WaxWorks
|
Friday, August 26, 2005
Jon Stewart Is the Master
Fom The Daily Show:
Bush, addressing National Guard convention: "Nineteen individuals have served both as guardsmen and as President of the United States, and I'm proud to have been one."
Stewart: Ah, the first rule of public speaking: always start with a joke.
To Recuse or Not To Recuse
There's been some interesting discussion about John Roberts' decision not to recuse himself from a detainee case involving President Bush as a defendant that he heard on the DC Circuit just several days after he was first interviewed by the White House for a potential Supreme Court vacancy. (Here's a good summary of the issues involved). Legal ethics experts have said that, once Roberts was being interviewed by the Administration for prospective employment, he should have recused himself from the detainee case, or, at a minimum, informed the parties of his discussions, which would have allowed a party to make a formal motion for his recusal.
There's some pretty good precedent in favor of the argument that Roberts should have recused himself:
In 1985, a federal appeals court in Chicago cited the requirement of the
appearance of impartiality when it ordered the recusal of a federal judge who,
planning to leave the bench, had hired a "headhunter" to approach law firms in
the city. By mistake—and, in fact, contrary to the judge's instructions—the
headhunter contacted two opposing firms in a case then pending before the judge.
One firm rejected the overture outright. The other was negative but not quite as
definitive. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Richard A. Posner emphasized
that the trial judge "is a judge of unblemished honor and sterling character,"
and that he "is accused of, and has committed, no impropriety." Nevertheless,
the court ordered the judge to recuse himself because of the appearance of
partiality. "The dignity and independence of the judiciary are diminished when
the judge comes before lawyers in the case in the role of a suppliant for
employment. The public cannot be confident that a case tried under such
conditions will be decided in accordance with the highest traditions of the
judiciary." Although both law firms had refused to offer him employment, the
court held that "an objective observer might wonder whether [the judge] might
not at some unconscious level favor the firm … that had not as definitively
rejected him."
In the fall and winter of 1984, a criminal-trial judge in the District
of Columbia was discussing a managerial position with the Department of Justice
while the local U.S. attorney's office—which is part of the department—was
prosecuting an intent-to-kill case before him. Following the conviction and
sentence, the judge was offered the department job and accepted. On appeal, the
United States conceded that the judge had acted improperly by presiding at the
trial during the employment negotiations. It argued, however, that the
conviction should not be overturned. The appeals court disagreed. Relying on
Judge Posner's opinion in the Chicago case, as well as the rules of
judicial ethics, the court vacated the conviction even though the defendant did
not "claim that his trial was unfair or that the [the judge] was actually biased
against him." The court was "persuaded that an objective observer might have
difficulty understanding that [the judge] did not … realize … that others might
question his impartiality."
But Roberts did not. Interestingly, back when he worked in the Reagan White House, he faced a similar issue and chose to recuse himself in that occassion:
In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office
for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney
named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied:
I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions
with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.
Now, let's be clear, the precedents cited above do not require that the individual be influenced in his judicial decision making by the employment offers, but rather that the appearance alone should require recusal. Roberts recognized that in 1986, but in 2005, when he was faced with numerous other potential applicants for one of only 9 jobs, he may have decided he needed to impress the people making the job offer as much as possible.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
One of the Funniest Corrections Ever
From the September 2005 Washingtonian magazine, page 15:
A caption for one of the photographs in a June Capital Comment item
titled, "McLaughlin's Sunday Brunch Bunch" mistakenly identified two women
standing with Sopranos actor Joe Pantoliano as Playboy bunnies, which
is how they were identified by others in attendance. In fact, the women
hold professional positions with an international organization in
Washington. The Washingtonian regrets the error.
Vacation? What Vacation?
Apparently taking a month off for cycling while over 60 Americans have died in Iraq isn't going over so well. Apparently, "I've got a life to live" is no longer operative, what with the 36% approval rating and all.
Here's the latest White House spin as to why Bush is spending a month in Texas: why, they're renovating their house in Washington and they just needed a place to crash:
Almacy said the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to the
renovation of the West Wing of the White House.
"He's operating on a full schedule; he's just doing it from the ranch
instead of from the White House,' Almacy said. "The only week he had officially
off was this last week.'
And Cindy Sheehan will back later today, I hear. Good thing Bush is not on vacation.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
There Was Fishing But No Shaking of the Trees
It's hard to know what to make of the Able Danger story, in which (now) two sources claim they ID'd Mo Atta in early 2000, but were forbidden by Pentagon lawyers from sharing the info with the FBI. (Conservatives have incorrectly tried to tie this to the so-called "wall" supposedly erected by 9/11 Commission member and former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, but, as anyone with the ability to digest simple facts should know, that alleged "wall" was between the Justice Department and the FBI, not the Pentagon. But on the right, why deal with the truth when you can just blame Clinton?)
