The Political Chase

More on Abramoff Graphic

Notice the fine print at the bottom. “SOURCE: …the Center for Public Integrity…”
—–

Abramoff Financial Services

We’ve discussed how extensive Jack Abramoff’s web was/is, but it’s hard to fully grasp that in words. The Washington Post has a graphic that exhibits the complexity of his operation and the depth of the pockets of individuals in the web.

The Republicans are not in this scandal by themselves. Democrats received approximately one-third of Abramoff’s money.

The top five beneficiaries:

1. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) – $146,590
2. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) – $131,000 (Sen. Ted Kennedy’s son)
3. Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ) – $86,750
4. Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) – $81,750
5. Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) – $79,750

I am surprised Tom DeLay is not among the top five. He finished 6th. But, all of this is subject to change. This is based on what is known today.

While not in the top five, there is another notable politician on the list, The President of the United States, George W. Bush. He only sucked up $34,250. I’m sure he was thinking about his promise to restore integrity to the White House and capped his slush fund.

I wonder how many are going to be asked tough questions by their wives when they get home tonight.

—–

Bush Rewrites History Again

President Bush rewrote history today (again) in his remarks to the Philadelphia World Affairs Council. He stated the war in Iraq was initiated due to the 9/11 attacks on the United States and turned the American Revolution upside down on its head. Furthermore, he resorted to using the fear factor again – America will be attacked. He might as well have used the words “mushroom cloud” again.

[…]That war started on September the 11th, 2001, when our nation awoke to a sudden attack. We’re taking the fight to those who attacked us and to those who share their murderous vision for future attacks.

Bush carefully parsed his words so that he can deny saying Iraq specifically attacked us, but as you can see, you have to look closely at what he said. A quick sound bite on the 6:30 pm news will be heard as “The Iraq war started on September 11, 2001, when our nation awoke to a sudden attack by Iraq. We are attacking them because they attacked us.” It is the same deceit and manipulation the president and vice president have employed for four years.

Iraq War = American Revolution

Bush equated the war in Iraq to the American Revolution. The foolish man went so far as to incorporate the Declaration of Independence.

The eight years from the end of the Revolutionary War to the election of a constitutional government were a time of disorder and upheaval. There were uprisings, with mobs attacking courthouses and government buildings. There was a planned military coup that was defused only by the personal intervention of General Washington. In 1783, Congress was chased from this city by angry veterans demanding back-pay, and they stayed on the run for six months. There were tensions between the mercantile North and the agricultural South that threatened to break apart our young republic. And there were British loyalists who were opposed to independence and had to be reconciled with America’s new democracy.

It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public, the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, and a witness said: "It rang as if it meant something."

There is no correlation between the American Revolution and the Iraq War. Notice the difference in the terms – Revolution and War, they have different meanings and purpose. The American people declared their independence, initiated a revolution against the Crown, all of their own free will. Iraq was invaded by another country – the US. Someone please show me the Iraqi Declaration of Independence. We need to insure it is preserved for posterity as ours is.

The Mushroom Cloud…

The terrorists’ stated objective is to drive U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq and gain control of that country, and then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Spain to Indonesia.

If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be leading quiet lives as good citizens. They would be plotting and killing our citizens, across the world and here at home.

Reiteration of the Duke Professor’s Strategy…

Today I’m going to speak in depth about another vital element of our strategy: our efforts to help the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East. 

We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Our goal is victory, and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.

Where’s the beef (or tell another lie)…

Bush repeatedly states we are making progress, when in fact the situation becomes more dire by the day. Casualties continue to rise significantly. The president never provides a single quantitative fact.

We’re making steady progress. The Iraqi forces are becoming more and more capable. They’re taking more responsibility for more and more territory. We’re transferring bases to their control so they can take the fight to the enemy.

Throwing stones, glass houses and such…

Under Saddam, Iraq was a country where dissent was crushed.

Doesn’t that sound like the modus operandi of another country’s leadership that we are all very familiar with? We all know about the Plame Wilson matter and others like it. Newsweek has an excellent article on Bush’s “my way or the highway” rules of leadership.

How many people are aware of the policy that no protesters are allowed within one-half mile of the president wherever he travels. Only Bush flags and bumper stickers are allowed – along a motorcade route or a stationary location. Dissenters are required to remain within a defined protesters zone.

The unknonwn and not implemented…

[…T]he Iraqi government has a process in place to resolve even the most difficult issues through negotiate, debate and compromise.

There seems to be a disconnect here. Why do we have 160,000 troops in Iraq and approximately 2,140 casualties to date? Why is this speech even being delivered if such a process is in place? We should hear more about this process.

You’re either with us or against us…

From the president’s speech:

Iraq’s neighbor to the west, Syria, is permitting terrorists to use that territory to cross into Iraq.

A statement the president made in the Q & A session following the speech:

North Korea is a country that has declared boldly they’ve got nuclear weapons, they counterfeit our money, and they’ve starving their people to death.

