Fitz for getting the cat out of the bag yesterday.

Fitz!

Cheating has not “simply become their perferred mode of operation.” It has always from the get go been their preferred mode of operation. (Ask John McCain about his family and how they are viewed in South Carolina). And why not. It has brought them nothing but success and there has never been any accountability or consequences. The only accountability Bush recognizes is a loss at the polls. Which cannot happen now and given their lack of shame around cheating not likely to ever have happened.

Fitz to you, too!

There’s no way that Rover would let anybody through if it was a threat to him personally, no matter the gravitas of the “messenger”. Although I do think that a Repug of stature that is NOT a politician might have a better chance of getting through, maybe a celebrity who’s come around but is no risk politically; they might be able to breach the firewall. But I can’t think of anybody who’d take this on.

We’re left with the hope that a Harry Taylor will break through the bubble at one of the events — but that’s not likely since the so-called unscripted events are doing nothing for the POTUS approval rating. Bush has been coming off as a bigger *sshole than many average non-blogging Joes realized.

Maybe that’s what’s called for, fighting fire with fire. We need a non-politician major league *sshole Repug to call Bush on his *sshole nature.

it’s an excellent slogan, redd. i think we should spread that around.

1006 elections? William had to do conquering in 1066 … we shall conquer in 2006 !

Unbeknownst to most historians, the 1006 elections were landslides all across Europe by the old Republykaan party, who promptly plunged the Western world into a dark age that took centuries to come out of.

Senator Warner, perhaps?

We still don’t know who told Libby (or Rove, or others) to talk to the press about Valerie Plame. Once we get that, Fitz is free to prosecute that person for committing the substantive crime. If Bush were a culprit, I wonder whether Fitz would step out on a limb and prosecute him. My understanding is that there’s no settled law concerning whether a sitting president could be prosecuted for committing a crime.

YES! The question I haven’t heard anyone ask yet, is WHY? THAT’S going to be what fries Chimpy’s ass in the end…patent and obvious abuse of presidential powers. It is what it is.

Love the graphic…it’s deja vu all over again! Let’s get ready for a long, hot summer of Treasongate, kids!

We have know this, and they don’t care since this lie got them re-elected.

That an the social diversion they ran along with Kerry saying he voted for it before he voted against it.

Christy, read “The Wars of Watergate” by Stanley Kutler. Everybody, if you haven’t already, give this great book a careful read. I’m going to try to find time to reread it.

On Page 361:

On Page 370:

Despite appearances, Howard Baker had been Nixon’s most effective supporter on the Senate Select Committee…. His question regarding the President’s knowledge, carefully repeated as it was, served to protect Richard Nixon. Who among those witnesses knew what the President knew, or when he knew it? Not many, and those who did seemed unlikely to answer. But the discovery of the tapes undid Baker’s careful handiwork. The tapes made irrelevant his question to John Dean….. Through the tapes, Richard Nixon himself could answer Baker, and in indelible word.

Kutler makes very clear that Baker was a covert shill for the Nixon WH. He made the “smoking gun” remark in the belief that no such thing would ever be found.

Are there Howard Bakers out there you ask? Well Quicksilver posted this comment on an Emptywheel thread at The Next Hurrah that seems to reply to your query, Redd:

I spent the day trying to find a quote from a Republican in Congress — any Republican in Congress — willing to voice criticism about the President and Vice President’s role in the ordering the leak of classified information. I came up empty-handed.

It’s official: not a single Republican in Congress feels there’s anything wrong with leaking classified information, or lying about it, so long as it’s in the service of covering up a plan to go to war. Not Olympia Snowe. Not Arlen Specter. None of them, not a single Republican, not a single damn one of them.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c.....t-15916528

I agree about the need to hold this administration accountable, but there’s another issue on the horizon: Iraq Redux — Iran.

Thomas Kean is the republican with enuf stature and credibility to tackle the mess the bushies have created. Can’t imagine why he’d want to.

dare i mention (cringing) Newtie? the Gingrich was just saying how easy it would be for “had enough” to be the Dem’s legit slogan….

