A Culture of Corruption

Republicans have been arguing that, despite a rash of scandals, indictments and guilty pleas, that it is wrong for the Democrats to try to tar all Republicans with the sins of a few bad apples.

That argument is going to be a little bit harder to make with straight face now that James Tobin, former New England Chairperson for Bush/Cheney '04, has been convicted of participating in a conspiracy to harass the Democratic get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day in NH in 2002.

Why?

Because the Republican National Committee (which pretty much defines the Republican party) was paying Tobin's legal fees for high-priced DC lawyers at Williams and Connolly, to the tune of over $2 million.

Hmm. Leads you to believe that maybe the RNC and higher-ups in the Republican party had some pretty significant to hide and protect, huh? We may find that out in the ensuing civil suit. The head of the RSCC during that election cycle? Bill Frist.
- posted by Joshua @ 4:36 PM (0) comments

 
Elf Torture

In an effort to distract Americans from the Republican's ethics problems and the disasterous war in Iraq, Fox News has been focusing non-stop on the frivolous wedge-issue of an alleged "war on Christmas" by supposed secularists and atheists. Citing examples of "Holiday Sales" instead of "Christmas Sales," Fox, led by John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly, has been contending that liberals are trying to wash people of faith out of the public mainstream. Of course, this argument has been seriously undercut by the fact that the Bush Administration Christmas card this year refers only to the "holiday season," and not Christmas, and in several appearances in the past month, Laura Bush has used the phrase "Happy Holidays."

But other networks, thinking that they should replicate Fox to get ratings, have followed suit, leading to this wonderful exchange on CNN yesterday between host Kyra Phillips and Sam Seder from Air America, and Bob Knight from Christian conservative Culture and Family Institute. (Click here for a video link.)

PHILLIPS: Let's start with the holiday card. What do you think, Sam?

SEDER: Listen, as far as the war on Christmas goes, I feel like we should
be waging a war on Christmas. I mean, I believe that Christmas, it's almost
proven that Christmas has nuclear weapons, can be an imminent threat to this
country, that they have operative ties with terrorists and I believe that we
should sacrifice thousands of American lives in pursuit of this war on
Christmas. And hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

PHILLIPS: Is it a war on Christmas, a war Christians, a war on
over-political correctness or just a lot of people with way too much time on
their hands?

SEDER: I would say probably, if I was to be serious about it, too much time
on their hands, but I'd like to get back to the operational ties between Santa
Claus and al Qaeda.

PHILLIPS: I don't think that exists. Bob? Help me out here.

SEDER: We have intelligence, we have intelligence.

PHILLIPS: You have intel. Where exactly does your intel come from?

SEDER: Well, we have tortured an elf and it's actually how we got the same
information from Al Libbi. It's exactly the same way the Bush administration got
this info about the operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam.

PHILLIPS: Okay, Bob Knight, Sam is tying in now the lack of information
regarding weapons of mass destruction and somehow moving that into Santa Claus.
Help me out here. What's going on? Is this a war on Christians, a war on
Christmas? Is this too much political correctness?

BOB KNIGHT, CULTURE AND FAMILY INSTITUTE: Well, first I want to compliment him on his dry humor, but this is actually a very serious subject, because a lot of people are waking up to realize that the war on Christmas is really the
culmination of a war on faith and the idea that the public square has to be
cleansed of any religious expression, particularly Christian religious
expression. At one time "happy holidays" was a welcome addition to "Merry
Christmas," so you wouldn't say the same thing over and over again, but a lot of
people now see it as a substitute, and it's very gratuitous at times. And it's
actually insulting when you're talking about Christmas day or a Christmas tree
and you can't bring yourself to use the word for fear of offending someone. In
the name of diversity we're a less free country when that happens.

PHILLIPS: It's interesting, Sam, because this is a time where, if anything,
we want to be even more sensitive to diversity considering everything that's
happening with regard to war on terror, we're learning so much more about
different religions, different ethnicities and trying to become more of one,
versus being segregated.

