of producing more than the market wants through ethanol, the argument against such credit becomes valid. I know you can talk up and down about subsidies, but even with zero we'd be nowhere close to market saturation from ethanol."What's more, if you look at the comments section, you'll realize a friend of his from Iowa State has been trying to do his own research and found out how much of a joke the study from the Slate article is. Hopefully this will teach Matt and others from making blanket judgments on issues before they understand the issue fully. Tags: Ethanol|W|P|112275204002647632|W|P|Ethanol|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris|W|P|Southern Illinois boy here. I'm all for ethanol. We are finally getting some E85 fuel stations here. I'm probably all for anything that relieves our reliance on oil, and terrorist supporting states. As well as big oil companies that are the largest contributors to George Bush and other neocons. Chris Woods|W|P|MJ's got the right mentality. 'yeti|W|P|Pretty much the same here in MN, Chris, although I don't really know enough about it as I should. A few weeks ago Senator Dayton was traveling around the state to E85 pumps filling people's cars... there still aren't that many though, only 1 in my city of 100,000 so far. Chris Woods|W|P|I'm not entirely positive...but I think in Iowa it is a state law to have at least one pump that is E85."It was just before midnight on Wednesday when Representative Robin Hayes capitulated. Mr. Hayes, a Republican whose district in North Carolina has lost thousands of textile jobs in the last four years, had defied President Bush and House Republican leaders by voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Cafta. But the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, told him they needed his vote anyway. If he switched from "nay" to "aye," Mr. Hayes recounted, Mr. Hastert promised to push for whatever steps he felt were necessary to restrict imports of Chinese clothing, which has been flooding into the United States in recent months. As it turned out, the switch by Mr. Hayes was decisive. Within a few minutes, the House approved the trade pact by the paper-thin margin of two votes, 217 to 215."So, if Hayes had kept his vote the way it was, and if Chuck Taylor's vote had actually registered (which, supposedly, it didn't), CAFTA would've been defeated. This is the kind of bullshit Americans face in the leadership party in the House of Representatives. Hayes said for months that he would not support CAFTA no matter what the White House or Washington Republican leadership would offer him. Finally, he decided to capitulate and probably cost his district thousands of jobs in the long-run, but was able to protect enough in the short-run most likely by getting the White House's judgment on Chinese textiles (which'll probably be declared illegal within a year or two anyway by the WTO--just like our steel tariffs--on will effectively negate the purpose of Haye's vote and result in net job-loss for his district). What's even more fishy about the deal is the strong-arming that had to take place to get this win in the Washington Republicans' column. Unprecedented lobbying by Bush and Cheney, as well as other big business interest group lobbying definitely contributed to the passage of the bill. But today's approval of a $284 billion transportation bill, and the subsequent addition of billions of pork, undoubtedly swayed 10-15 Republicans who had been against CAFTA to vote for it. Original estimates had placed the Republican defection at 30-45 members. It ended up being only 27. So you know that the pork meant something to the Washington Republicans who voted for CAFTA. Today, many of them hailed the transportation bill as a job creator and as bringing needed funding back to constituents (two big names stating this were Tom DeLay and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert). The fact is, it will probably end up as a job balancer in many of the districts where textile jobs and some agricultural jobs will quickly flock south, where the Central American countries will quickly dissolve and barely stringent labor laws they had prior to passage. Meanwhile, those that lost jobs will watch contractors and construction workers in the area get lots of jobs paying for the new highway that the Congressman will have his name on. The tactics might not be as DeLay trying to buy a vote by promising an endorsement like he did on the Medicare bill two years ago, but the tactics are still as shady and shoddy. But then again, what else should one expect from the likes of the Washington Republicans. At least Pelosi stepped up and reprimanded Dems. Tags: CAFTA, Washington Republicans|W|P|112269597600964938|W|P|I thought I smelled something fishy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jack|W|P|Taylor's vote went down as not voting. Not voting and voting nay is the same thing. The GOP needed 216 votes. They got them through questionable arm twisting."I'm wondering what the argument is, precisely, for the White House having access to any more information in the process of nominating Roberts than the Senate should have in confirming him."I think that seems like a pretty good standard, don't you? Finally, John Edwards gave a speech today to the American Constitution Society. In part of the speech, he talked about the Roberts nomination. I think it is a worthwhile read that you can check out here. Now I'm off to enjoy the rest of Sci-Fi Friday. Tags: John Roberts, Supreme Court|W|P|112269031764098676|W|P|Roberts and the documents|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Sar|W|P|Sci-Fi Friday huh? So you do have a life outside of politics! ;) Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, just barely. My frat counts too, even though we talk politics a lot inside the house while engaging in other recreational activities."Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, responds, "If Senator Frist moves forward and votes to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research he is betraying his core belief that life begins at conception. For it is impossible to affirm the dignity of life, and then turn around and vote for funding that will destroy that innocent life. Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor, can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for President in 2008. It is also disappointing to see Senator Frist embrace funding for research that not only destroys innocent life but has not proven nearly as successful as adult stem cell research.""Why do the Christian groups hate American lives? But remember, until the Senate actually approves HR 810 -- without amendment -- this stage in the battle is not over. So... KEEP UP THE PRESSURE! Keep sending letters to Frist at StemPAC. And keep making calls to Frist and to your Senators, at: 202-224-3121. That's the switchboard. This is important stuff folks, let's get the job done and force Bush into a corner. Tags: stem cell research|W|P|112264307339511590|W|P|Christian groups target Frist|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Sar|W|P|Nor, can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for President in 2008.Wow, way to show your true colors CDC!
And you're right (er, correct), CW, you'd think pro-lifers would be just that, but they're too busy cutting of their nose to spite their face.
Rob|W|P|Been there, done that.BALLHAIR!
SCROTUMLICKER!!
(That's a huge bitch!)
Sar|W|P|CW - Thanks for the props and your contributions! ;)"In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure. Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing "at this juncture," is expected to announce his decision Friday morning in a lengthy Senate speech. In it, he says that while he has reservations about altering Mr. Bush's four-year-old policy, which placed strict limits on taxpayer financing for the work, he supports the bill nonetheless. "While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist says, according to a text of the speech provided by his office Thursday evening. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified." Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate."This is amazing news, folks. Thanks to the hard work of millions of Americans, the Senate will almost assuredly pass this bill forcing the White House and President Bush into a deep corner. Bush has consistently said he would vote against any such bill that comes to his desk. I honestly don't think there is anyway he can touch this bill now. It would be another example of the Washington Republican life crisis--protect unborn fetuses and clusters of cells, while letting actual, living, breathing, walking, talking, ailing human beings die from diseases and illnesses that could be cured by stem cell research. I think he'll let this one pass--and then let his leaders in the Senate know he's pissed. More evidence of the crumbling Republican unity. Tags: stem cell research|W|P|112260902747516100|W|P|Frist flip-flops on stem cell research!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
John Hlinko|W|P|Don't get too excited until there's actually a vote, and remember, this could be a feint, but... it could also be a big step forward for all of us who've been fighting on the stem cell front. But remember, until the Senate actually approves HR 810 -- without amendment -- this stage in the battle is not over. So...
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE! Keep sending letters to Frist at http://www.stempac.com. And keep making calls to Frist and to your Senators, at: 202-224-3121.
Keep up the fight!
John Hlinko
www.stempac.com
Chris Woods|W|P|John, thanks SO much for the comment, I really appreciate it. My first message tomorrow morning will be a post reminding all my readers to contact their senators immediately. I know that Senator Harkin is already a confirmed yes vote, but I've gotta keep working on Senator Grassley. Thousands of Iowans could benefit from the advances that stem cell research could provide.And I'll make sure I post a link to StemPac.com so folks can sign letters.
"John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday. Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said. The admission came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he has not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years."Mistake my ass.
Think Progress has the breaking details. Evidently, there was another investigation where Bolton testified but did not disclose it to the Sneate foreign relations committee. This guarantees that he won't be approved by the Senate, if it ever comes to another vote. My guess is that a recess appointment is to be announced sometime this weekend. Tags: John Bolton|W|P|112258845616524130|W|P|CONFIRMED: Bolton the liar|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I really long for the day when we were the good guys. Now we are nothing more than a bunch of arm-twisting thugs, big mouth bully boys, and we simply bend the rules to suit our needs. We look less like a national governing party than a bunch of union thugs. CAFTA may or may not be a good bill, but it wasn’t worth selling our soul to pass. These sorts of shenanigans have got to stop, and we have got to stop acting like a bunch of arrogant goons who think they have a divine right to rule. I am sick of it."He also makes sure to include an important history lesson for all of his commenters who seem to think that this was an OK thing to do. Tags: CAFTA|W|P|112260096621435154|W|P|A Conservative's reaction to the CAFTA vote|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
While it'll probably get nowhere, I think this is the kind of stuff that Democrats should be hammering on during their races next year, especially those challenging incumbent Republicans:
"The House of Representatives' top Democrat accused Republicans on Thursday of possibly illegal action to encourage some Democrats to vote for a free-trade pact with Central America. The House voted 217-215 in favor of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, early on Thursday morning, with 15 Democrats joining 202 Republicans in support. At a briefing hours later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, complained that deals offered by House Republicans to win CAFTA made the House seem like the "set of 'Let's Make a Deal,"' referring to a TV game show."Typical Washington Republican tactics--twisting arms and blackmailing you into voting for a bill that you and your constituents probably despise. And remember, this isn't the first time the Majority party's done this. Tom DeLay was rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for trying to bribe a congressman by promising to endorse his son in 2004 if he voted for the Medicare bill. Remember--bribery and blackmail are the characteristics of Washington Republicans. Tags: CAFTA, Democrats|W|P|112259619603745019|W|P|Questioning CAFTA|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
AndrewL|W|P|Ah yes, General Clark. Helped in the murder of almost 100 American citizens in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Click here.
Plausible Pundit|W|P|Al Gore would be an excellent candidate and make for a truly fascinating primary season. Clinton/Gore take II? Sar|W|P|Gore, maybe. He's got the know-how, so long as he didn't act like a robotic wienner. Clark? Hmm. I'd actually prefer to see him as National Security Advisor. John Edwards - NFW! Puleeze don't make me look at that helmut headed, false smiling, small town story telling schmo again!My pick is Barrack Obama; but is our small-minded country ready for a black president? I've also heard rumblings about Joe Biden. Thoughts?