I woke up this morning at 5 with this simple idea. Everyone who supports censure should send $1 to Russ Feingold’s office. One dollar = one vote. A simple way to send a message of support to Russ and a message of where ‘the people’ stand to the rest of the Democrats in Washington. Remember that court room scene in “Miracle on 34th Street†where the defense has the Post Office carry in all the mail bags full of letters to Santa. Maybe the blogosphere can send an avalanche of mail bags to Washington to get our message out. Using Paypal just wouldn’t have the visual effect that actual physical letters with dollar bills in them would!

If the rep.are able to maintain control ,by hook or by crook I fear for the result.I think bushs numbers are so low now that anything is pssible…I worry some truly hairbrain schemes may be tried by those wishing to maintain rep. control at any cost

Redd:
“we’d better all hope for some serious electoral shift towards Democrats in the 1006 elections.”

The 1006 elections? I knew that Shrub was moving the country backward, but I did not know it was that far.

Senator Danforth has the gravitas…

I think one point that needs further exploration in all of this is many harms that are created by selective, private, declassification - which is apparently what Bush did with regard to the NIE (and probably Plame’s identity).

1. No opportunity for the CIA or other relevant agencies to scrub the document to protect national secrets and ongoing missions.

2. The person disclosing the information (Libby in this case) can selectively leave out relevant contervailing information (as was done in this case w/r/t the strength of the evidence that Iraq was developing WMD’s). The reporter receiving the information cannot follow up and learn more - he must take the source at his word.

3. The person disclosing the information can lie without being called to account on it due to source anonymity.

4. The reporter may feel pressured to print the story because not to do so would be to endanger the privilege of special and unique access to previously classified information.

5. It creates confusion as to what is and what is not classified. In this case, we saw that Bush seemingly declassified information twice - once to Cheney and Libby, and again publicly. Why the redundancy?

6. It allows the administration to threaten anyone in any government agency, either explicitly or implicitly, that it can and will disclose damaging classified information, such as the identity of a CIA operative, as retribution for disloyalty, or for any other reason it sees fit. Secret, selective declassification allows for this because, at least until Fitzgerald, the administration believed that the disclosure would never come back to haunt them because of the protection of journalistic privilege. Selective declassification was seen by the Bush administration as a one-way ratchet that could damage its enemies and bolster its case for war, etc. It is a one-way release of information with no possible means for the journalist to verify or identify contradictions.

Other thoughts?

As for any Senators that come to mind…please the “moderate” McCain is carrying Bush’s water right now.

Bush didn’t declassify the information. Under the Exec. Order “classified information†is any information that “requires protection against unauthorized disclosure…â€. As Libby testified, Bush gave him authorization “to discuss information that would be classified but for that approval†- an authorization Libby testified was “unique in his recollection.†It is apparent, therefore, that Bush determined that the information did indeed continue to require protection against unauthorized disclosure, and therefore the information remained classified by the terms of bush’s own Exec. Order 13292.

The current Exec. Order simply does not recognize the concept of selective or limited declassification. By the terms of the order itself any information that remains subject to protections against unauthorized disclosure is “classified information.†The president (and other officials authorized to declassify) do indeed possess the power to authorize limited or restricted disclosure, but the means for doing this is not declassification but rather the provision of clearance to specified individuals. Well, you might ask, didn’t Bush then simply authorize Libby to grant Judy Miller (or any other journalist to whom Libby leaked) a clearance with respect to the classified information? Apparently not, because such a clearance would have subjected the journalist to a non-disclosure obligation - a result contrary to LIbby’s testimony that the purpose of the authorization from Bush was to get information in the NIE into the media for public dissemination of information that might undermine Joe Wilson’s credibility.