SEDER: Yes, well, Kyra, I mean, listen, I would like Bob to tell me who is
the person who has been offended by someone saying Merry Christmas to them? I've never met that person. I don't celebrate Christmas. But if someone says "Merry
Christmas" to me, I either think, well, it's a little bit odd, it's like me
saying happy birthday to you on my birthday, but no one cares. But I will tell
you this, as we wage the war on the war on the war on the war on Christmas on
our radio show. News Corp., Fox News, those people who have started this entire
war on Christmas mean, fake war, they're having a holiday party. President Bush
saying "Happy Holidays." Tokyo Rose, Laura Bush, saying "Happy Holidays" to her
dogs in the video, I'm sure you've seen it. I mean, these are the things that we
should be talking about when we are waging this war in Iraq, we should be
equating it to the war on Christmas.What else would Bob Knight have an
opportunity to do, how else would he get on television if he wasn't pretending
to be attacked.

KNIGHT: This would be funny except it is serious to a lot of people who
have seen their faith cleansed from the public square systemically.

SEDER: Are you suggesting, Bob, that someone can't celebrate Christmas in
America? Tell me about the person who can escape the celebration.

Be sure to read until the end to see Seder's reaction when Knight uses a Nazi analogy to sum up his argument, leading to this sign off:

KNIGHT: Well, I'd like to say Merry Christmas if I have the
opportunity.

SEDER: Don't cut and run from the war on Christmas.

PHILLIPS: Thanks, gentlemen, talk to you later.

- posted by Joshua @ 4:59 PM (0) comments

 
Red Rover

Viveca Novak has provided testimony for Patrick Fitzgerald concerning her conversation with Karl Rove's attorney, Bob Luskin. She's written about her testimony for Time. First of all, like Judy Miller, Novak has some credibility problems in that she can't seem to recall when the conversation with Luskin took place. She originally testified that it could have been in January or May, most likely May. She then testified again that it might have been March 1, based on her calendar.

But for me the oddest thing is how this whole thing came about. Rove's defense is that he didn't intentionally fail to reveal his call with Cooper; he just forgot about it. However, this is how Novak says her meeting with Luskin unfolded:

Here's what happened. Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin
looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper
problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he
was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's
not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's
nothing in the phone logs," he said.

Yet at the time of Novak's conversation with Luskin, there hadn't been speculation that "Karl had a Cooper problem." Yes, Cooper had written a story about Plame. But in the beginning of 2004 there weren't accusations swirling around that Rove was a source for Cooper. So it seems really, really odd that Luskin would have made that statement to Novak. It would be like me posting, "WaxWorks does not contribute funds to the Iraqi insurgency," when no such accusation has ever been made. Asserting such a thing points to a guilty conscience.

Until Cooper got subpoened in May, there wasn't much speculation period about Cooper. And I suspect that is ultimately the point. Rove thought he could get away with not telling prosecutors about his conversation with Cooper, because Cooper wasn't talking and no one else knew. Therein likely lies the purpose behind Luskin's conversation with Novak: he was seeking intelligence about whether anyone else knew about the Cooper conversation.

Remember Scooter Libby's letter to Judy Miller, providing her a waiver to testify? Luskin's statement to Novak is actually quite similar to Libby informing Judy Miller, while on the one hand giving her permission to talk about any conversations they had concerning Plame, that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call." It's now clear from the indictment that this statement simply wasn't true -- or was at best purposefully misleading.

In essence, Luskin, like Libby, appeared to be fishing to confirm that a tactic of continuing to deny that Rove spoke with Cooper would be effective. Instead, he got the opposite and Rove ultimately faced the music and changed his testimony. Interesting too that Rove did so only 2 days after Cooper was held in contempt, not immediately after Luskin spoke with Novak. Sounds like he knew that the gig was up.

For what it's worth, I don't think this Luskin-Novak conversation saves Rove from prosecution for failing to inform investigators that he spoke to Novak about Plame. Especially since Libby's indictment, in paragraph 21, makes clear that Rove told LIBBY that he spoke to Novak, but somehow Rove forgot to tell the FBI the same thing.
- posted by Joshua @ 5:22 PM (0) comments