Oh, and I saw an article yesterday on BBC about Petaki announcing he'll not seek another term which puts him as a potential GOP candidate.
Chris Woods|W|P|The only thing is, if the tanks were used under the command of the Texas National Guard, then they did not violate posse comitatus because the National guard has the ability to use tanks and other equipment w/o violating that act. Sure, its a sneaky way to do it, but its legal. Chris Woods|W|P|Sar--Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience yet and hasn't taken a significant leadership role in the Senate--just because its his first term. Expect 2012 to be a banner year for him. Joe Biden's definitely running, but he won't get the nomination. I think he'd best be fit as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. The man's a genius on foreign policy and defense.Plausible Pundit--I think a Clinton/Gore II ticket could be mighty interesing AND just what the Democratic party needs.
Jason|W|P|My take on Gore: This would be attempt number three for him if he were to run again, and although he may be speaking more honestly (and liberally) about things now than he has in the past, my sense is that the country might not respond so favorably to another candidacy -- with the idea that 'you've had your chances already, let someone else try.'Having said that, Al Gore is an admirable public servant whose national security views are actually more hawkish than many in the party may realize (or they were, at least, as a Senator and VP). On a lighter note, he'd certainly need to lose some weight and clean himself up if he were to make another attempt.
Chris Woods|W|P|I think Gore's chances within the Democratic party are good--especially were he to tack on someone like Wes Clark, Hillary Clinton, or say, Evan Bayh on to his ticket as a VP candidate. But then again, this is also speculation in 2005. I'm sure I'll change my mind a few times in-between now and January 2008. And Jason's right, Gore'd have to clean up...but I think he could do that just fine. Jason|W|P|As a fairly regular Hardball watcher since its second year on air, I think I can say without hesitation that the C&L characterization of Chris Matthews is off the mark by far. I don't know what to say about the promo for the segment, nor was I able to catch tonight's show (so, I could be proven wrong here), but from my observations over the years, Chris has shown nothing but enormous respect and admiration for members of the armed forces. He did not serve in the military, and he always makes that clear. He served on tours in Africa with the Peace Corps, but he never suggests that his work there even comes close to the same level of life and death sacrifice made by members of the armed forces.I hope you caught the show and can report on what took place.
Sorry for the seemingly personal defense of Matthews, but I have a great deal of respect for him and think that he is one of the few public figures in this country who has a true and fair understanding of what our country is all about, unlike bastards of the Bill O'Reilly variety.
Chris Woods|W|P|Jason, I agree with you. I'm sure he didn't come up with the promo--but I think its an example of just bad questioning on the part of the person writing the promo. Chris Matthews is a good guy, for the most part. He's said some dumb things before, but haven't all of us? I was unable to watch the show tonight, I was feeling a bit under the weather and watched Dodgeball instead. I'm sure C&L will have some video if he tried to question him on that and was intentionally or unintentionally smearing him, but I doubt it happened.Overall, your defense is on the point. Especially the part about Bill O'Reilly.
"The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement this morning, delivering a hard-fought victory to President Bush while underscoring the nation's deep divisions over trade. The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval."So, the hold outs helped the Washington Republicans come back and win this. The fact is, when the vote was over, the opposers of CAFTA had the quorum and enough votes to win. The two best summary articles come from Ezra Klein and David Sirota. Undoubtedly, the Democrats who voted for this bill will have a significant challenge in 2006, especially with this hanging around their necks. I would hope local labor groups will find and run better, progressive candidates then the fools that voted last night. Tags: CAFTA|W|P|112255512681470431|W|P|Getting shafted by the vote on CAFTA|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry. Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed. Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters. Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters. . . .Mr. Pincus first disclosed the July 12, 2003, conversation with an administration official in an Oct. 12, 2003, article in The Washington Post, but did not mention in that article that he himself had been the recipient of the information. He wrote in Nieman Reports that he did not believe the person who spoke to him was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get him to write about Mr. Wilson."Now, we still know that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. Scooter Libby was also an important source to Cooper as well, and undoubtedly had other roles in the leak. Now this article about Pincus (and even his own account in Nieman Reports) confirms that the White House was indeed using the leak purely for partisan political gain. I think it also confirms the widespread nature of Plame's cover status inside the White House, specifically the West Wing. Pincus' account, coupled with the statement of Robert Novak that his other source was "no partisan gunslinger" seems to make the possibility that Ari Fleischer was Pincus' source a bit more reliable. Another critical figure that could also be Pincus' source is current National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, formerly under now Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. We know that Hadley is an ideological gunslinger of the neocon variety. He also seems to fit the profile of someone in NSA trying to play the blame game or smear game to keep the reporters off the 16-word lie and instead on criticizing Joe Wilson. More definitive information is needed to add more substance to my speculation, but I would assume that Mr. Pincus had at least a decent relationship with Mr. Fleischer when it came to discussion of intelligence and national security related matters, especially the rumors at the time that the yellowcake claims were false. This, of course, doesn't clear Rove or anyone else from any guilt towards certain crimes. That will be left up to Fitzgerald to decide. But the names of those involved continues to grow. It seems quite likely that indictments could come down on a multitude of people. Tags: PlameGate, Karl Rove, Bush Administration|W|P|112252744880374297|W|P|Times article sheds more light on leakers|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Thomas|W|P|So is Karl Rove going down? I think him staying will hurt President Bush more.Though Karl may have a "family situation" to deal with soon.
Chris|W|P|I agree with Thomas. I'm not sure Rove should be fired. Unless of course he is indicted, and right now it appears that he won't be. Chris Woods|W|P|Rove should at least lose his security clearance for violating a non-disclosure form that he had to sign to work at the White House.Rove should simply be fired because Bush said he would fire anyone involved--until he changed his mind a little over a week ago.
Sar|W|P|Yes, CW, Bush's word semantics are much like his fuzzy math.UPDATE 8: Two non voters have voted, both for CAFTA. One was Marty Mehan (MA-05) who will undoubtedly pay for this in his race next fall. The vote now stands at 216-211.
UPDATE 7: Here are the Republicans who haven't voted: Steve LaTourette (OH-14), Bobby Jindal (LA-01), Charles Taylor (NC-11), JoAnn Davis (VA-01), Charles Boustany (LA-07), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08), and Rob Simmons (CT-02). The lone Democrat is Marty Mehan (MA-05).
UPDATE 6: The vote is currently 214 for and 210 against with 1 Democrat left to vote and 9 Republicans. This is gonna be a close one, folks.
UPDATE 5: Eight minutes after the vote was supposed to end, the vote is now 209 to 209.
UPDATE 4: The tables have turned! The vote is now 184 for, 192 against with time expired. Let's see how long this vote will last now.
UPDATE 3: It looks like 11 Dems. and 12 Republicans have crossed the party lines. Those 11 Dems. are gonna be in deep shit come election time next year.
UPDATE 2: With 4 minutes left, the votes is 144 for and 125 opposed.
UPDATE: It looks like one Democrat has already been converted from yes to no. According to a Congressional Quarterly reporter live at the Capitol, Vice President Cheney is on the floor arm-twisting for votes already.
At 10:03 PM (CST) the vote on DR-CAFTA has begun. And let me just say that Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA-22), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is just a giant asshole. The vote is supposed to be 15-mins. Does anyone think its gonna last any longer than that? I do. Tags: CAFTA|W|P|112251986173888029|W|P|CAFTA vote|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Jim Moran (D-VA-06): (202) 225-4376
- Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28): (202) 225-1640
1. CAFTA benefits pharmaceutical companies, not laborers. 2. CAFTA is shaped after NAFTA, and we know that hasn't come out well. 3. CAFTA harms laborers rights in Central America and the Dominican Republic.For more in-depth analysis please read this essay of mine from Thought Mechanics. Tags: CAFTA|W|P|112251230817805828|W|P|CAFTA debate gets roaring|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|*SIGH*OK...you were right, to a degree (damn crow tastes stale...)
Actually, it doesn't surprise me. Seeing that debris and knowing what happened to Colombia, well, it makes sense. And, as I heard the NASA chief point out today on NPR, this was a test flight, not a normal mission.
The fuel sensor issue...I stick by my points on that one.
This doesn't mean they are sacking the program, just doing some retooling. Something (concerning the debris issue) they should have done long ago.
Yes, it's pricey...but I've always believed space exploration is worth it. We have the potential to discover some amazing things out there, which could potentially be of great benefit to our world. Many of the innovations we take for granted today were the result of the space program (things as simple as Velcro, or as complex as advanced computers).
"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is two-fold: First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement. Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution. I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections."This is indeed the approach our entire judiciary should take when approaching cases like this. I'm sure the wingnuts will say this is an example of an activist judge and criticize him for being a liberal or something like that. But the truth of the matter is this: these rulings are the type of rulings we, as Americans, should look for from our judiciary. It's statements like this that make me proud. Tags: terrorism|W|P|112250430932811270|W|P|Federal judge slams detainees military tribunals|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
James Howard Shott|W|P|The judge was firm in his resovle against scum like this guy, and did a good thing by imprisoning him.He is confused, though, on what constitutes criminal behavior and what qualifies someone as an enemy combatant that is outside the judicial system.
Chris Woods|W|P|So wait...are you some kind of lawyer or legal expert to define what constitutes who should or shouldn't be tried in our judicial system?And don't we want to be the nation promoting democracy and rights--shouldn't we extend them to anyone who commits a crime against our rights here in this country? And prove to the rest of the world that we're civilized?
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Attempting to commit an attack in America is an American crime. Being not familiar with the case, I'm assuming that said terrorist was arrested on US soil. Once he stepped on US soil, he entered an agreement to follow US law or face the consequences of that law. Thus, he can and should be tried in American courts. James Howard Shott|W|P|And to complete the thought chase nordengren started, those captured outside the U.S. in action against the U.S. military, such as the detainees at Guantanamo, are not subject to the U.S. justice system, as anyone who studies this issue ought to know, lawyer or not. This is what the judge is confused about.You may have noticed that the terrorists are not civilized. Further, they are not a party to the Geneva Conventions, do not follow the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, do not meet the standards for treatment under the Geneva Conventions, and therefore do not deserve to be treated as well as we are treating them.
