Scott McClellan to testify before Congress

Just hours after the House Judiciary Committee requested that former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify before Congress, McClellan has agreed.

Without question, things are going to be awfully interesting in our nation's capital this summer. McClellan is expected to testify on June 20, which, unfortunately, give political talking heads a full 11 days to debate, pontificate and interview each other in order to engage in wild speculation about what he will say.

I don't know what I'm looking forward to most - McClellan's testimony, the media circus that will no doubt ensue, or how the Bush White House will attempt to paint him as the most treasenous American since the Rosenbergs.

His testimony is expected be centered on the outing of Valerie Plame, but he is also expected to offer some insight into the blatant propaganda that the American was subjected to during the run-up to the War in Iraq.

Earlier today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent a letter to McClellan requesting his testimony.

HuffPo:

"I have extended an invitation...after discussions between Committee staff and his attorneys," wrote Conyers. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention."

The power of a president to pardon is unconditional in the Constitution, but I will go to my grave believing that Bush violated the spirit of what a presidential pardon is supposed to be. A just and forgiving society has to give its leaders the power to forgive, but that doesn't include the power to obstruct justice and to cover up criminal wrong-doing by an administration or its employees, and that's precisely what President Bush did by pardoning I. Lewis "Scotter" Libby.

I also have little doubt that Bush will pardon a whole bunch of scofflaws from this administration on his way out of the Oval Office next January. What's worse, Constitutionally, Congress is limited in what it can do to stop him, from how I understand it. However, by beginning impeachment proceedings against him, I'm pretty sure in assuming that he would not be able to pardon lawbreakers in this administration.

As if our political world needed any more drama this summer, it's getting a pretty big additional side order of just that. Not that I think it's a bad thing, but it's going to be a long, hot summer in our nation's capital.

Here's hoping that justice is finally served in the Valerie Plame case.

Bushed! Countdown tackles the lies...

Last night's version of Bushed! on Countdown tackled three pretty big lies -

1. Valerie Plame Affair - Scott McClellan's book has thrown a few more logs on the fire, and here's hoping that the Mustache of Justice, Henry Waxman, does the right thing by exploring McClellan's accusations.

2. The judge at Gitmo who was mysteriously replaced, a month before he was due to retire, because he didn't rule the way the military (Read: the Pentagon and the administration) wanted him to.

3. President Bush's appeasement speech - the disgrace continues. Not only is Israel talking to Syria, but the Iraqi government is talking to Iran. Strangely, President Bush has had nothing to say about it. Far-right ideologues aside, everyone knows the speech was an unqualified disgrace, and a complete farce. Here's hoping that voters don't forget this fall, and by that I mean McCain's comments in light of Bush's speech as well, well McSame parrotted what the president said in front of the Knesset.

Bush wishes USA Happy Fourth of July, torches Constitution

Politics can be an unpredictable circus in Washington, but it can also be highly predictable. Sadly, this administration is about as predictable as it gets. I find it a little ironic that as we celebrate the birth of our nation on Independence Day, that President Bush continues to take a torch to our Constitution. Happy Birthday, USA!

Even the most passive followers of Washington politics probably concluded that President Bush, Our National Embarrassment, was going to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby though - it was only a question of when. Of course, the White House isn't spinning it that way. It's a commutation of Libby's sentence, not a pardon - he still has two whole years probation and a $250,000 fine (which will no doubt be paid by Republican fat cats).

The timing of the announcement could not have been more deliberate, either. Well, I suppose Bush could have waited until the Fourth of July, or Christmas morning. Instead, he announced it as Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting the U.S. at President Bush Sr's Kennebunkport summer home. Once again, it's PR 101, which is also a bit too predictable; Bush thinks that most of us are too stupid to see through his amateurish PR diversions. Some of us are paying attention, Mr. President.

This is just the latest example of an administration that believes it's above the law, and considering the Democratic "response" to yesterday's announcement, it's virtually impossible to conclude otherwise.

Before I get to the Democratic response, a bit from Bush's statement about Libby's sentence commutation:

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Wow, that's pretty touching. I wonder - what about Valerie Plame's damage to her career? Or Joe Wilson's? Many people, especially Republicans, forget that this entire matter began when Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, was asked by this administration to serve his country by traveling to Africa to investigate trumped up claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase Uranium Yellowcake from Niger. It took Wilson about 15 minutes to conclude that the allegations were based on forged documents, which had more errors in them than a George Bush grammar test.

