WaxWorks
|
Friday, July 22, 2005
Is Everyone in this Administration Involved in this Leak?
Musta slipped his mind. Looks like Mr. Bolton forgot to mention that he appeared before the Plame grand jury in the forms he filled out for his confirmation hearings.
Of course we know about Ari, who could be in some trouble too. And then there's Karen Hughes, who has appeared before the grand jury, and previously had this to say about Karl Rove's involvement:
Hughes said she was confident that her fellow Texan and sometime rival, Karl
Rove, the president's chief political adviser, didn't leak the name to a
syndicated columnist because "Karl has said that he was not involved."
And, of course, she also said this in her book about the leak:
In her book, Ten Minutes From Normal, Hughes discussed the leak, calling it "wrong" and "unfair" to Bush. Hughes earlier said the leak was "disruptive to
democracy." In her book, she said whoever conducted the leak "should come
forward and not hide behind journalistic ethics for his or her self-protection."
She added, "The use of unnamed sources has become a convenient way for too many political operatives to hide and avoid accountability for their statements."
All of my favorites from this Administration, all implicated at the same time. It doesn't get much better than that. Now, all we need is Condi, and we've got everyone. Oh, wait. We may have Condi in the soup too. Remember, Novak said one is his sources is "no partisan gunslinger," which is, of course, how the right views Condi, even though her record and repeated lies speak otherwise.
Also, wouldn't it be wonderful if, a la Martha Stewart, the act Rove was initially investigated for ultimately wasn't a crime, but he gets busted for his later obstruction of justice and perjury?
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Judge Roberts, Do You Believe There is A Right to Privacy in the Constitution?
Some conservatives have been claiming that Roberts doesn't need to answer the above question because neither Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer answered it.
Not so, says Craig Crawford:
There is disinformation out there claiming that Clinton nominees, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, refused to answer right-to-privacy
questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. Both answered some questions,
and refused others. But in Ginsburg's confirmation, she clearly told senators
she favored a right to abortion (and the Equal Rights Amendment). The right, she
stressed, should be grounded in a constitutional right to privacy and in the
14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause. (For more, see "Ginsburg Hearings
Provide Some Insight Into Judge's Ideals," Christian Science Monitor, July 26,
1993). Also, Breyer testified openly about his thinking on privacy rights. For
more on that, see "Breyer Charts Moderate Course to High Court," The National
Law Journal, July 25, 1994.
But, as usual, I don't expect a silly thing like "facts" to get in the way of the right-wing.
Two Thoughts on Roberts
For Roberts, the hearings will be particularly important, since he has little written record. But it's worth remembering what happened in his prior confirmation hearing for the DC Circuit in 2003. Illustrating the unfair manner in which Republicans have handled judicial nominations in the last 10 years, Hatch scheduled three nominees, including Roberts, to have their hearing on the same day. The obvious net result was that Democrats were extremely limited in their ability to question Roberts.
Also, it seems to be the big nomination now will be when Rehnquist goes. If Bush appoints another Roberts, then the Court obviously shifts right. But if he replaces Rehnquist with Gonzales, then we're right where we were before. Something to think about.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
A Really Big Tail
Remember in August 1998 when Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden, the most heinous terrorist in the world, after he had bombed two American embassies in Africa? Republicans went nuts, saying that Clinton was "Wagging the Dog," trying to change the subject from his Monica Lewinsky testimony. History has not been kind to this view, putting the lie to claims that Republicans are the better keeper of our national security. I'd like to see someone argue today that Clinton didn't do the right thing.
But this pick, at this time, after hearing that Bush was weeks away, coming on the verge of allegations about his chief political advisor and "architect", including the most recent that Rove likely lied to the FBI in his first interview in 2003 by somehow forgetting he spoke to Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame, is the most clear example of "Wagging the Dog" I've seen.
The Roberts nomination will likely take the oxygen out of the MSM for a few days, maybe a week. Thus, the blogosphere will be vital in keeping the Rove story moving.
Monday, July 18, 2005
A Little Comedic Relief
I saw this last week in the Washington Post and I had meant to post about it, but it slipped my mind. With the news that Bush's decision on a Supreme Court nominee may be imminent, I thought this article might be pertinent. It discusses the fact that the Conservative Caucus, with members including Alan Keyes, believes that only one person, and one person only, is qualifed to be appointed by the President to the Supreme Court:
In this room, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, assumed to be Bush's personal
favorite to replace O'Connor, is a "big step backward," and only one
man, really, is qualified for the job: Roy Moore, former chief justice of
Alabama, best known for refusing to follow a federal order to remove a
monument of the Ten Commandments from the state courthouse and was therefore
removed himself two years ago.
That's right, in their view, Roy Moore, and Roy Moore ONLY, is qualified for the Supreme Court. Man, I really love Alan Keyes.
Restoring Honesty and Integrity to the Oval Office
Per Kos, here's where we are today:
September 29, 2003:
McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."
September 30, 2003
Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Today:
Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Get Ready
The Washington Post is reporting today that President Bush is close to a pick for the Supreme Court. While I thought perhaps Bush might pick Gonzales and go the moderate route, all the data points to analyze indicate that he will go far, far right. Bush's approval rating is at 42% (astonishing numbers for someone who was reelected just last November) and he has a 56% disapproval rating. With those numbers and the Iraq war where it is, Bush simply can't afford to anger his base of religious conservatives -- they're what's keeping him from falling into the 30s. I hope I'm wrong, but I've got a feeling we're going to have a war.
And, when it happens, remember once again that Bush vowed to be "a uniter not a divider."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Pardon Me
Well, I guess Mr. "I Say What I Mean and Mean What I Say" President has a double standard when it comes to the guy whom he owes his political career. But just because Bush is being wishy-washy on his earlier claim to "fire" whomever was behind the leak in his Administration, doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea for the press to try pin down the President on whether he would agree to pardon whomever is responsible for the leak.
Because if it's Rove, that seems to be the most likely outcome. And it would be nice to get Bush on record now as denying he would do it.