You may also have noticed that the terrorists routinely kill their captives, sometimes by beheading them. Nothing we've done to any of them rises to that level of barbarity or mis-treatment (but if we mistreat a barbarian or two, I really don't care). Our captive enemy combatants get good food, religious freedom, good living conditions, all of which is more than they deserve. It is most common for such captives to be held until the end of the conflict before being disposed of through some action such as a trial or military tribunal.
This is really not complicated, and you seem smart enough to be able to grasp this distinction. I can only conclude that either some folks are incapable of understanding this simple concept, or choose intellectual dishonesty over the truth to score cheap political points.
I think it is sad that some Americans are more concerned with the treatment of people who are trying to kill us than they are about what these low-lifes have done and want to do.
Sar|W|P|May I ask why you keep #2 on the blogroll if it's an offensive would-be troll that doesn't allow comments? 'yeti|W|P|That was going to be my question :-) |W|P|Although this case has been bullied onto the national news to prove a point about race and media by political opportunists like Richard Cranium, it never was a case about a missing woman and is not national news. There is nothing particularly unusual about this case. She is an inner-city African-American/Latino woman, living a more than unconventional lifestyle in a high crime area, and now she's missing--big surprise. Furthermore, this story is hurtful to minorities because it has done nothing other than to reinfornce negative stereotypes: (1) LaToyia's father and other relatives are barely literate; (2) LaToyia's best friend said: "She coulda been snatched up by anybody, or one of her baby's fathas, or some guy she's messin wit" (rolling eyes); and (3) rather than save up more money, LaToyia and Baby Fatha No. 2 took their money and bought fried seafood rather than pay the $35 co-pay for prenatal care. The Natalee Holloway case is national news. She is a beautiful young woman, with a full scholarship to the University of Alabama, who disappears on what would otherwise be a dream vacation to an island resort with the lowest crime rate in the world. Big, big difference, in every respect. I hope LaToyia returns home safely, although I doubt it. In the end, however, we should not have to have our national news littered with this story. I assure you the end result will only cause more embarassment and humiliation, and it's clear that national news anchors are annoyed by having to cover this story because they too, of course, realize it's not national news. Wise up Cranium, this isn't about you and your outdated political agenda. |W|P|Finally, the news coverage is slowing down--thank God."Democrats are not co-equal partners in running the government, and they have no obligation to try to reach compromises or accommodations with the people who, at the moment, have all the power and, therefore, all the responsibility. Instead, their duty is simply to make it clear where they stand -- say what kind of justice they would like to see, explain why Roberts is not that justice, vote "no," and hope to gain some measure of political power before too many more bad things happen."Democrats won't win anything by voting no, but they won't lose anything either. I've heard plenty of Dems around the blogosphere stating that things could be worse, Bush could've nominated someone utterly horrible. And that is true. But John Roberts isn't some kind of godsend. He deserves an up or down vote because there is no principled or fundamental reason to oppose his nomination. But just because we can't filibuster doesn't mean we can't vote no. That said, I'd vote no based on his rulings expanding the power of the executive, unless he could convince me in Senate testimony that that isn't or won't be his goal as a Supreme Court justice. Tags: John Roberts, Supreme Court|W|P|112249966489013850|W|P|Voting no on John Roberts|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Sar|W|P|Excellent find! Keep us posted.Approve 41 (44) Disapprove 53 (50)The 30s are on their way--Bush will then enter into his own Great Depression. The question then becomes: Will another war bail him out? Tags: polls, Bush|W|P|112249088889759692|W|P|Bush's great depression|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Sar|W|P|Given the entire scope of events and current standings, I simply cannot understand how anyone in their right mind can offer their approval. Sar|W|P|Since Ass, Incompetent, and Liar were already taken, I'll go with:Corrupt.
'yeti|W|P|"Douchebag"? |W|P|What's interesting about this is, 'Wasn't Walter Pinus a supposed 'CIA asset' back in the 80's/90's?"If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur. The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads."For shame, for shame. Please, be a witness. Tags: Darfur, genocide, be a witness|W|P|112243581673780074|W|P|Tom Cruise or genocide?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
The huge split in organized labor has been fueled by stagnant living standards for many workers, by the ascendancy of the service sector and by labor's lack of success in politics and unionizing workers. But as much as anything, the schism reflects the conflicting ambitions of two titans of labor, John J. Sweeney, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and his onetime protégé, Andrew L. Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, until now the largest union in the labor federation.Or do personalities just exaggerate an existing conflict?|W|P|112243457738341942|W|P|A Clash of Personalities?|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
Jason|W|P|On Democratic internal debate:I appreciate your posts on this matter, and I think you are right in your concluding remarks. We do all have to work together to be successful, just as the Republicans have to bring together their various factions in order to succeed. But I believe we also have to recognize what works and what doesn't work for our party as a whole to win elections and recognize that certain issues/positions may need to be reworked in order for us to actually win and that such changes in language and areas of emphasis may be uncomfortable to some--but ultimately necessary for victory.
On another internal debate:
Now, what about labor and the splintering of Teamsters and SEIU from the AFL-CIO? This may not be the best time for this internal labor dispute, but I also have a feeling that this might be a good thing in the long run by shaking things up a bit and forcing labor to reexamine its role and the changes that need to be made to rebuild membership and clout in order to improve the lives of millions. We shall see.
Chris Woods|W|P|You're right, Jason, and thanks for the positive comments. I've realized that the DLC does have its usefulness. I hope that, like the New Democrat Network, they can become the kind of accepted, postive, centrist organizations that I believe their founders want it to be.As for the labor split, see below, because I have issued some comments on it.
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Good post. This is why I'm critical when Republicans begin griping about gun control laws. I look back and say, "It's not about your personal right,s it's about how much money your candidates get from arms makers." It's gross, really gross. AndrewL|W|P|It's about time Congress acted to prevent frivilous lawsuits designed to put manufacters of a legal, necessary product out of business."While someone from the daily kosy (misspelling intended) confines of Beserkely might utter ominous McCarthyite warnings about the "enemy within", here in Columbus constructive committed crusaders for progressivism are discussing ways to win back the hearts of the heartland. This is a time for Democrats to be ecumenical rather than suggesting a pious inquisition."Ed Kilgore makes some snide comments as well about purges. Listen up folks in the DLC, whether you like it or not, there are millions of Democrats out there who are further left than you. Its an ideological fact, just like there are millions of Republicans further right than Arlen Specter. They're smart enough not to bash the guys who get them elected. As Democrats, we don't have the ability to necessarily ignore parts of party. We've got to take them at face-value and move forward on the issues where we do agree. And overall, that's our common bond--agreement. But snide fucking attacks against entire cities and the "netroots" is abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous. I won't stand for it. And you shouldn't be proud of it either. By the way, Markos talks some more about it here as well. Tags: DLC, Daily Kos, Democrats|W|P|112240109336746111|W|P|Over the line|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Sar|W|P|Way to take a stand, Chris! 'yeti|W|P|Hearing about the DLC these past couple days has certainly made me feel rather pessimistic.
Last night on Aaron Brown, Rick Santorum that that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided wrong. This is the same decision that essentially made contraceptives legal across the United States.
Crooks and Liars has the video. And Jesus's General has a new campaign which I'm on board with.
Anyway, Santorum's comments are absolute idiocy. That case has 40 years of other precedents built on top of it. Overturning that legislation (and for what cause?!?!) would strike a terrible blow to men and women across the country. It's just another one of his examples to attempt to legislate morally. Instead, he thinks it should be done through what he envisions is a church-like judiciary.
Tags: Santorum, wingnuttery, wtf|W|P|112238380207132552|W|P|WTF Moment of the Day|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com Chase Nordengren|W|P|The bad part about unconventional warfare is that there's no such thing as front line combat anymore. When the first female won a silver star for frontline combat a month ago (not becasue she was actually a "frontline soldier", but because the shooting came to her), the argument about women in frontline positions came up again, with reasonable justificiation.My point is this: anybody who goes into the Iraqi desert where it's friggin hot and puts themselves in danger, be that gunfire (likely), insurgent attacks (without question), or coordinated military attacks and does so for the United States wearing our uniform is a soldier. Bottom line.
Chris Woods|W|P|Bingo!In honor of the first blogiversary, Chris and I have decided to put down the effort to make a CafePress store to sell ourselves some PFC t-shirts. We want to do a quote t-shirt for Chris and for myself, designed thusly. We would, however, like some input on entries. The following quotes are all being considered, so if those interested could comment to make their vote for one quote for Chris and one for Chase, it'd be cool. This post will be on top of the blog all day Monday to make your choice. Any other ideas for apparel are still being accepted as well. The quotes are: Chris
- It might be time for some euthanasia in the Pentagon
- He's a conservative fascist, I'm a liberal commie. We know the drill.
- Lying is not cool.
- All I have to say is "Go Sharpton!"
- It's a sick, sad world when conservatives begin losing any type of ethical or moral worth. Wait a minute...is there proof (in my lifetime) that they ever had any?
- Sen. Byrd was right--this is lame.
- Novak is an ass-clown. The man knows nothing and is now stuck in a wheelchair because he couldn't walk and fell and broke his hip.
- I know 54.836 million of us voted for John Kerry and John Edwards, but what did the rest of you do? Why did you do it?
- Enjoy the reading, but don't read them all at once. You'll go blind or something.
- Aw, crap. They think we're hicks.
- Whatever you say, make it polite, please.
- These have been your media bias examples for the day. We now take you back to regularly scheduled programming.
- Campus Republicans like cheap beer
- That was amusing.
- Go read it and your secret crush will say they like you.
- America Collectively Looks Down at Its Shoes
- No, you didn't miss it, the Republican National Convention is still in the future.
- Okay, so obviously this is a move to once again place POTUS as the "man of the people" who fishes just like we do.
- Forget the moral majority, Christian conservatives, national defense, Iraq, security moms, NASCAR dads, incumbency or a failed Kerry campaign. The real reason Kerry lost was a jinx.
- James Dobson is trying to take Jerry Faldwell's job the same way Al Sharpton tried to take Jesse Jackson's.
- He wore a blue tie. Thank merciful God. This President functions far better in a blue tie.
- Just the basics. No bad pictures.