When Wilson returned to the U.S. and briefed the CIA and the administration on his findings, he was ignored. After all, this was an administration that had made up its collective mind, even before 9-11, that it was going to war with Iraq. Wilson's inconvenient findings weren't going to get in the way of the Bush War Machine that was already picking up speed.

When it became painfully evident to Wilson that his findings were being ignored, he went public with his findings in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, entitled What I Didn't Find In Africa. After taking readers through the process of his involvement in investigating Hussein's alleged purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and reasons why he thought these allegations were false, he wound up his piece with this:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March Meet the Press appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Well, Bush, Rove and Cheney weren't going to stand for that. So, they outed Wilson's wife, an undercover agent in the CIA, who had given over 20 years of her life to the agency. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they destroyed her career, AND, odds are, put people's lives in danger. Everyone Plame ever dealt with (including other agents) while undercover were compromised. Some people may have even died as a result of her cover being blown, but we'll never know; count that as yet another chapter to this sad story that the American public will never know the full truth about. There's a reason that exposing an covert agent is illegal - people's lives and careers are at stake. But, like so many other laws, this doesn't apply to Libby or this administration.

A quick sidebar - in the immediate aftermath of the scandal going public, Fox News and its bumbling cabal, led by Sean Hannity, desperately tried to portray Plame as a CIA agent who was NOT undercover. Arrrrrrnt. Wrong again, Sean. A CIA report revealed that she was covert at the time of Robert Novak's disgraceful column that started this whole scandal in the first place. Read about that Here.

Most curious of all were the responses from leading political figures in the aftermath of Bush's announcement.

Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority "Leader," had this to say:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.

Well, I'm sure glad that history will judge him harshly, because this Congress sure isn't going to do it. As if Congress has no power to do anything. Sure senator, let's just leave it up to history to weigh in against the president. Astonishing.

Of course, predictably, Republican presidential candidates were quick to give Bush kudos for his decision to let Libby off the hook.

Fred Thompson, who has emerged as a vocal advocate for Mr. Libby, said, "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." Hey Fred, just because you play a district attorney on TV doesn't make you an expert about this case. It's just absurd.

And, of course, America's Mayor, a former federal prosecutor, had to weigh in as well. Bush "came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," said Rudy Giuliani.

I wonder, if Libby was someone that Giuliani had prosecuted, how he would feel about the president's decision? Or if Libby were a Democrat, how Thompson would feel? Pretty amazing that Congress can impeach President Clinton for lying about a private, consensual (yet admittedly sleazy) affair with Monica Lewinsky, yet Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney will get away with outing a CIA agent's identity because her husband dared disagree with this war-mongering administration.

It also amusing to look back at then-candidate Bush's statements during the 2000 campaign about abiding by "the rule of law," a not-so-subtle jab at President Clinton.

So much for restoring "honor and integrity" to the Oval Office, Dubya.

Bill Maher is truly on a roll

I've been a critic of Bill Maher on a few occasions, but this is most definitely not one of them.

He seems to be gaining steam as his show's new season rolls on, and his diatribe last night against President Bush is as spot on as I've heard in Bush's second term, and probably during his entire presidency.

There's really not a whole lot more I can add to Maher's words here - just roll the footage, laugh, and ponder, because Maher slammed this one out of the park.

And for those of you who think that he's a bit vulgar, he is. I'm vulgar, too, at times, so the guy resonates. Anyone who can be vulgar in a funny way, and slam home a political point like he so succinctly does here is damn fine by me.

I particularly like two things about this clip:

1. He questions not only the president's judgment, but also his patriotism. Bravo. And for those of you who think that's outrageous, go back and watch this video clip again, and listen to Maher's words about what these people did to Valerie Plame. And they did it because she's married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, who dared to stand up and say "No!" to the administration's well-documented bogus claims about the Niger "sale" of yellowcake to Iraq.

2. His quote about Mark Twain: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

I love how Maher finishes up, too: Hillary Clinton should run for president in 2008 with the slogan "Restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office." That's the exact slogan that Bush used when running for president in 2000. Anyone think he's succeeded?

"Hey, at least there isn't SEX going on in the Oval Office anymore!" all the Clinton haters love to say.

