The Political Chase

Senators Get Personal

TPM has a post about Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) in a heated exchange.

—–

83,000 Detainees in Four Years

Wow! I had no idea that “rounding up the usual suspects” was this massive! 83,000 detainees (foreigners) since the war on terror began four years ago. There are 14,500 in custody in Iraq today.
I can’t wait to hear Dick Cheney’s justification for this.

Minding Our Own Business

George Bush wants to “spread democracy” (by pointing a gun barrel), and more Americans are saying we should mind our own business, according to the Pew Research Center.

—–

Alaskan Bridge Projects Whacked

I really know nothing about this issue, other than it has been just that – an issue. I can’t say what the impact to Alaskans will be, but on the surface it looks like Congress got something right. Instead of more tax cuts, Congress decided to cut spending on what appears to be non-essential projects. Congress cut funding for the two controversial Alaskan bridges.

If memory serves me well, I seem to remember one of the Alaskan Senators (maybe Rep.?) saying he would resign from the Senate if funding was removed.

Film at 11:00.

—–

Sheehan Convicted

Cindy Sheehan convicted for demonstrating in front of the White House.

—–

Elliott Ness strikes again

Patrick Fitzgerald’s part time job.

—–

Clinton Joins in the Chorus

Bill Clinton decided it was time to jump in the fray over Iraq.

“It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors … one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country.”

Bush Questioned on Cheney Remarks

Hey, if the shoe fits, then put the bloody thing on. I think a quote from Josh Marshall is the best response to the president and his junkyard dog, Dick Cheney. "The judgment of history hangs over this guy like a sharp, heavy knife. His desperation betrays him. He knows it too."

President Bush at press conference today in South Korea on Dick Cheney’s remarks last night.

Q Mr. President, Vice President Cheney called it reprehensible for critics to question how you took the country to war, but Senator Hagel says it’s patriotic to ask those kinds of questions. Who do you think is right?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The Vice President.

Q Why?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that’s irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted — many of them voted to support the decision I made. It’s irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business making — winning this war. But it’s irresponsible to do what they’ve done. So I agree with the Vice President.

Q — (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions. It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the — many of them came to the same conclusion I did. Listen, I — patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That’s exactly what is taking place in America.

—–

Josh Marshall on Rewriting History

Josh Marshall has an excellent post from a few days ago (I’ve just gotten around to reading it), in response to the president’s Veteran’s Day speech. If you will remember, the president accused his critics of rewriting history. My comments on his remarks were stronger than anything I have ever posted in this blog.

Following is the first graf in Josh’s piece. If you are a frequent reader of his material, you know these are extraordinarily strong statements for Josh.

What a sorry, sorry, unfortunate president — caught in his lies, his half-truths, his reckless disregard — caught with, well - caught with time. Time has finally caught up to him. And now he doesn’t have the popularity to beat back all the people trying to call him to account. He could; but now he can’t. So he’s caught. And his best play is to accuse his critics of rewriting history, of playing fast and loose with the truth — a sad, pathetic man.

Those are strong words coming from Josh, but he really brings things together quite nicely in this graf, but with a powerful punch.

In the president’s new angle that his critics are trying to “rewrite history”, those critics might want to point out that his charge would be more timely after he stopped putting so much effort into obstructing any independent inquiry that could allow an accurate first draft of the history to be written. In any case, he must sense now that he’s blowing into a fierce wind. The judgment of history hangs over this guy like a sharp, heavy knife. His desperation betrays him. He knows it too.

Read the post.

Battles within Battles

The first analysis from the Washington Post on Bob Woodward’s capers gives a justified punch in the eye to The New York Times.

Who’s the source? “A senior administration official said that neither Mr. Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward’s source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.”

Oh yeah? What senior administration official, New York Times?

When the whole Judy Miller mess began to unravel, the New York Times’ reporting on the matter was worse than the local paper of the town I grew up in – population 6,000. The Times’ first analysis article on Woodward and the Post, which made some major stabs at both, was considerably better reporting than any Times article published about its own fiasco.

It is the Times responsibility to report the news accurately and without prejudice. Their article on Woodward and the Post was indeed prejudiced. And, how (why) was the Times able to rise to the occasion so quickly, when just a few weeks ago their reporting abilities fell short of the quality of a newspaper published weekly with a circulation of maybe 4,000?

What a mess the Bush administration has caused with its malicious, if not illegal, acts against Joseph Wilson. Washington is spinning uncontrollably, their own party is crumbling, the polarization of the nation deepens, and now the mainstream media has its own fray.

And to top it off, Vice President Dick Cheney has the unmitigated gall to make these remarks last night.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney lashed out again against Democratic senators who have questioned the handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq, with the vice president accusing critics of engaging in “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”

Atrios Questions on Bob Woodward

Atrios (Eschaton) poses excellent questions and implications about Bob Woodward. Most of the blogosphere is critiquing Woodward, but Atrios takes that a step further.

Booby’s [sic] story just doesn’t make any sense. Why would you grant confidentiality to something which is “almost gossip” and told to you in an “offhand manner.” What ethical issue prevented you from telling the world that an administration source had given you that information as you could do so without revealing the identity of the source? Why could you not tell the world about this when you felt free to share the information with Pincus (denied by him).

Source Confidentiality Takes Another Hit

Walter Pincus, a Washington Post reporter was found in contempt of court for not revealing his sources. It looks like the courts accepting reporters’ sources as sacred is on the way out.