- Gov. Rick Perry's a Gansta
- I thought my personal realization of the issue was significant enough to merit the post. You can call it ego, I call it another hard day's work
Rob|W|P|"He's a conservative fascist, I'm a liberal commie. We know the drill." for Chris. (Would have been a great Bush-Kerry shirt, a la JibJab...maybe now just a pic of Bush as the con facist, and the rest a caption)."That was amusing." for Chase (include on Tshirt a comic pic of Bush and Gonzales saying this while pointing to Geneva Convention)
Oh...suggestion for the blog...turn on whatever setting in Blogger comments that allows one to see the post whilst commenting. Yeah, yeah, I know my own Haloscan doesn't allow this, but WHATEVER!! :) I'd just like to get Firefox to be consistent in handling Haloscan windows (sometimes it opens 'em seperate, sometimes as a tab...go figger...)
Chris Woods|W|P|I'll see what I can do with the settings, Rob. Thanks for the suggestions! Rob|W|P|:) I know the Blogger settings will be...well, you know...soon. As to design, channel Betty Bowers, man...her "Thou Makest Jesus Vomit" design is my favorite (it really pisses off folks when I wear it to morning PT, too...)
Drake Dems|W|P|Campus Republicans like cheap beerv Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Good idea guys. I think it's quite a good idea.My Votes
Chris: "I know 54.836 million of us voted for John Kerry and John Edwards, but what did the rest of you do? Why did you do it?"
Chase: "He wore a blue tie. Thank merciful God. This President functions far better in a blue tie."
Hope that helps guys. Take care and keep up the good work. BLOG ON!
'yeti|W|P|Ooh, amusing indeed!I'd have to say...
"College Republicans Like Cheap Beer" (by far the best phrase for a t-shirt in the whole list, imo), and
either "He wore a blue tie..." or "Go read it and your secret crush will say they like you" (suggested graphic: Chimpy with Prince Bandar in a sexy thought-bubble)
Chris Woods|W|P|'yeti, I like your Chimpy and Prince Bandar idea. Rob|W|P|I'm tempted to do a slogan/tshirt, too (OK, OK, I'm jealous). But all my favorites are already taken by Betty Bowers. David Schantz|W|P|For Chris, "Lying is not cool" I think we should all have a shirt with that on it. We could all wear them whem we go to hear our elected officials speak.For Chase, "I thought my personal realization of the issue was significant enough to merit the post. You can call it ego. I call it another hard day's work" Just because I like it.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
AndrewL|W|P|Use this one:I do not consent to being searched.
Justin|W|P|Chris: Campus Republicans Love Cheap Beer.Chris: James Dobson is trying to take Jerry Faldwell's job the same way Al Sharpton tried to take Jesse Jackson's.
Love,
The Justan
Sar|W|P|Guys - Great idea here. I'd suggest sticking with the shorter quotes (unless you're a giant with oodles of room for text). Makes for a swift read with immediate impact. That said here's my picks:Chris
Lying is not cool.
Chase
America collectively looks down at its shoes.
Chris Woods|W|P|Lol, Sar hasn't seen me, so she doesn't know that I really am a giant! :-D Sar|W|P|Hmm, well in that case just use a giant font! ;) Chris Woods|W|P|Probably a good plan! Drew Miller|W|P|I like cheap beer. :-/I'd go with the lying one and the amusing one.
|W|P|Just a short tip - instead of cafepress I would recommend spreadshirt.com - it will be much easier to design any of those over there ... have fun"Insurgents and other criminals have infiltrated Iraqi police ranks due to poor screening procedures by U.S. forces, according to a joint report released Monday by the U.S. Defense Department and State Department."And these guys are in their last throes? That's a hell of an effort. Seriously, things are going to hell in a handbasket quick there, let's get the fuck out. Tags: Iraq, last throes|W|P|112234703985722975|W|P|Outsmarted by the enemy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Gotta disagree a bit. Here’s why:1. Launch windows…these come around on very (relatively) rare occasions, and the factors that go into ‘em are, well, staggering. Takes a rocket scientist and all that. Launch windows with good weather are even more rare.
2. Redundancy. This sensor problem…well, that sensor is backed up to the nines. If this were the only one, that’d be one thing, but everything on the shuttle is backed up and over-engineered (it takes a lot of that philosophy from nuclear power).
3. It’s a high-risk evolution. Not to say unnecessary risk, but the crowning acheivement of our space program (the moon) had many incidents (and some deaths), because like any cutting edge endeavour you have to crack some eggs to make an omlette. We tend, these days, to err so far on the side of caution that we are afraid to blaze trails.
We learn a process in the Navy called Operational Risk Management. It’s basically a way to assess and analyze risk, then provide the proper controls to minimize it. When I’m on sea duty, a good 2/3 to 3/4 of my job entails calculated risk (I operate a nuclear reactor, and aside from the remote chance of nuclear issues there’s high pressures, ultra-high temperatures…and over 500 feet of water above me). We recognize (like the astronauts) that our job inherently brings some pretty serious risk to the table…crush depth implosion, steam ruptures, collisions, flooding, fires, high pressure fluid ruptures, explosive accidents, the like. We take steps to minimize the risk…but don’t ever believe that there is ever a time when 100% of the gear on a nuclear sub works. There is always something down…what you operate with offline and what you don’t is part of the management. For example, all of the safety systems for the reactor are required to be in operation to start up and go to sea…but once you are at sea, 500+ feet down, if one channel craps out you don’t turn around and head home. You operate without it until you can repair it (there are three other redundant backups).
Now, if it was a situation where we had to get to sea, there is provision to even start up with some equipment offline in that area, too. It’s all been analyzed and accounted for (and it’s very, very safe).
I fully believe that NASA would scrub the launch if they felt this problem was more than a malfunction in a redundant sensor system. But the nature of a fault like this (inconsistent, intermittent) means you could literally be chasing it for months, or have to rebuild that system from ground zero, and that could scrub a narrow launch window for nearly a year.
This is a risk I’d take.
Chris Woods|W|P|You make good points, Rob. But it still seems to me, again I express the fact that I know nothing about situations like this, that after the last situation with the space shuttle, this is a time where they'd want to err on the side of caution just to save face in general. Rob|W|P|Maybe...I speak from how I'd handle the situation, given my technical background, and how I'd want to do it if I were the astronaut. It's my personal opinion that we don't take enough risks in pursuit of science these days. That being said, the O-ring issue with Challenger and the tile problem with Colombia were risks that were improperly managed. Challenger was poor QA (and our QA program in the Navy and government/industry wide reflect lessons learned there). And Colombia suffered from a failure to have a plan/system in place to fix the problem they had once in space...a problem that proved fatal on reentry. For both, there was (and frankly could be) no backup. Thus those risks were unwarranted. The QA on the tank O-ring was inexcusable...it should have been found/fixed. The tile problem resulted from a failure to anticipate a problem (that wasn't new, by the way), something they could have corrected long before.The fuel sensor issue...from what I've read and to my understanding it's a risk that is already managed/controlled. They know about it, thus will be more attuned to other indications...it has backups...and even a total failure of the other backups would not cause a major catastrophe (though having no gas guage on the space shuttle would be a big deal...).
Me, I'd go for it. I think NASA has learned from Challenger/Colombia to fully analyze/overanalyze any situation now, and given their new and hefty focus on safety I'd feel OK in going up if they said it was OK after a full analysis. Then again, it could be my job coloring my risk willingness :)
Chris Woods|W|P|Nah, I trust your judgment Rob. I think this is probably the cynic in me coming out thinking Bush is applying the pressure to get a man back to the moon to save his plummeting approval ratings. Rob|W|P|That may be (he'd be *GASP* mimicing a famous Dem, JFK, in doing so...though for JFK it wasn't for poll numbers). But I know tech heads well enough...and we do learn from our mistakes :) Rob|W|P|Looks like it made it up...some debris, but with over 100 cameras and outstanding images they should be able to spot any problems and propose fixes before any real serious problems (a la Colombia) crop up... Chris Woods|W|P|Indeed, my mea culpa is a few posts up, in case you missed it. ;-) Rob|W|P|There was some debris, and I know NASA's concerned. I just hope my optimism is well founded...even a perfect launch and mission is fraught with risk, and though I understand that (and in my job accept it for the good of the mission), another shuttle disaster and NASA's done for. And I have seen enough astronauts die, accepting of risk or not...I remember Challenger when I was in high school in Florida, biggest shock I'd had in my life until 9/11. I sure hope NASA's plans for in-orbit repairs don't need to be used, and if they are I hope they are successful."Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak."Now, the quote is pretty unclear. David Schuster and MSNBC say he testified. This report says he hasn't been asked to testify before the grand jury. Does it still mean he could've been interviewed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald? If so, it seems like this could be a sly move by the "US official" or the Reuters writer to say he hasn't testified but neglect to mention that he might have been interviewed. I've got an email into Steve asking for help on the report. We'll see if has more to say, soon, hopefully. Tags: John Bolton, recess appointment, PlameGate|W|P|112233592817562284|W|P|Bolton's connection to PlameGate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Democrats could suffer politically from getting ahead of themselves. Fitzgerald is still investigating, and with one journalist behind bars for not cooperating -- Judith Miller of the New York Times -- there's no indication he's playing soft. On the other hand, Republicans could suffer, too, by getting ahead of themselves. There's a difference between the principle of innocent until proven guilty and premature exoneration."I admit I've probably been a bit overzealous in my coverage. I don't think that's really a bad thing though. I keep my facts straight and I have honest, intelligent debates with those who comment about it. That's good enough for me. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I'm a simple man, folks. Tags: Karl Rove, PlameGate, Democrats, Washington Republicans|W|P|112233443143553591|W|P|Wise advice|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
SENATOR: Judge, can you desribe to us the events that led you to write the abortion footnote in the first Bush Administration. ROBERTS: I don't recall, Senator.According to the Post, he was on the group's steering committee. For God's sakes, how do you forget something like that? Tags: John Roberts, Supreme Court|W|P|112229634779912423|W|P|Was he or wasn't he?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Leaders of four of the country's largest labor unions announced on Sunday that they would boycott this week's A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention, and officials from two of those unions, the service employees and the Teamsters, said the action was a prelude to their full withdrawal from the federation on Monday. The schism is the biggest rift in labor since the 1930's, when the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which was trying to unionize mass production workers in automobiles, steel and other industries, split off from the American Federation of Labor, which largely represented elite craft workers. This week's labor convention here was supposed to be a celebratory occasion marking the 50th anniversary of the merger."I'm a big supporter of the adjustments that Change to Win has in mind. But are these drastic measures necessary? From my unenlightened point of view, and from my lack of knowledge on American labor, I honestly don't know. I know its probably not something the Democrats want to see right now, but I'll discuss that more in a minute. The fact is, the American labor movement needs revitalization. And it's just not happening under the AFL-CIO as it is. I remember in the early and mid 90s how important the labor groups in my neighborhood were. Especially during the campaigns. They were pivotal groups, especially in my local precinct, which has a heavy labor base. In 2004, they did a lot, but not as much as they had done in previous years. I think part of the reason is the aging numbers of people in unions. In my neighborhood, the union folks are older guys, middle age or closer to retirement. At the caucuses last January, I don't think I saw a union guy younger than 35. Maybe that's just my neighborhood though. The other issue is diversity. My neighborhood has a very large number of Latino immigrants, mostly laborers. Whether they're legal immigrants or not, I don't know. What I do know is that they're not in unions. But they should be. It gives them something to affiliate with. It can give them a sense of pride, of working towards the American dream. It can help them participate. When it came time to caucus last January, there were only two Latino people there. Both were women and both were third generation Americans. Unions don't mean the same thing as they did 20 years ago. In an ever-changing and advancing workplace, you can't expect things to stay the same. And I don't. I do expect the largest labor movement in America to keep up with the times though. I don't think the AFL-CIO has. As for Democrats, this definitely isn't good news, especially with the 2006 primaries and elections fast approaching. The potential schism is bad news for a united labor front when it comes to campaigning. In some ways, though, I think it can be a good thing. In 2004, as Kerry won Iowa and then went on to dominate elsewhere, he eventually picked up the nods from most unions and got their votes in the late primaries. Maybe with two coalitions, the primaries could get more interesting. As the race gets closer, you've got competing labor interests on candidates. Instead of settling on John Kerry, maybe we could get a real friend-of-labor candidate. I'm not saying JK was bad when it came to labor interests, but he certainly was no Dick Gephardt. Overall, the GOTV effort in the 2006 midterms is going to be tough if this isn't resolved soon. I guess now is as good of a time as any to start reading TPM Cafe's House of Labor or Nathan Newman's blog habitually. Tags: Democrats, labor, AFL-CIO, Change to Win|W|P|112226128517010881|W|P|The end of the AFL-CIO?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Restoring a sense of public pride / confidence in a President (the 2000 campaign pitch, the feel of a "man of the people" President. Arguably questionable based on recent scandals, but that was a mistake.)