I’m not suggesting invading any country, but if Bush is a man of his word, equitably applies the principles on which we invaded Iraq and his “most important job is to protect the American people”, why has the US not invaded those countries?

Just like home…

A free Iraq is not going to be a quiet Iraq — it will be a nation full of passionate debate and vigorous political activity. It will be a nation that continues to face some level of violence.

Remember this at election time. “The hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom.”  

—–

Torture Found at Second Iraqi Jail

The WaPo reports that another Iraqi jail subjecting prisoners to abuse and torture has been discovered. The jail is operated by the Iraqi Ministry.

The abuse alleged at the prison found this week appeared to have been more severe. Asked specifically what types of torture were found in the commandos’ prison, the official cited breaking of bones, torture with electric shock, extraction of fingernails and cigarette burns to the neck and back.

Not to make light of the situation at all; it is deplorable, but this stuff happens in countless prisons right here in the good old USA. How many prisons in the United States are under federal investigation for torture and how many incidents have made the front page of The Washington Post or The New York Times?

I can’t back this up with facts, but I’m sure there is not a state in the country that is absent torture and/or abuse in its penal system.

—–

Armando’s Take on Novak

Armando renders his opinion on Viveca Novak and compares his analysis with Jeralyn Merrit’s view. In case you don’t know, Armando is an attorney also. With all due respect to Jeralyn (she has an excellent blog and qualifications), I have to agree with Armando.

Armando has a timeline in his post that you may want to reference, but I believe the following passages are easy enough to follow.

[W]hen Luskin had the key conversation with V. Novak and when the Hadley e-mail was discovered and when it was disclosed to Fitzgerald are critical to Rove’s defense. Fitzgerald suspects that what jogged Rove’s memory was the fact that Cooper was being compelled to testify.

V. Novak places the conversation at January, March or May 2004. Fitzgerald knows when the Hadley e-mail was given to him. All we know is Rove did not provide his correcting testimony until October 15, 2004. And we know that Luskin felt it was necessary for him to disclose the conversation he had with V. Novak to Fitzgerald.

That tells me that Rove did not turn over the Hadley e-mail to Fitzgerald until October 2004.

So the question is is it plausible that it took anywhere from 5 to 8 months for Luskin to find the July 11, 2003 Rove e-mail to Hadley? It is not for me. Is it plausible that a competent search of Rove’s emails, one that should have occurred in the Fall of 2003 and again in January 2004 did NOT turn up the Hadley e-mail? It isn’t to me. And what of Hadley? Did he testify about the e-mail he received from Rove? If not, why not? And why did he not produce the e-mail?

I guess I see Jeralyn’s point that any story is better than no story, but THIS story is so full of holes and BS that I simply don’t see how this helps Rove.

My take is that Luskin is so bereft of defenses that this defense strikes me as the mother of all Hail Mary passes.

I have read several MSM articles and Novak’s account in Time, and I still come to the same conclusion. There are just too many holes and conflicts. Moreover these extraordinarily long delays finding or “remembering” critical information sounds like a recipe for desperation at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute.

There is one item Novak wrote about that might be absolutely nit-picking on my part, but it sounds exactly like a teenager getting caught with contraband. (Emphasis added.)

A new meeting with Fitzgerald was arranged for Dec. 8. Leaks about my role began appearing in the papers, some of them closer to the mark than others. They all made me feel physically ill. Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn’t found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m.

Novak is no dummy. She has multiple degrees, including a law degree.¹

• B.A. in Foreign Affairs — University of Virginia
• M.S. — Columbia University School of Journalism
• M.S.L.– Yale Law School

I know everyone makes mistakes, but given her academic and professional training, attention to detail and re-confirming is just like breathing.

Lastly, think about Fitzgerald and how relative this question is to him. How many barristers pose a question to a witness that the barrister doesn’t already know the answer?

We shall see what Mr. Fitzgerald does (or not).

Jeralyn Merritt on Novak

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney and editor of TalkLeft, wrote a piece for The Huffington Post analyzing Viveca Novak’s first person account in Time magazine. Jeralyn’s view is her testimony lessens Karl Rove’s risk of perjury or obstruction charges, but may not ameliorate the pain of false statement charges.

Read the entire post. 

—–

The Biography

Now boys and girls, I want to read you a story about my husband.

Time Gives Viveca Novak a Time Out

Time magazine has put reporter Viveca Novak on leave of absence status because she failed to notify Time’s editorial staff of her role in the Plame Wilson investigation.

The magazine said Novak is now on a leave of absence by mutual agreement with her employer.

The investigation and Novak’s role in it are “pretty serious stuff and the whole incident led Viveca and me to conclude that a leave of absence was wise,” said Time’s managing editor, Jim Kelly. “She and I will have a fuller discussion of this.”

—–