Hogwash - Bush, Dick and Rove conjure up ways to sodomize their opponents each and every day. Okay, not every day - sometimes they spend the weekend in Camp David.

Keep 'em straight, Maher. You have no bigger fan right now than me.

KO weighs in on Plame's credibility

It's been awhile since Keith Olbermann has made an appearance on CMB, so this video clip is the best way to break that unintentional drought.

KO rightfully slams the right wing noisemakers who are now suggesting that Valerie Plame was an insignificant, "third rate" agent. My favorite was a simple-minded moron on Fox who hilariously suggested that Plame didn't have to leave the Central Intelligence Agency, that she could have transferred. So, where could she have gone, Human Resources? (Actually, yesterday I posted footage of this "simple-minded moron" - Republican strategist Edwina Rogers, a complete imbecile who spewed more lies during a two minute appearance on Neil Cavuto's Fox show on Friday than Richard Nixon did in a lifetime.)

Later on in this piece, Olbermann interviews Larry Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame's, who confirms that Plame was a covert agent. But, Johnson be damned - Brit Hume says it's untrue! Who should the American people believe - Hume, a Fox News hack, or a former CIA agent who worked with Plame?

Better yet, the current DCI, Michael V. Hayden, submitted a statement during the Scooter Libby Trial confirming the fact that Plame was a covert agent. So I guess the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency has it wrong, and Fox News has it right, right? I don't think Hollywood could come up with a more "out there" script than this.

The right's clumsy, pathetic attempts to smear Plame speaks a great deal about contemporary political discourse in America - the fact that the press will endlessly debate the meaning of "covert" and whether Plame was or wasn't, instead of focusing on the real issue here. Why is this still being discussed? It's clear she was covert, but the more time people on Fox and other networks devote to debating this already-established point, the less time people spend trying to get to the bottom of this administration's role in the outing of Plame in the first place.

One more thing people are missing. Often in political debates, I like to reverse the roles in a situation, to change the players, and reason if the outcome would be the same. Chew on this cud for second - imagine if someone in the Clinton Administration had blown the cover of a CIA agent in 1999 during the War in Kosovo. For instance, imagine a CIA agent's husband speaking out against the war. Try to go back in '99, to that politically charged, witch-hunt atmosphere. Can you even begin to imagine the outrage against Clinton if this would have happened then? It's not impossible to think that there probably would have been another impeachment trial.

Deep Plame questioning reveals little

If you're like most Americans, myself included, you're tired of the whole Red State/Blue State of our politics. One can't get away from it - on any given issue - there's the blue perspective, the red perspective, and then there's the American voters, standing in the middle, asking themselves, "Who the hell do I believe?"

Part of the whole Red vs. Blue is the reason I started this blog, because I'm so outraged at the incessant spinning of any given issue over the last almost 15 years. Some days I feel hopelessly partisan, and I'm not always sure that's a good thing. I've followed politics since I was eight or nine years old, but I began to get active in politics before the 1992 presidential election, and even more so after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. When the Republicans came to power, it seemed like they didn't bring their rule book with them. Anything and everything was fair game, and this reached its zenith with the Clinton Impeachment.

My point with this rambling is that it's Republicans who have made dividing America an art form. There are endless examples during this Bush Administration. In many ways, I'd hoped that the highpoint (or low point) of the Republican "Karl Rove" politics had passed with the November 2006 election, when those tactics were turned aside by American voters. However, the more times goes on, I wonder if it was just a PAUSE instead of the end of the Republicans' Divide and Conquer strategy.

There are so many examples of the GOP's Divide and Conquer, I won't try to even name some from the past year, because I could be here all night. But, one glaring example as of late is the reintroduction of homosexuality into political discourse, but more on that in a separate post.

Another example is today's Valerie Plame testimony, when it didn't take long for partisanship to rear its ugly head...

Here's an exchange between Plame and Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) (There's little doubt this is only the beginning, as she isn't done testifying just yet.)...

Westmoreland: Just to keep score, not that you would put yourself in any political category, would you say that you are a Democrat or a Republican?

Plame: Congressman, I'm not sure that that is...

Westmoreland: I know, but I mean, I gave a list of questions I couldn't ask you, and that wasn't one of 'em.