- Consolidating power in the executive branch (PATRIOT Act, enemy tribunal policies, massive govt spending in all areas, etc.)
- Making the WH the center of political and social guidence (the FCC & Margaret Spelling's restrictions of all non-Leave it to Beaver ideas, the coordination with Republican Senators when it comes to ideological message, etc.)
- AFL-CIO v. Chao, 409 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2005) - Judge Roberts dissented from the majority's holding that the Secretary of Labor exceeded her statutory authority by promulgating certain reporting requirements for labor unions. Judge Roberts highlighted several aspects of the statutory delegation that indicated that Congress had intended to confer especially broad authority on the Secretary
- Indep. Equip. Dealers Ass'n v. EPA, 372 F.3d 420 (CADC 2004): In an opinion joined by Judges Garland and Rogers, Judge Roberts dismissed an action brought by a trade association of independent dealers of heavy construction and industrial equipment. The association was seeking review of the EPA's interpretation of emissions regulations for nonroad engines. Judge Roberts held that since the EPA advice letter at issue merely reiterated the longstanding prior interpretation of the regulations, the letter did not constitute an agency action subject to judicial review. (No judical review of executive action?)
- The Rumsfeld v. Padilla case, authorizing use of military tribunals for anyone the President deems an "enemy combatant", citizen or not.
Chris Woods|W|P|A question on the EPA case: does the President really have any executive say over the procedures of the EPA or doesn't he merely get to appoint or fire people? Chase Nordengren|W|P|Good question. Either way, I'm still not comfortable with any agency operating outside of judicial review - is the EPA allowed to search homes outside the 4th amendment to find dangerous toxins?BTW, there was definately an article on this subject somewhere, but I can't find it.
Chris Woods|W|P|I definitely agree with you. I'm having a weird sense of deja vu here writing this and saying that the EPA should be under judicial review and listening to Warren G's "Regulate." Coincidences, I suppose.Oh, and I'll work on finding that article.
And, oh, did anybody mention that Chase is only 16 years old? Good try, kid...Advice to Chase: You're a good writer. Post more! And work those connections so you can cover future political events.And, as much as I love posting comments in support of me, it's always much more fun to quote State29's critique of our own Woodsey. Observe:
If you read The Political Forecast you'll see that the bulk of the posts are dominated by the obviously anti-Republican Chris Woods. If you're into regurgitated and spun news via the WaPo and Slimes; passed-along posts from the Kossacks and Julio Yglesias; as well as the usual commentary on such trendy topics like Karlroveplamegate then this will be right up your alley, but it bores the shite out of me.Message to State29: For what its worth, Woodsey's liberalism is, as much as I can tell, not stolen from the rest of the blog community. And he's the one who encouraged me to send the post in as a letter anyway. But thank you, of course, for the kind words and mostly for the traffic. Tags: National Governors' Association|W|P|112223375390996899|W|P|Followup to my attempts at the NGA|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
James Howard Shott|W|P|The reason Judy Miller is in jail is because the NY Times doesn't want anyone to know who her source was.It wasn't Karl Rove, because he gave everyone a blanket waiver of his anonimity.
Don't you wonder who the Times is protecting?
Chris Woods|W|P|Judy Miller is still choosing to remain silent on who her source is. She's making the choice. Even if Karl Rove offered the blanket waiver, it doesn't mean she has to step forward and say "Yeah, it was Karl." She's doing this as a matter of principle, and it looks like the Times is backing her up.I don't think the Times is protecting anyone.
James Howard Shott|W|P|There is no principle to protect if the source doesn't want anonimity. Why would she not say so if Rove was the contact?I think there's someone else that the Times doesn't want made public.
Chris Woods|W|P|I'm sure that Judy Miller has a principle deep in her that says "Even if I'm intimidated and thrown in jail, I'm not going to reveal a source." The problem is, I don't agree with her principle, most likely because she's been used and had by her source. For her (and obviously others), its not just information for investigating, its about access to Beltway players too.And what makes you think that the Times as a company has something to do with this. Seriously. It seems obvious to me that they just want to stand up for their employees and the privileges that they believe they deserve. I'd assume that if you were a journalist, you'd want the same thing from your boss.
James Howard Shott|W|P|There have been "principled" reporters who have paid a price for keeping their sources confidential. However, the reason for doing so is that the source wants to remain anonymous.When Karl Rove released everyone for keeping him anonymous, that principle ceased to exist.
Thus, the Times is not protecting its reporter, unless the source is someone other than Karl Rove. And if the source is someone other than Karl Rove, it may not be the employee's decision whether to reveal the source or not, and unless she wants to lose her job, she'll do as she's told, even if it means jail.
It looks like Bob Schieffer took up my challenge today and asked AG Gonzales about the 12-hour lapse. Here is what went down (via APJ):
"Gonzales told Schieffer that after the DOJ had notified him of the probe on the night of the 29th, he told White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that night."Boom, he just sent this fire roaring again. We now know that the White House has plenty of time to direct a cover-up of sorts. They had over 12 hours to lead a team to destroy any evidence that may have existed and to set stories up with each other that could've been destruction-proof. Chief of Staff Andy Card then could have easily directed the mission to cover-up, informed everyone of what they needed to do, and gone about the business of clearing the West Wing of anything incriminating. Plain and simple, this is wrong. Tags: Karl Rove, PlameGate, White House, 12 hours|W|P|112222687844064067|W|P|Adding fuel to the fire|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
James Howard Shott|W|P|Plain and simple: Your comment is pure speculation. Chris Woods|W|P|Speculating is all I can do until Patrick Fitzgerald says something.Or until I become part of the investigation, I guess.
But don't you think its strange that they waited 12 hours to say anything broadly, but he still chose to inform the Chief of Staff right after he got the call?
James Howard Shott|W|P|Destroying evidence is a serious matter. I can't imagine that anyone in the Bush administration would be so stupid over such a minor issue.Plame's covert status is a huge question mark. Even if what Rove said to Cooper was somehow improper, it seems from all that's been reported that if she was actually covert, Rove didn't know it. He didn't use her name, and from all indications didn't know her name.
I think this administration is too savvy to fall into this sort of error.
I can see that maybe, accidentally, Rove may have said something that might lead to some trouble on a second- or third-generation charge, but I really doubt that he has broken the law on covert outings, or any serious charge.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Chris Woods|W|P|You're right, it is a serious matter. But I wouldn't put anything past this administration anymore.Plame's status as a covert agent shouldn't even be up for debate. The fact that the investigation has gone on for this long indicates that she must've been covert, otherwise there would absolutely no foundation to even bring up charges because the information gathered was for an investigation that wasn't even needed.
Moreover, in 2003, she made 5 "business" trips overseas for the front firm that the CIA created that she worked for. That means she had been a covert operative within the 5 years of the information's release.
Finally, hundreds of covert agents drive back and forth to CIA headquarters in Langley everday. Just because they do that doesn't mean you get say they weren't "covert enough" or something along those lines.
James Howard Shott|W|P|I am unaware of "5 business trips" she allegedly made in 2003, and her status is very much in question. I have to say that if she indeed made those trips, that information would be part of the ongoing story, and I follow this one fairly closely, and haven't heard that. Perhaps you can provide me a credible link to that?Based upon what I have read/heard/seen in news reports, and based upon both the IIPA and the definition of "covert agent," she doesn't qualify:
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
If indeed "hundreds of covert agents drive back and forth to CIA headquarters," as you offer in defense of her covert status, then it would be fairly common knowledge that those people worked at the CIA, and then an off-hand comment such as Rove made to Cooper would be an innocuous remark based upon information that any number of civilians and government people could know entirely outside the classified information system.