And blame Clinton conservatives have, claiming that the Able Danger story is another reason to pin 9/11 on Clinton. But there I think is where their analysis is (not surprisingly) faulty, as this news just once again proves how incredibly negligent Bush and Rice were in August 2001. You see, Bush received his infamous PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States" on August 6, 2001. And then went fishing. Did NOTHING.
Now, according to Richard Clarke, when the Clinton Administration received a high level of chatter about the possibility of a terrorist attack, it handled the matter a little bit different:
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism,
even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous
chatter.
The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet
was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him
every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United
States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in
June, July, August."
Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter
was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White
House. Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations--
meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.
That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles
International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with
Canada, driving a car full of explosives.
Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations
when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11:
"He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the
subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a
Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."
Basically, Clarke says that, after getting intelligence reports about the possible terrorist threat, Clinton held daily meetings, forcing his Cabinet to go make their respective agencies each night and "shake the trees" in order to find out if ANYTHING was out there, to report back at the next day's meeting. Bush, tragically, never did that. If he had, then perhaps this Able Danger information or the other information about the terrorists going to flight school might have been pieced together somehow, and a major attack might have been avoided, just like Clinton had thwarted the LAX attack.
But we will never know, because Bush and Rice did nothing. Such horrific negligence.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Time For A Terror Alert?
Bush's approval rating is down to 36%. Lower, I should add, than Nixon during the summer of 1973.
Tom Tomorrow accurately depicts those 36% here.
His Extra Large Pants Are On Fire
Rush Limbaugh made some pretty strange comments about Cindy Sheehan last week:
But the fact that they are too eager -- I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just
Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents, there's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it, it's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt, it's the latest effort made by the coordinated left. And all of these efforts are bombing; they're all
failing miserably, in and of themselves.
So after Limbaugh made these comments, he was castigated, righly so, for not living in reality. (Although I'm still waiting for conservative bloggers who flogged the Bush documents story and the Schiavo memo story to come to his defense). Keith Olbermann then named Limbaugh his "Worst Person in the World" two nights later for this comment as well as some other comments Rush made about Sheehan (including this golden oldie: "I'm weary of even having to express sympathy... we all lose things.").
So how did Limbaugh react, a la Bill O'Reilly when Al Franken challenged him on his Peabody Award claim: Limbaugh said that he never said it. Nope. Never, ever, ever. He even went so far as to have the transcript erased from his website. (Unfortunately for him, people like Media Matters actually make tapes of his audio broadcasts, although my greatest sympathies go out to those who actually have to listen to him).
Here's Olbermann's take on the whole sorry episode:
There is nothing wrong with an unpopular opinion.
Nor is there anything wrong with a subversive one, nor a crazy one. This
country was founded on opinions that were deemed by the powers-that-were to be
unpopular, subversive, and crazy. Dissent - even when that dissent strays from
logic or humanity - is our life’s blood. But if you have one of those opinions,
and you express it in public, honesty and self-respect require you to own up to
it.
Unless you’re Rush Limbaugh.
On his daily radio soap opera, on August 15, Limbaugh said “Cindy Sheehan
is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents, there's
nothing about it that's real…” The complete transcript of the 860 words that
surround those quotes can be found at the bottom of this entry.
Yet, apparently there was something so unpopular, so subversive, and so
crazy about those remarks that he has found it necessary to deny he said them -
even when there are recordings and transcripts of them - and to brand those
who’ve claimed he said them as crackpots and distorters. More over, that amazing
temple to himself, his website, has been scrubbed clean of all evidence of these
particular remarks, and to ‘prove’ his claim that he never made the remarks in
question on August 15, he has misdirected visitors to that site to transcripts
and recordings of remarks he made on August 12.
Limbaugh is terrified. And he has reason to be.
Preaching to the Choir
Today, rather than meeting with Cindy Sheehan, President Bush has chosen to interrupt his much-needed vacation and travel to Utah and Idaho to give speeches concerning the war in Iraq.
Utah and Idaho might sound like odd choices, but, for a President who doesn't ever like to deal with people who disagree with him (a la the handpicked social security "town hall" meetings), it makes perfect sense.
See, Bush has a positive approval rating in only 10 states. And, yep, Utah and Idaho are both one of the ten. Idaho in fact is where Bush is the most popular right now, with a 68% approval rating. If poll results equalled electoral college results, Bush would have 75 electoral college votes right now.