Plame: Yes Congressman, I am a Democrat. [Plame was clearly annoyed]

Westmoreland: You're a Democrat? Okay. [His voice inflection dripping with sarcasm]

How predictable was this? Another canard brought up by a Republican when it looks like his party is in trouble. If this is the type of questions that are going to be asked of witnesses, why not just close the committee down? Or, have Sean Hannity come and ask questions - that way, at least the partisanship and stupidity is apparent before the questions even begin.

Westmoreland's question is the most asinine I've heard any lawmaker ask a witness in a long time. Can "Are you, or are you not a member of the Communist Party" be far behind?

Get used to seeing and hearing that exchange, over and over and over. Fox News may even loop that video on repeat instead of having late night programming. This exchange will slam the door shut for at least 1/3 of the American public. That will be all of the information that sticks in most Americans' minds:

"Well, she's a Democrat, so that's all I needed to know!"

Disgusting, pathetic and laughable.

Notice how Westmoreland phrased the question carefully, while attempting to sound innocent and almost apologetic while asking it. But, he did intentionally and with an covert motive - if he was a lawyer, you could say he was doing it to put a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of many Americans, and there's little doubt he succeeded - it's just a matter of how many. I'm sure after questioning was completed today, Westmoreland was high-fiving and chest bumping with Republican House leadership.

It's just breathtaking to me that this is the type of question ANY member of Congress would ask Plame. Part of the reason this matter has received the attention it has is because this is about the outing of a CIA agent to get revenge on Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson, who DARED to stand up against an administration hell bent on war.

Something like this should be above party politics, but of course, people like Westmoreland prevent it from being so. As an American, I'm interested in the truth in this case, no matter where the truth leads, just like I am with the Walter Reed hospital fiasco, the WMD debate, and a whole host of other issues that have come up in the last 6+ years.

Plame was a CIA operative who was working in the counter-proliferation department. (Read: Working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons - you know, those pesky little things we went to war over. She was working to prevent terrorism - something this administration plants its flag at being the best at.) Plame was a covert operations officer, despite what you might her on Faux News Network, who have worked really hard to make the American public think that Plame was an insignificant CIA clerk or gofer.

I loved her testimony today that her CIA covert status was not common knowledge on "the Georgetown Cocktail Circuit." She had nothing to do with Joseph Wilson going to Niger, other than to come home one night to ask if he would come over to the CIA to talk to some people about the administration's claims of Iraq's WMDs.

As I type these words, the media is already offering its take on Plame's first day of testimony, but I'll end this one here. More thoughts on Plame's testimony later.

###

Before I end this one, though - one more thought on Westmoreland, for fun. He cosponsored legislation to have the Ten Commandments displayed in the House of Representatives and Senate, and also in courthouses in a historical setting, separation of church and state be damned.

During an appearance on The Colbert Report (above right), he couldn't name the Ten Commandments when given the opportunity, stumbling after three. (Of course, his PR flak claimed that he got up to seven, but that part was edited out of the tape.) Hey, whatever - I'd think that a high-minded Christian who wishes to have his religious beliefs pushed on the American public would know the Ten Commandments, chapter & verse.

Valerie Plame's opening statement

Today, Valerie Plame is testifying before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Here's her opening statement:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information. I'm grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today, I can tell this Committee even more.

In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

I love my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work. It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all of the value of my years of service were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, I was shocked at the evidence that emerged. My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department.

All of them understood that I worked for the CIA, and having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer. The CIA took great lengths to protect all of its employees, provided at significant taxpayer expense, painstakingly devised creative covers for its most sensitive staffers. The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave, but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing. But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized, even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, my fellow covert officers, to analysts to technical operations officers, even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.

We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies. It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover. Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, who has now been convicted of serious crimes, indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives. Within the CIA, it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it. The tradecraft of intelligence is not a product of speculation. I feel passionately as an intelligence professional about the creeping, insidious politicizing of our intelligence process. All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the ideal that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view. Any political view or any ideology. As our intelligence agencies go through reorganizations and experience the painful aspects of change, and our country faces profound challenges, injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop. Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligence services or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been and our country placed in even greater danger. It is imperative for any President to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased. The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq War highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards to intelligence collection and analysis and the protection of our officers and operations. The Congress has a Constitutional duty to defend our national security and that includes safeguarding our intelligence. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this Committee today and to assist in its important work.

Thank you and I welcome any questions.

# # # #

I'll have more on her testimony this weekend.