It would be discussed at the same level as "guess who I ran into at the mall yesterday?" Or, "I saw Valerie Plame driving out of CIA headquarters yesterday at 8 p.m. Did you know she worked there?" No one would have any idea that they were "outing" a covert agent by holding that conversation, or the one Rove had with Cooper. All Rove did was to mention that Plame worked at the CIA, according to Cooper.
If someone's identity as a covert agent is important to keep secret, it is pretty stupid to have them be easily observed going to Langley every day. Further, being easily seen going in and out of CIA Hq seems to violate the definition above. Her visibility at CIA Ha may not raise suspicions about covert status, but maybe it would. By her own actions, Plame jeopardized her own security.
Chris Woods|W|P|Here is the link that talks about her 5 trips, its from a Times article. Here is the passage:"But agency officials apparently believe that the law does apply to Ms. Wilson, possibly because she took overseas business trips in the five years before 2003. The C.I.A. sought an investigation, and the Justice Department and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, concurred in choosing to pursue the case."
For more of my thoughts on CIA covert operatives, see this post by me. Or read this post by Josh Marshall.
Chris Woods|W|P|Btw, here's comments that a former CIA operative himself said, something confirms what we already knew. LINK James Howard Shott|W|P|The definition, part of which I quoted for you, refers to someone (in Plame's case, an employee of the CIA) living/working outside the U.S. It doesn't mention someone who takes a few trips abroad.It looks as if the CIA hasn't read the definition of "covert agent." You quoted the article as saying, "But agency officials apparently believe that the law does apply to" Plame.
Apparently believe? If it is a fact that it covers her, wouldn't they say something like: "According to the official government definition (TITLE 50, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 426), Valerie Plame/Valerie Wilson is/was at the time a covert agent?"
Here's some of the language from the IIPA:
"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, ..."
Did Rove have authorized access to classified information about Plame? Probably not. Remember, he didn't apparently know her name, and did not use her name when talking to Cooper.
Did Rove identify Plame by name? No.
Did Rove identify "Joe Wilson's wife" as a covert agent? No.
What "affirmative measures" was the U.S. taking to conceal Plame's "intelligence relationship to the United States?" Letting her drive in and out of the gate? Allowing her to appear in Vanity Fair?
I think this is a weak case, and unworthy of all the attention. Valerie Plame is not James Bond. Her usefulness was minimal as a future agent. Her involvement with the CIA was already known to Cuba and perhaps Russia, as well.
Chris Woods|W|P|The facts are simple: covert agents drive in and out of Langley everday. Its absurd to say "Well, they shouldn't." Its CIA policy and you don't get to make it. Moreover, the definition you gave me above offers the legality (under this act, at least) of her covert status:(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
The document that had her name on it was marked SNF--Secret, no foreign. That means there was classified information on it. The fact that the investigation has been going on this long confirms that a crime was violated, especially when concerning covert agents. It's not clear who did it, but its clear a crime was committed. The trips overseas by Plame were "business" trips out of her CIA-front agency (which was covert, mind you) meaning that she was on official CIA covert business serving overseas.
As for the facts so far, we know that Rove said "Wilson's wife" when talking to Cooper. It was public information that Wilson's wife was Valerie Wilson--her picture was on his firm's website. The only way for Rove to know that Wilson's wife had recommended him for the job was through confidential information he shouldn't have had access to--the only people who should've known were folks at the CIA on those in the Vice President's office. This means that Rove and Libby were sharing information they probably shouldn't have been. Rove knowingly disclosed that she worked at the CIA on issues of WMD, but the only way he could've known that AND the fact that she recommended Joe Wilson is through confidential information that would reveal that she is a covert agent, meaning he knowingly identified her as a covert agent.
The affirmative measures the US was taking to conceal her "intelligence relationship to the United States" were thus:
*Covert co-workers in the CIA only knew her as Valerie P.
*The information from the CIA memo that went around on Air Force One with West Wing staff was marked SNF; Secret, no foreign.
*The CIA employed her in a front-firm as to disclose her real employment with the Agency
If these aren't good enough for you, complain to Porter Goss. The fact is that the United States was taking measures to protect her identity.
Btw, she appeared in Vanity Fair LONG after she had been outed by Bob Novakula. There was and still is no chance that she can ever do clandestine work again.
James Howard Shott|W|P|Several of your points beg for disagreement, however since you and I obviously see this differently, I won't spend the time.I offer the following information that appears to make the entire issue moot:
THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.
But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.
Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).
THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."
And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."
Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.
Source
Chris Woods|W|P|First off, I don't trust the National Review and its staff as far as I can throw them. I'm sure you can say the same about the New York Times though, so we'll agree to disagree.Secondly, alleging that David Corn was the first person to compromise any covert status she had is absolutely and utterly ridiculous, but moreoever its intellectually dishonest. The first person to publish a report that drew attention to her and made her neighbors realize that she worked for the CIA was Bob Novak. There's something unethical and irresponsible about what he did.
I don't really know about the rest of the stuff to make a fair judgment without being really presumptuous. But I can say this: if that were the case, you would at least think that the Wall Street Journal would've reported something similar. I've yet to hear or read anything of similarity from the WSJ.
Finally, I realize that this discussion is probably good for the both of us, but wouldn't you agree, on principle, that no matter the reasons or how covert the agent is, it should just be a matter of good faith not to try make a CIA officer's life and job about partisan and smear tactic politics?
Sar|W|P|CW - You can count on my Kaine vote! :) Chris Woods|W|P|Excellent. He definitely seems like the better candidate AND better person."A suicide truck bomb exploded at a police station today in the middle of a raging sandstorm in eastern Baghdad, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens of others, Iraqi officials said. The attack came on a day when Sunni Arab leaders involved in drafting the new constitution were in negotiations over an end to their boycott of the process. The American military said it had received reports of at least 40 deaths in the explosion."Tags: Iraq, last throes|W|P|112222509767373964|W|P|Last throes watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
John alerts us to Sen. John McCain taking up the Rove defense earlier today on ABC's This Week:
"Stephanopoulos: This covers negligent disclosures McCain: Again I don't know what the definition of "negligent" is."Full context here. Tags: Karl Rove, PlameGate, bobbleheads|W|P|112222392897022429|W|P|And the equivocating and defining begins|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Meet the Press, NBC: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). Face the Nation, CBS: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Chicago Tribune reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg. This Week, ABC: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Fox News Sunday: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), AG Gonzales. Late Edition, CNN: AG Gonzales, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Saudi ambassador to the U.S. designate Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Lebanese Parliament member Saad Hariri, Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, former DHS Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin.Looks to be a boring weekend unless George Stephanopoulos, Wolf Blitzer, or Chris Wallace decide to ask Abu Gonzales about the 12-hour lapse. I doubt that will happen. Tags: bobbleheads|W|P|112218406489310926|W|P|Sunday bobbleheads|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"But the scandal has metastasized so much at this point that the forgotten man Mr. Bush did not nominate to the Supreme Court is as much a window into the White House's panic and stonewalling as its haste to put forward the man he did. When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to this scandal that inspires real fear. As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months. Thus is Mr. Gonzales's Supreme Court aspiration the first White House casualty of this affair. It won't be the last. When you look at the early timeline of this case, rather than the latest investigatory scraps, two damning story lines emerge and both have legs."I've never really thought about how I'd react to the fact that a President during my lifetime would take actions so bold as to threaten our national security for political revenge and make a case for war based on lies and the politics of fear and misinformation. This is isn't the America that I was taught growing up. Tags: Karl Rove, White House, PlameGate, Supreme Court|W|P|112217514583935930|W|P|Twelve Hours|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|This was the 1st time I read this, I want to read it again later, after I've had some sleep. I have posted my Question Of The Week, I hope you will stop by to answer it.God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
"It comprises such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians."Those are the actions we have taken against Iraqis--innocent or guilty--at Abu Ghraib prison. The prison that should've been shut down, but instead was remodeled and rebuilt by America. It seems almost ironic that the very charges former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein faces before the International Criminal Court are the same ones that Americans could be tried for as well. Of course Saddam's actions were far worse than anything we could have or have in reality done in Iraq. But that doesn't offer us a concrete excuse for our actions. Frankly, there is no excuse, concrete or otherwise, for the actions we, or some "bad apples" in our military, have taken. When you look at the description of some of the acts that took place, however, its hard to imagine that it was just a few "bad apples" acting on their own who did this:
"A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses. "’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’ “A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’ “Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’” In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’ “Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”"Forgive me for possibly being naive, but how does one independently come up with the idea to use a chemical light to sodomize a prisoner? Honestly. I'm sorry, but that sure seems like an act someone would have to teach you to do or encourage you to do. Or maybe even to order you to do. Those who were accused and documented in criminal acts against the prisoners at Abu Ghraib faced the American trials and punishments that they so richly deserved. But they were only tried because the public saw firsthand via those pictures what they did to prisoners. What about the other soldiers who committed terrible acts but weren't punished because their pictures weren't released? They simply got off easy. The choice to block the court-ordered release of these photos and videos is a horrendous one. A choice that shows no moral convictions by the Bush Administration. A choice that is a direct slap in the face of any sense of international dignity or integrity that we might've had remaining after our illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's an offense to those Iraqis who survived decades of Saddam's brutal and torturous rule only to witness their American occupiers doing the exact same thing. George W. Bush is probably pretty happy he didn't enter the United States into the ICC. Otherwise he might be up there with Saddam and Slobodan Milosevic. When it comes to previous war crimes courts of the past, America has been a key force about bringing them to formation and making them work. I highly doubt we'll be involved with any in Iraq, beyond Saddam's trial. I just hope other nations in the world disgusted by our heinous actions will take the initiative and bring up whatever charges they can against us. For more information on the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, see these three New Yorker essays by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh:
- THE GRAY ZONE: How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
- CHAIN OF COMMAND: How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib.
- TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
If this is the future of American conservatism, then I've got a few friends who'll need to bail out of the GOP fast.