A $500 per day fine has been imposed on Pincus, but suspended for at least 30 days to give him time to appeal. Jail time was not ordered by the judge.

A federal judge found a Washington Post reporter in contempt of court yesterday for refusing to reveal who gave him information about an investigation of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that Lee is entitled to know who reporter Walter Pincus’s sources are because his lawsuit against the government for alleged violations of federal privacy law cannot go forward otherwise, and because he has exhausted all other possibilities for getting the information.

—–

Swift Boats Out of Dry Dock

Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney lashed out again against Democratic senators who have questioned the handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq, with the vice president accusing critics of engaging in "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

The Swift Boats have been brought out of dry dock.

Senior Bush adviser Dan Bartlett said Thursday that the White House had made a strategic decision to launch a "sustained" campaign to vigorously combat the notion that the administration misled the nation rather than let the assertion go uncontested.

—–

Scooter Libby’s Media Trial

Remember Scooter Libby’s lawyers saying they would have a jury trial and not a trial in the media? My, my how Bob Woodward can change things. What do these statements look like to you?

While neither statement appears to factually change Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby lied and impeded the leak investigation, the Libby legal team plans to use Woodward’s testimony to try to show that Libby was not obsessed with unmasking Plame and to raise questions about the prosecutor’s full understanding of events. Until now, few outside of Libby’s legal team have challenged the facts and chronology of Fitzgerald’s case.

Libby’s lawyers have asked whether Fitzgerald will correct his statement that Libby was the first administration official to leak information about Plame to a reporter. Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment. But a source close to the probe said there is no reason for the prosecutor to correct the record, because he specifically said at his news conference Oct. 28 that Libby was the "first official known" at that time to have provided such information to a reporter.

[T]he Libby legal team seized on Woodward’s testimony, calling it a "bombshell" with the potential to upend Fitzgerald’s case. After spending yesterday at the courthouse reviewing documents for the case, Libby emerged with one of this lawyers, Theodore V. Wells Jr., by his side. Wells said Libby is "very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forward and telling the truth."

A few hours earlier Wells issued a markedly more pointed statement, saying, "Woodward’s disclosures are a bombshell to Mr. Fitzgerald’s case" that show at least one accusation to be "totally inaccurate." The Libby legal team plans to call a number of journalists to testify in part to show Libby was not determined to blow Plame’s cover.

—–

The Woodward Matter

I don’t think the Bob Woodward revelation is as clear cut as Woodward says it is. Also, I am not convinced it is the “Woodward scheming with the White House, Judy Miller clone and Dick Cheney is the source” mess that many allege. It could be, but that seems too simple.

First, why would Woodward potentially put himself in harms way for Cheney, Libby, or Bush? I know the first reaction to that question is why would/did Libby put himself in harms way. I don’t have a clue about Libby, other than knowingly expose himself to certain crimes, in order to deflect greater crimes. Woodward may have had close connections with the White House, but if he is going to maintain celebrity reporter status, that is his job. And, it is very clear sucking up to the administration is the only way to accomplish that. I think there is a cornucopia of evidence floating around that substantiates what the administration will do if they view someone negatively.

I don’t buy “I was protecting my sources” either.

We can speculate until our generation is long since gone, and like every other scandal or assassination, we will never know the entire story. If Woodward does have some level of improper entanglement, he’s just too slick to allow others to fully open his kimono. Judy Miller had a substantial history to accompany her demise at The New York Times; Woodward does not.

As screwball as my first thoughts may be, here they are. Small stuff first.

Woodward may not be alone

I believe Woodward held this information for reasons other than source protection. Pure assertion on my part; nothing to back that up with. The real question is why, but that’s too far out.

Was Woodward’s secret truly a secret for two years? On or about June 23, 2003, shortly after at least one of Woodward’s meetings, he allegedly told Walter Pincus, “I understood Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst.” If that’s true, he let the cat out of the bag that day. Assume Woodward’s right. If Pincus was given that information, he did not just nod his head and say, “Okay, thanks.” Pincus would have gone into action with possible escalation. Pincus isn’t a subject of interest at this point. He can say yes or no about anything; Woodward previously denied any knowledge on the issue, what’s to stop Pincus from doing that now?

So, Executive Editor Leonard Downie, admonishes Woodward publicly, the public’s interest is served and Woodward (maybe others) carries on with whatever motivates him/them. If there is any truth surrounding what Woodward told Pincus, the Woodward revelation is considerably deeper than currently presented.

The source

Everybody says Cheney. It’s logical and does he ever have the profile to match it. This could be Libby’s legal team in concert with Cheney taking advantage of Woodward. The source has allowed everyone on the inner legal circle know who he/she is, but nobody in America does. Woodward is released for testimony, but not released from revealing the source to the public. Now, who doesn’t know who the source is? All of America. At minimum, Libby’s lawyers are getting the trial by media they say they don’t want. They certainly had a hard time not making any public statements today didn’t they? But, I’m not sold on that theory yet. Woodward being told about Valerie Wilson has absolutely nothing to do with Libby’s intentional and numerous falsehoods. He still gets to do the jail house rock.

I just finished writing a rather long justification for Colin Powell as the source and then I read this.

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward’s source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward’s source.

Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

Delete key…

I think that eliminates Secretary Powell. I should add that my theory on Colin Powell was based on good intentions by Powell and Woodward - not based on shenanigans that may be the rule for others in the Bush administration.

The announcements above are a bit telling. The President does not speak for his entire administration. Everybody is doing their own thing - moving far away from Cheney.