After I read this, I thought to myself that her statement was well thought out, coherent and to the point, but I'm not at all confident that these hearings are going to get anywhere. I'm glad that Rep. Henry Waxman (left) is holding these hearings, because it's certainly better than nothing, but I'm wondering if this is all a show trial.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is not going to testify, nor is anyone special from the White House, at least not that I've read yet. So, we'll see where this goes.

Photos from AP

Thank you Sean Hannity

Yea, you read that right. I’d like to thank Hannity for performing a valuable public service by having Harriet Grant (above, right), the wife of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on his radio show last Friday. Why? Because her appearance on Hannity’s show shattered to pieces what little sympathy I had for her husband.

I’ve heard of people maintaining innocence, and even a loyal spouse doing the same. One expects nothing different during a highly publicized trial like the Libby case, where her husband's freedom is at stake. But Grant took playing the victim to a whole new level last Friday, describing how her two children didn’t understand "why daddy is going to jail" and how she cried "for two days."

How about explaining to the kids how daddy helped to spread unlawful facts about an undercover agent that helps keep our country safe from the bad men?

Of course, Hannity, the master manipulator, played her appearance to the hilt, hanging on her every word while milking the perception that he’s one of the few voices in the media not railroading the Libby family.

Honestly, I was sick to my stomach listening to it. To hear Hannity and Libby’s wife tell it, Scooter just got caught up in events; Libby did nothing wrong or intentional.

Anyone who has done any reading on this administration knows it plays for keeps and that no one, from Bush and Cheney to their loyal soldiers, are too innocent to be above spreading a smear to settle a political score. And that’s exactly what the Valerie Plame case is all about – exacting revenge on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for his harsh words on the administration Iraq policy and eventual war.

I don’t know every single fact in the case, nor will I ever know everything. But, I know enough to know that Libby was a willing participant, not an innocent bystander.

For Libby’s wife to even insinuate that Libby was a victim of circumstances and caught up in events is absurd. He could have blown the whistle, quit, put up a fight, etc. I’m yet to read evidence that Libby was anything more than a partisan political operative. How could he not be described that way, having served as Cheney’s chief of staff for over five years? An even passive follower of U.S. politics knows that Cheney is one of the most powerful, partisan vice presidents in history.

What’s more, lost in the case is that Libby lied. He wasn’t convicted of outing Plame – those charges could have and should be filed against his superiors, Cheney and even Rove. (Perhaps they will be.)

When are people going to learn that it’s the lie that gets you? The outing of Plame, outrageous and illegal in its own right, is one thing. It’s quite another to willfully lie to the justice department and a grand jury investigating that matter, whether Libby played a role in the incident or not. Covering up for the responsible people is just as bad as the act itself, in my eyes.

A few things about lying to a grand jury, too: I’m already tired of hearing about the Libby/Clinton comparisons. First of all, Clinton lied about a private, personal matter that he never should have been questioned about in the first place. But, I’m not interested in reliving political rubbish from the 1990s.

Libby apologists keep bringing up Clinton, but when Libby chose to lie to a grand jury, it was about the intentional outing of a CIA agent. The Plame case is about federal agents’ lives being put in danger. Clinton’s dishonestly doesn’t even approach that.

Another word on Hannity

For a college drop-out, Hannity’s wise in one regard – he’ll probably never “pull a Coulter” by calling John Edwards a faggot, or saying the 9-11 widows enjoy their deaths. His uses his voice inflection and tone to make his intolerant points.

My favorite example is when Hannity (above) and others on Fox News mention Barack Obama – they’ll say Barack HUSSEIN Obama, obnoxiously stressing "Hussein." When critics point this out, they simply shrug and say, "That’s his name, isn’t it?"

Fox and its hosts’ agenda for smearing Democrats isn’t fooling anyone, except the sheep who have to listen to partisan hacks like Hannity to discover what political views they are supposed to have.

My Libby crystal ball

It's been a pretty memorable week in the world of Washington politics. But, the more I think about it, we can add "sad" and "injustice" to the never ending list of adjectives that should be applied to the Scooter Libby trial.

I won't hold the suspense - my prediction is that Libby never spends a day in jail. It's already obvious that his attorneys are planning to drag this out as long as possible. I'm not begrudging Libby that - it's his constitutional right to an appeal. But, I've read on some sites that Libby's final fate may not be determined until October 2008. Like that would be a surprise. Just like it was a huge surprise that the reading of the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was moved up to the Sunday before the election in November 2006.