Tags: Washington Republicans, torture, Gitmo|W|P|112215736042368758|W|P|Club Gitmo|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com Eclecta|W|P|Am I reading that guy's T-shirt correctly? Does it really say "Club Gitmo"????? I don't want to believe that such proud ignorance exists ... Chris Woods|W|P|Oh, you're reading it correctly. Thanks to the shop at RushLimbaugh.com, it seems that the shirts are becoming pretty popular. Its fucking ridiculous."The Bush administration's free-trade agreement with Central America would cost taxpayers $50 million a year in loan forfeitures by sugar farmers, the Congressional Budget Office says. An administration official said Thursday that the analysis was unrealistic and that there would be virtually no cost under sugar provisions in the deal. The CBO released its estimate as House leaders planned for a vote next week on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It would remove or lower trade barriers with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and he Dominican Republic. Overall, CAFTA would cost the U.S. about $4.4 billion over the next 10 years, primarily in lost tariffs, the CBO said. Under CAFTA, those countries could ship more sugar to the United States. The CBO said the influx would push prices down and force farmers to forfeit government loans on their crops, costing taxpayers on average about $50 million annually through 2015."I guess free trade is only free to the lobbyists who help write the treaty and pass the costs onto American tax payers as well as American and Central American farmers and laborers. Tags: CAFTA|W|P|112214814615698132|W|P|CAFTA to cost Americans billions|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"A follow-up: Be straight with us -- no hems and haws -- who was the sexiest assistant D.A. on Law and Order, Claire, Abbie, Jamie, Serena or Alexandra?"Tags: Law and Order, Russert Watch, Fred Thompson|W|P|112214582669235123|W|P|Russert Watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The Army's top personnel officer acknowledged this week that the service will probably miss its recruiting goal this year, the first public admission by a senior Army official and a stark reminder of the Iraq war's impact on enlistments. The officer, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, said in testimony to the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee on Tuesday that an improving economy, competition from private industry and an increasing number of parents who are less supportive of military service meant that the active-duty Army, as well as the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, would fall short of their annual quotas. "We will likely miss recruiting missions for all three components," said General Hagenbeck, voicing publicly what many senior Army officials have said privately for weeks."I hope that this miss in recruiting keeps us away from invading Iran. Because who knows what kind of scheme Karl Rove and the Bush Administration could come up with to keep the heat off of him. I think this just stresses the need for Operation Yellow Elephant's success.
Tags: Army, Operation Yellow Elephant|W|P|112214543845059639|W|P|Army to miss its recruiting goal says top General|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"I think it's time to invent some new swearing, because there isn't anything currently in the language that fully encompasses the White House's unapologetic attempts to ensure the Bush administration's own crafted and approved "interrogation" policies be allowed to continue unhindered. Yes, according to the Bush administration, any attempts by Republican senators to legislate against, say, the sodomizing of detained children are unduly infringing on the president's fight against terrorists. Truly, there is no sunken depth to which this White House does not feel comfortable indulging itself in."Tags: Iraq, torture, Abu Ghraib, Bush Administration|W|P|112209429380824933|W|P|The White House's lack of decency on torture and abuse in Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status.Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, and his team have made no decision on whether to seek indictments, and there could be benign explanations for differences that have arisen in witnesses' statements to federal agents and a grand jury about how the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who had worked undercover, was leaked to the media two years ago. The investigation focused initially on whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a campaign to discredit Wilson after he wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times criticizing the Bush administration's grounds for going to war in Iraq. According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements to federal authorities by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials."So, this is what most people were assuming that Fitzgerald and Co. must be doing right now because of all the obvious discrepancies. The bigger issue, I think, is trying to find out where this information came from. The LA Times says "lawyers familiar with case" and the WaPo says "lawyers in the case and witness statements." Most would assume that the statements are coming from Luskin himself, but at least in the LA Times story, I'm not so sure. Why, you ask? Because the LA Times quotes Luskin from an interview he gave Friday, assumably with the LA Times or one of their subsidiaries. Moreover, I don't see the benefit to Rove-Luskin's defense case if they are now discussing potential charges that he or Libby could face. It really makes one wonder who is speaking to the press this time and which witnesses were talking to the Times. For more on source attributions in newspaper reports on this case, see this post by Jeralyn. Tags: Karl Rove, media, Scooter Libby, perjury, Patrick Fitzgerald, Rove leak, PlameGate|W|P|112209246493841797|W|P|More Rove front pagery|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"But the public wants to know more about Roberts and his attitudes on key legal issues before he is confirmed. Nearly two in three -- 64 percent -- say Roberts should publicly explain what his views are on abortion before the Senate acts. The survey also suggests what the public would like to hear him say on the abortion issue: 65 percent say they want Roberts to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion more than three decades ago. Support for that ruling is widely shared, the survey found, including eight in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of all independents and half of all Republicans."If this nomination, and the proceeding confirmation hearings, are going to be dominated by the abortion issue (as I can guarantee they will be) then Democrats have significant grounds to demand an answer on questions regarding Judge Roberts' stand on abortion, and on Roe v. Wade. How much does this poll matter really? Probably not much. It's just a random sampling of 500 Americans. Do you really think all of them have a good grasph of judicial politics--and the Supreme Court in general--like those in Washington or on the blogosphere do? I don't. The other significant point, I believe, is what I consider to be a demand from constituents to know where Roberts stands on precdents--stare decisis:
"Sixty-one percent of respondents want Roberts to answer questions about how he would have ruled on past cases before the court, an inquiry that would open the door for senators to fully explore the nominee's views on other hot-button issues such as affirmative action, gun control and same-sex marriage."Almost 2/3 of Americans want an answer. Will he give it to them? Tags: Supreme Court, John Roberts, abortion, precedent|W|P|112206859590682560|W|P|New poll shows Americans want Roberts confirmed|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports. The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise."Like Steve says, it's all thickening. Last night we reported here that a mention of a possible John Bolton connection was already beginning to emerge. This seems to confirm that point. Tags: John Bolton, PlameGate, Judy Miller, United Nations|W|P|112206705885694821|W|P|The Bolton Connection|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Everything Rove-Luskin has leaked has been printed in a form most favorable to the Rove defense without a word of leaked input from the prosecutor. When the prosecutor tells his story, don't expect him to accept Rove's currently uncontested claim that he does not recall who told him that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and don't expect the "old news" spin to work. When the prosecutor has his day, he is going to make new news."Indeed. Tags: Karl Rove, Robert Luskin, PlameGate, leaks|W|P|112206113918666941|W|P|Rove-Luskin|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"[Len] Downie, and Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward-- the one and same Bob Woodward who took on the White House during Watergate-- have been telling anyone willing to listen to their complaint (a complaint made by a powerful man is always heard more reverently than one made by the rest of us!) that the Plame affair has been much ado about nothing, that the Post has bravely not given into competitive pressures by joining the rest of the journalistic pack, and that if there is real news sometime, they will be the first to publish and crack the case! Now that that assessment has turned out to have been not particularly accurate, Downie, in attempting to correct his own mistake, has stepped down on the accelerator too hard. The result is that the White House tonight has been using this example tonight of overkill to discredit the reporting of the rest of us covering the Plame affair and breaking new ground on the story."So, now they're being overzealous and that's possibly going to kill the story (at least in broad coverage terms) that they've been trying to ignore all along and now want to cover. This just makes me glad not to be a Washington journalist. Tags: Karl Rove, PlameGate, media, White House|W|P|112205125784235576|W|P|Washington Post and PlameGate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Tom Noe stole millions of dollars from the state and used a “Ponzi” scheme to fabricate profits within the state’s $50 million rare-coin investment, Ohio’s attorney general said yesterday. “There was an absolute theft of funds going on,” Attorney General Jim Petro said. Mr. Petro said there is evidence that Mr. Noe pocketed nearly $4 million in money invested with the coin fund through the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation since 1998."Now go to Paul Hackett's website and make him the first Democrat elected since the CoinGate scandal and the first Iraq War veteran in Congress. Tags: Congress, Paul Hackett, Democrats, CoinGate|W|P|112205070704113840|W|P|CoinGate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Patrick Fitzgerald is driving this story, not the media, and certainly not the blogosphere. If Fitzgerald has something to say (and you know all of us on the left are hoping he'll say it with indictments) he'll do it on his own time schedule. Meanwhile, the various parties involved will either keep feeding little tidbits to the press or they won't. Nothing the blogosphere does or says will affect the timing of those leaks."That is absolutely true. The main offense that we're getting right now is from the defense's leaks. From comments made by Luskin and Co., now being revealed as contradictory to other reports of grand jury testimony or other interviews. I'm sure there is still a lot more to be uncovered, but how long with this story last? I'm not sure, but it won't be of our choosing--at least not nationally. Coverage is going to run thin in the major media outlets unless Fitzgerald drops some comments or lays down some indictments. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Bloggers can do their fair share online to keep the story moving but it won't be the dominant story. There will always be another GOP ethical lapse or bigoted statement or something like that. But when the dam breaks, we'll be there ready and informed. As for this comment by Billmon, I've got my reservations:
"At the moment, it looks like the gusher of coverage that began after Time passed Matt Cooper's emails to the prosecutors is beginning to dry up. This probably would have been the case even without the Roberts nomination. If indictments are going to be handed down, it presumably will be in the fall. And this is probably all for the best, from a left-wing point of view. It means the really big news will break after the summer silly season -- and that much closer to next year's elections."I think that a lot of the information that we're referring to as new or breaking tonight really isn't that. It's just reported mainstream facts about the situation that we've been speculating towards the entire time--like Rove and Liddy's massive White House strategy for retribution against Joe Wilson. But I don't think the gusher of coverage is drying up just yet...I'd wait a few more days (probably until after Sunday's bobbleheads) to make that judgment. Tags: Karl Rove, media, Patrick Fitzgerald, White House, PlameGate|W|P|112200734226185908|W|P|Wise thoughts from Billmon|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.... People who have been briefed on the case said that the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr., were helping to prepare what became the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier.... At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush's speech. The work done by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby on the Tenet statement, during this intense period, had not been previously disclosed..."Later on, the article mentions that Rove and Libby never met face to face to knock out a plan of attack, but like the passage above shows, they did send many emails back and forth working on a strategy. As you can tell, this was indeed a coordinated effort. I think it also adds another level of detail the Bloomberg story set to hit the wires tonight reporting the conflicting stories and reports that both Rove and Libby have offered to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury. More White House characters are mentioned in the article as well. Folks like Karen Hughes and Ari Fleischer. Both probably have significant roles in the leak and White House defense strategy. Even John Bolton gets pulled in for a couple of paragraphs, thanks to the fantastic reporting of Douglas Jehl to this article (he's been the Times' guy on Bolton since he was nominated). It just goes to show that this investigation and the leak itself deserves the scrutiny its getting. Not some white-bread judicial nominee. Tags: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, White House, PlameGate, John Bolton, Joe Wilson, CIA|W|P|112200427669239908|W|P|New Times article on Rove|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"None of the many newspaper obituaries about General William Westmoreland exhumed one of the most important things he ever said: 'The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient."... Westmoreland is dead, but he lives on in our invasion and occupation of Iraq. President George W. Bush makes no sweeping statements that Arabs or Iraqis do not put the same high price on life as Americans. But he makes Americans into unassailable saints.It is important to point out, I think, that calling a race of people cheap is certainly a lot worse then calling a nationality of people saints, even if both are wrong. After all, one statement at least gives the benefit of the doubt. Nor do I think the "Americans kick ass" argument was our only justification for war. After all, it was (either) WMD or the removal of Saddam Hussein, blaming one man or one group of people. That, by the way, is who the President refers to when he says "these people." Examine the George W. Bush quote used in the article:
"We're dealing with an enemy that has no conscience," Bush said on the campaign trail last year. "Today, if you noticed, there was a car bomb near a school. These people are brutal. They - they're the exact opposite of Americans. We value life and human dignity. They don't care about life and human dignity. We believe in freedom. They have an ideology of hate. And they're tough, but not as tough as America."Clearly in reference to car bombers explicitly, not anyone else. The oratorical style even suggests (as is quite obvious) that killing schoolchildren, no matter what race, purposefully is wrong. Certainly different then Westmoreland suggesting all "Oriental" life is cheap. Americans are always allowed to have disagreements, and are even allowed under law to question the humanity of their ideological opponent, as Mr. Jackson has clearly done. The question you should ask yourself as you read the article is not "was the decision to go to war wrong?" More then likely, you have a pretty set opinion on that issue. You should ask what the author assumes you take as fact, mainly "does the President of the United States hate all Arab people?" I would hope in my heart of hearts that even those who find problem with every aspect of the war would say no. Someone can be wrong without being inhuman. Tags: Derrick Jackson, Iraq, Westmoreland|W|P|112200074846838512|W|P|Westmoreland to Bush?|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
the english guy|W|P|The defense will be that he never read the memo... Chris Woods|W|P|That's the defense that's coming out right now in the Times article I just posted. Somehow I don't believe that one.Wow, I must say Bloomberg is doing--by far--the best reporting on PlameGate and the rest of the leak investigation. Think Progress has the text of the article up here, and here's an excerpt:
"Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case. Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor. These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent."Boom. This is going to become the standard, hopefully, for tomorrow's reports on the leak. Remember though that Murray Waas reported on this just yesterday at The American Prospect. His work undoubtedly help move this Bloomberg story forward. More on this later tonight. Tags: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, White House, perjury, PlameGate|W|P|112199604500135909|W|P|Libby and Rove may be subject to perjury charges|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- House Democrats will host a panel to discuss the national security implication of the Plame leak and possible White House involvement. Please call or email C-SPAN and ask them politely to cover the panel.
