Haunting the Web Since 1999
With indictments — and resignations — now the likely result of Patrick Fitzgerald‘s investigation into Plamegate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gamely floats the “Aw, who cares about a little perjury?” defense. Somehow, I don’t think that that dog’s gonna hunt.
(Which reminds me, Sen. Hutchison, you once voted to convict a president on “some perjury technicality”…ask your staffers about it.)
“‘The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney,’ Mr. Scowcroft told Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker. ‘I consider Cheney a good friend – I’ve known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore.'” As Cheney consigliere Scooter Libby preps for a likely Plamegate perp walk, the NYT refocuses on the broader question of our entry into the Iraq war. And, as the Scowcroft quote attests (and as Medley also notes), prominent Republicans are starting to pile on. “‘Iraq was at core a war of choice, and extraordinarily expensive by every measure – human life, impact on our military, dollars, diplomatically,’ said Mr. [Richard] Haass, a former senior State Department official under President Bush.“
Or, as former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson puts it, “[T]he case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my study of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn’t know were being made.“
Update: Jeffrey Goldberg discusses his Scowcroft piece, and Slate‘s Fred Kaplan evaluates it, noting that George H.W. Bush is also something of a Dubya critic in the article. Speaking of Scowcroft, Dubya Sr. says: “He has a great propensity for friendship. By that, I mean someone I can depend on to tell me what I need to know and not just what I want to hear….[He] was very good about making sure that we did not solely consider the ‘best case,’ but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not.” Listen up, sonny…Papa just learned you.
As Washington waits for the Plamegate endgame and the administration prepares for a possible White House without Rove and Libby, the Post offers brief primer on the major figures in the scandal. Meanwhile, fresh off his felon photo-op, the Hammer tries to get a new judge in his Texas money-laundering case, and seems to be trying every trick in the book to turn his trial into a partisan sideshow. But remember, Boss DeLay, the Abramoff case is closing in fast…
“Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way.” (Then again, pretty much everything about this administration is bush-league.) A new report indicates that, contrary to previous White House statements and leaks, Dubya knew about Rove’s role in Plamegate from the start. Strange this information is being leaked on the eve of indictments…
“‘We’ve had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks…We’ve gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn’t actually happening.'” As the Republicans fall into further disarray over such matters as Harriet Miers, the slew of indictments, and Katrina spending, it now appears that the GOP is even having trouble lining up candidates for 2006. But can the Dems capitalize on the GOP house divided? If Katrina is any indication, we’re still clearly in deep, deep trouble. For even despite all the current legal and political woes for Dubya and the sheer rapacity of Operation Offset, many on the left see the post-Katrina debate over poverty slipping away…
“Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, ‘I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town…. We were talking. And Pat said, “You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.” And we all said, “Yeah.” That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.'” By way of a friend of mine from high school, The Nation‘s Dave Zirin explains how the Dubya administration’s use of slain NFL safety (and Chomsky fan) Pat Tillman as poster boy for the Iraq war was, like so much else in the lead-up to this conflict, built on lies.
“President Bush’s speech this morning, billed as a major statement about Iraq and the war on terror, was a sad spectacle — so ripe with lofty principles, so bereft of ideas on what to do with them. He approached the podium amid growing disapproval of his performance as a war president, ratcheting chaos and violence in Iraq, continuing terrorist attacks worldwide — and pleaded for nothing more than staying the course, with no turns or shifts, for a long, long time to come.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan surveys, and bemoans, Dubya’s “big” Iraq speech this morning.
“She may turn out to be the greatest thing since Antonin Scalia, but when will we know that?” Two days after the Harriet Miers pick, and despite news reports accentuating her strong evangelicism, conservatives are still openly perturbed by the choice (George Will is particularly livid.) As for how she stands on the issues, we still know very little, other than her mixed record on gay rights and probable pro-life stance. (Well, presumably, she’s also pro-lottery.) Nevertheless, it sounds like she’s probably already got Harry Reid’s vote.
In the early morning, Dubya chooses White House Counsel Harriet Miers as the next Supreme Court nominee. (Searching far and wide again, I see.) Well, let the vetting begin. On the plus side, the fundies seem perturbed, and she has some Dem donations in her past. On the other hand, she’s a rabid Bush loyalist, calling him “the most brilliant man she had ever met.” (Get out much?) Update: The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol is disappointed, depressed, and demoralized by the Miers pick, while Legal Times was already unenthused about her. Update 2: Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon are similarly nonplussed: “Can anyone really imagine that she’d be the nominee if she weren’t a woman and the president’s friend and loyal adviser? Cronyism and affirmative action: It’s a nasty mix.“
“I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.” As the Roberts nod goes to the full Senate (my thoughts on Roberts below), Dubya hints at a woman and/or minority justice for O’Connor’s seat. With these parameters in mind, Salon‘s Tim Grieve surveys the most likely choices. Among them are faces familiar — Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown, for example — and unfamiliar, such as Maureen Mahoney, the “female John Roberts.” (And, of course, there’s always Gonzales, although his star seems to have dimmed.)