Following the November 2008 election, President Bush has nothing to lose, and neither will has party, regardless of election results. Much like the president's father did on his way out of office with six Iran-Contra figures, Dubya may simply pardon Libby.

More on a potential pardon in a bit.

There are several tragedies in this case. First and foremost is Valerie Plame (right, with her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson), who did her duty as a civil servant for 20 years for the Central Intelligence Agency. She was outed by senior members of the Bush administration including Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, in retaliation for her husband's op-ed column in The New York Times. Wilson's column blasted the Bush administration for its wanton desire to go to war in Iraq.

[Quick aside: Wilson was sent by the Bush administration to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought Uranium yellowcake there for its alleged nuclear weapons program. It took Wilson about five minutes to discover that the allegations were based on forged documents and were unequivocally inaccurate. Despite Wilson's findings, Bush used the now infamous 16 words in his January 2003 State of the Union Address: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Bush said these words against the advice of Wilson, the CIA, the State Department and numerous other agencies and individuals. When Wilson's column appeared in the New York Times, the Bush administration was determined to not let him get away with it. So, revenge was taken on Wilson by conservative columnist Robert Novak's public revelation of Plame as a CIA agent. We now know that Novak was fed this information by Rove and Libby. Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a felony. For more reading on the Plame Affair, go Here.]

Testimony in this case revealed in intricate detail that Rove and Cheney were behind Plame's outing. However, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald (above), has announced that he doesn't plan to pursue any other charges in the case, despite the revelations that Cheney and Rove were right in the heart of the decision to smear Wilson and Plame.

I only have one word for Fitzgerald's decision to not pursue the matter further: Why?

Fitzgerald is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. I won't call him a failure, because he did win a conviction of Libby (above, with his wife, Harriet Grant).

I have a hard time believing that Fitzgerald is not taking marching orders from someone, somewhere. How else can one explain his failure to pursue chargers against Cheney and Rove? I'm not hoping for a political witch hunt here, (c. 1998), but what I do hope for is justice. Cheney and Rove broke the law. So, why aren't charges being filed?

There's now a big movement afoot on the 'Net, most notably on right-wing blogs and even some nationally respected publications, such as the National Review, to pardon Libby. The people who are hoping for a Libby pardon are short on memory and long on hypocrisy.

I'm not without sympathy for Libby on some levels, but he still deserves to be punished. I have no doubt that Libby is being hung out to dry and is being used as a scapegoat for this incident.

Libby should be punished because he was a willing participant in outing Plame, period. It should be noted that Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Without the testimony from various witnesses that revealed the activities of Cheney and Rove, Libby would never have been convicted. This isn't nuclear astrophysics, people.

Didn't we impeach a president for perjury once? Many Republicans thought that trying to politically lynch President Clinton was a grand idea in 1998. And Clinton's perjury was only over a blowjob, a private matter. Now, when national security and the lives of CIA agents are at the heart of a perjury conviction, a pardon is a terrific idea?!? Clinton may not have inhaled, but it's pretty obvious that some Libby supporters have.

The only hope that cases may be brought against Rove and Cheney will be at Libby's sentencing. If the judge throws the book at him, then perhaps Libby might have some very interesting things to say to federal prosecutors.

But, even that may not happen, if there's been a sweetheart deal between Libby and his former superiors. [Read: Someone from the administration blowing in Libby's ear: "Hey Scooter! If you are found guilty and are sentenced to prison, you'll be pardoned. Now keep your mouth shut."]

If Bush pardons Libby, there may not be any legal recourse, other than voters doing something about it by making the Republican Party suffer... in 2010! The president has the Constitutional right to pardon whomever he likes, and every president has done it. But, there are questions - can he or should he pardon someone who was a senior administration official? Of course, that didn't stop President George H.W. Bush from pardoning Iran-Contra figures Caspar Weinberger, John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams. So, who knows how a pardon or potential pardon could play out?

My favorite part about a pardon for Libby is this - right-wingers who work for Fox State TV like Sean Hannity won't be able to spin a Libby pardon by getting on TV and blabbering something along the lines of, "I don't mean to bring up Clinton, but Marc Rich..."