- John Aravosis examines a NYTimes article on the Gang of 14 and the chances of a Roberts filibuster.
- The Rude Pundit examines John Roberts (hilarious and vulgar--great combination)
- Josh Marshall says "Make them own Washington" and I absolutely agree. I think thats why we should all follow Oliver Willis's language of taking to them as "Washington Republicans."
- Matthew Lardie (new to Thought Mechanics) explores the mechanism behind the Bush White House's judicial nominees and rightly reminds us to be worried. As it turns out, John Roberts isn't an actual member (just because he wouldn't pay the $50) but he's made sure to speak to them a lot.
"As a Supreme Court justice, of course, Roberts would be entirely free to overturn precedents with which he disagrees. The Senate should explore in detail his views about stare decisis, the legal doctrine that says "let the decision stand." Since his judicial record is sparse, senators will have to look for clues elsewhere. Happily, Roberts's writings, from his days as a college student through law school, and later as an appellate advocate and judge, suggest an aversion to grand theorizing that might lead him to take an incremental, rather than a radical, approach to constitutional change."Rosen seems to think he might be more along the lines of an O'Connor-like judge than one would assume at first glance. I don't necessarily agree. I think the fact that President Bush nominated him and that the Radical Right has already expressed their love for this man that he is beholden to their ideological footings to some extent. Moreover, the memo he wrote for the first President Bush with the footnote against Roe also deserves some solid questioning. Like I said when Alberto Gonzales was nominated for Attorney General and we were discussing the torture memos he wrote, the fact is that even if it is your job to write things like that, there are moral and ethical lines that you cannot cross if you really believe in doing the right thing. Gonzales, by writing the torture memos, either by order or choice, tacitly or actively consented to applying a doctrine of torture on detainees held by US forces. Judge Roberts did that exact same thing with the footnote. Finally, I think that his actions and thoughts while in law school and the beginnings of his career will have little to do with his actual jurisprudence. As summa cum laude, he was probably smart enough that to ever make the Supreme Court (and as a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard Law, that's definitely on your mind) he would have to play it safe. So, by offering vague thoughts or carefully crafted responses to controversial issues he could play it safe and advance his career. I'm glad to see the concentration on the principles of American jurisprudence by those who intend to do the questioning, I just hope that those principles carry over to the actual nominee. Tags: John Roberts, Supreme Court, stare decisis|W|P|112196930991419740|W|P|Conservative or ideologue?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris|W|P|So very true."A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials. Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post. The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials. Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret. Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation. The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?"And as always, it comes from the resourceful Walter Pincus. This is nothing new though. We reported it here at the Political Forecast just a few days ago. This confims that it was absolutely marked secret though. Tags: Karl Rove, CIA memo, secret|W|P|112195075079013126|W|P|Back on page 1|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"President George W. Bush's nomination of a new Supreme Court justice may give White House adviser Karl Rove a temporary reprieve from public scrutiny of his role in the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity. About six in 10 Americans who are paying close attention to reports about who leaked information that helped unmask a covert intelligence agent say Rove should resign, according to a poll conducted last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The Supreme Court announcement may freeze things, ``and that's probably a good thing for the White House,'' said Carroll Doherty, an editor at the Washington-based Pew Center. Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy. Bush originally had planned to announce a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 26 or 27, just before his planned July 28 departure for a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named. The officials said those plans changed because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of news accounts about the matter."How to describe Bush? Assclown fits nicely. It just goes to show you that there is nothing in America's democracy and political way of life that President Bush won't trample over to protect a friend. Tags: Karl Rove|W|P|112188400002653170|W|P|Blunt Bloomber Blisters Bush|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"If a Justice Roberts ends up following one of those two judicial models, it seems pretty clear which one he will choose: his former boss's. Roberts has spent the bulk of his career--17 of the 24 years since he finished clerking--as a litigator, either for private clients or for the federal government. Unlike Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer, he isn't a career intellectual. Unlike Justices O'Connor and Thomas, his background isn't in making government policy. Roberts has spent his working life trying to win cases, getting the right bottom lines for his clients. Nothing wrong with that: It's what good lawyers do, and Roberts was apparently a very good lawyer. But a career in appellate litigation does breed a Rehnquistian attitude toward law and legal theory. That has both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, rhetoric and theory can lead one down wrong roads. On most questions, most people are better at figuring out the right bottom line than they are at explaining how to get there. And for conservatives leery of "the Greenhouse effect"--Republican-appointed justices moving steadily leftward once on the bench--a commitment to conservative bottom lines must sound heavenly. But the Rehnquist model may be better suited to politics than to law. Members of Congress can vote without explaining why, just as the president can decide what to do and then tell Karl Rove to figure out how to sell the decision. If voters don't like the bottom lines Congress and the White House produce, they can throw the rascals out and see if the bottom lines improve. That is a large check on misuse of power. There isn't any comparable check on federal judges misusing their power. Which may be why federal judges, especially the ones who decide appeals, are supposed to give reasons for their bottom lines. The reasons are the check--they are the only things that keep judges from writing their own preferences into the law. Those theories that Justice Scalia loves so much are not just flights of fancy. They are the point of the exercise, the very reason the Court exists. The bottom lines should be an afterthought."Tags: Supreme Court, John Roberts|W|P|112188344408805823|W|P|Why Roberts is problematic|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"We know the name of George Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court: John Roberts. The Senate is ready to exercise its constitutional power of advice and consent. In order to determine if Judge Roberts will earn Senate approval we must take the time to carefully collect all the facts. I am committed to asking the tough questions necessary to learn his judicial philosophy and method of legal reasoning. What is certain is that the same high standards of judicial integrity still apply. Earlier this month, I told you that it was critical for George Bush's Supreme Court nomination to be fully committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of every American. Like any good judge, the nominee must approach the law with an open mind, not a narrow political agenda. And we must be confident that the nominee will meet the highest ethical standards and be free of conflicts of interest. Discovering whether a nominee meets these standards is precisely what it means for the Senate to exercise its constitutional power of advice and consent over the President's appointments. You have my word that Democrats in the Senate will take our constitutional duty seriously. I am prepared to ask Judge Roberts to speak freely and openly about his views on important national issues like the First Amendment, civil rights, and religious liberty. The views of the nominee will affect Americans for a generation and cannot be glossed over. America deserves a new Supreme Court justice who can unite the country and is committed to serving the broad national concern, not just powerful special interests. Like a wise judge, we must not rush to judgment. Supreme Court justices serve for a lifetime and there is a process to ensure that their credentials and qualifications are closely evaluated. That process must be allowed to occur. For a decision that could affect decades of jurisprudence, it is far more important that it is done right than that it is done quickly. Now that we have a nominee, the Senate has a duty to collect all the facts about his judicial philosophy and carefully consider his candidacy for the nation's highest court. I will be sure to keep you updated on our progress, but, for now, Senate Democrats are committed to a full and thorough review process. Only then can our great nation be confident that the next Supreme Court justice is fully committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of every American."I think that's a pretty good message. Tags: Supreme Court, John Roberts, DSCC|W|P|112188172003436613|W|P|DSCC statement by Chuck Schumer|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
A couple of bullet points which, you know, may or may not be relevant to anything, all from my morning reading (apologies to most of the sources, whom I've forgotten by now):