Why? Because Libby was an attorney for Rich, and he worked for a time behind the scenes to get Rich exonerated following his conviction in 1983 on income tax evasion. (Incidentally, I'm sick to death of hearing about the Marc Rich pardon. Yes, Clinton pardoned him, but it was for tax evasion. A serious crime, but many presidents have pardoned many people for far worse. See the paragraph above, or read about the Nixon pardon. And Clinton did make a condition of the pardon that Rich pay a $100 million fine, and it's not like he doesn't have the money. I've read he's worth well over $1 billion. Oh, and all of those Clinton pardons? Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress appointed Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White to investigate. Just like Kenneth W. Starr before her, she found nothing amiss about the Clintons.)

There's also a strong possibility that there's some PR at work here, too. It's one of the oldest PR and political tricks in the book, and it goes something like this: Leak a controversial idea to the media, let the outrage come forth, and it will die down by the time we actually do what's being proposed.

The media is dropping the ball on this one - everyone is already acting like a Libby pardon is a inevitability. It cannot be, should not be, and if it does happen, the American public shouldn't take it sitting down. But, only time will tell.

Circle November, 5, 2008, on your '08 calendar when you get one. That's the day after the election, and if the election is decided by the next morning (!), the countdown will be on until the end of the Bush Presidency. (Wait, we already are counting down - 683 days left in this administration!) The countdown will also then be on until the Bush pardons, too.

Fitzgerald photo and one beneath it - AP
Bottom Image "The Counts" - Wonkette

More PBS Frontline on prewar press

About a week and a half ago, I wrote about a great PBS Frontline piece about prewar intelligence. (Click Here to see my previous thoughts.) It just occurred to me that I never brought you the other two parts, so here they are. This is pretty powerful stuff. I have to confess that I grow tired of people saying that we "shouldn't look back" or that we "shouldn't continue to debate how we got started in the war" or "why we went over there." Ree-diculous.

Anyway, I found this to be very thought provoking and informative, so I wanted to bring you the rest of it. Actually, here's Part I again, and Parts II & III follow...

PART ONE



PART TWO



PART THREE

Woodward should thank Foley

Bob Woodward should thank disgraced House member Mark Foley for his recent sex scandal.

Why?

Were it not for Foley, I absolutely guarantee that Bush, Karl Rove and their cabal would be coming after Woodward, guns blazin'. The question isn't if they will do it, but how. I write this because once the Foley mess dies down (or maybe even despite it), they will not let Woodward's unflattering tome of the Bush Administration go unanswered.

This is a ruthless party that will stop at just about nothing to stay in power. I bought State of Denial on audio CD and I've been listening to it every day on the way home from work. It's a sobering experience.

Woodward's paper, The Washington Post, largely gave the president a pass during the run-up to the War in Iraq (along with just about every other major newspaper and media outlet in this country). Another black mark for Woodward is his paper's coverage of the Valerie Plame Affair (I read the Post, so I have some perspective).

However, having said all of that, Woodward has about the best reputation and highest integrity of any journalist in our mainstream media today, and it's well earned. I'm not going to get into all of the reasons why or BW's past accomplishments (which are many), but it's tough to argue with his credentials, and that's due in no small part to his sources, many well placed and high up in our government.

My point? When Woodward makes accusations about an administration, people on both sides of the political aisle listen. And what he has to say in State of Denial is startling, damning, and it should frighten every American citizen.

When I finish the book, I will write a complete review.

Stay tuned.

Rove to be indicted?

I'm reading that Karl Rove may be indicted as early as tomorrow in the Valerie Plame Affair. So, King Karl may be the source. There's a surprise. This would be the most anti-climactic indictment in political history. Even a passing observer of politics could surmise that Rove probably played a key role in blowing the cover of Plame, the wife of Joseph Wilson, the man who dared to stand up to the Bush White House about phoney WMD prewar intel. If it doesn't happen tomorrow, I'm wondering how long it will take. Man, every time you open up the newspaper, it seems another Republican is being indicted or stepping down from a position of prominence. First DeLay, now possibly Rove. No one would deserve this more than Rove, who has made sport of dividing and marginalizing the American public in the name of winning elections. It just further evidence that eventually power corrupts, and that goes for both sides of the aisle. Just when someone thinks he really is a genius, arrogance sets in. With arrogance comes the aura of invincibility. And with that comes the mirage that one is above the law. Wait, am I talking about Nixon or Rove here? Maybe we'll get to see the image below for real tomorrow, or real soon. Rove in a perp walk? Might as well cancel Christmas.