Why didn’t Bush simply declassify the information? That would have been a transparent attempt on the part of the Administration to attack Wilson. It was essential that the information be leaked, i.e., disclosed to the journalist with the understanding that the information was not for attribution. In that way the Administration could not be accused of engaging in a political attack on Wilson, and the journalist, though aware that the Administration was indeed engaging in such an attack, would be bound to protect the identity of her source and therebyunable to report that such attack was taking place.

In sum, Bush did not declassify because that could be traced to the Administration and certainly would have been perceived as an attack on Wilson. And Bush couldn’t simply grant a clearance to the journalist because that similarly would have defeated the purpose of dessimination by subjecting the jouranlist to a non-disclosure obligation. Quite simply, Bush neither declassified nor granted clearance, and thereby achieved an objective that the law plainly does not permit - the selective disclosure of classified information to parties that are not themselves bound not to disclose.

This is illegal, my friends. Christy, you are one of the “go to” guys on legal analysis of bush administration depradations. Please counter the spin that bush declassified this information - he did not.

Good question — where are the patriots hiding these days? Is there not one out there in the Republican Party that will step forward and do the right thing?

Continuing #12, since POS comment editor ate the quote from Page 361:

Thomas C - Your analysis seems dead on. Bush was trying to have it both ways and apparently committed a crime. Selective disclosure, as practiced in this instance, was not just unorthodox, but illegal. And for good reason.

They — the republicans in toto — do not believe that dubya has done anything wrong. There may be a handful of elected Rs who have some doubts about this or that aspect of whatever it is that they think or know that Dubya has done or some doubts about the way it has been done, but none of them believes that what has been done is itself wrong and that view is shared by a lot of Dems, too.

You’re not going to find a Howard Baker in this environment. The whole notion of acting on law and principle or the Constitution simply doesn’t occur to these people. Those ideas are “quaint.”

And when did it become the Republicans’ responsibility to oppose Bush and his cabal? It’s too bad the Democrats didn’t see it as their responsibility, and still don’t (though they claim otherwise, they still can’t wrap their minds around actually doing something — like supporting Feingold’s censure resolution — instead of cowering and “distancing themselves” from any Dem that gets uppity). But it has become fashionable to claim that the Rs are supposed to be opposing Bush, they are supposed to do oversight, they are supposed to tell him to desist. While the Dems are supposed to sit quietly with their hands folded in their laps.

Nonsense.

Since the Dems will do nothing, and the Rs don’t think that anything’s wrong, and the courts are completely subverted and corrupt, it is now left to the People to take matters into their own hands.

One suggestion is to assemble (peaceably) in DC by the hundreds of thousands or millions and stay there until this whole rotten edifice is brought down.

I’m sure there are other suggestions for action. But the fact of the matter is that if we don’t recognize — after all these years — that the electeds (R and D) and the courts and the media aren’t going to intervene or even tell the truth, then it is up to the People and no one else.

My father is exactly like Bush that it’s scary, so let me tell you from my experience, Bush will NEVER admit a mistake. He might listen to his mom or Laura if they talk to him, but if they suggest that he admit mistakes publicly, he would not do that for even them. His type of personality can not admit they were wrong.

PS. a comparison like that to the devestation of 1066 is objectionable

Good morning, friends.
I haven’t read through yet. but wanted to just drop this in as it seems to relate.
Today at about 4pm, there’s a discussion on C-Span called “Republican Legal Issues” starring Karl Rove and Harvey Tettlebaum. I realize that watching Karl for more than 30 seconds may cause your eyes to swell, but it might be an interesting little window into peek through.

Gooper Ego Dance

I really do believe there is a massive divide between the POTUS and VPOTUS. And I don’t believe this is the endgame. It is just beginning. I think w and KKKarl are trying foist this all off on Dick, and Dick isn’t taking it lying down.

W missed his Friday luncheon with Dick last week. Anyone know his schedule for today?

Continuing #12, since POS comment editor ate the quote from Page 361:

“What did the President know and when did he know it?” The Senator’s question had nothing less than the purpose of impeaching [John] Dean’s importance as a witness. He asked Dean to structure his answer within three categories: direct, circumstantial, and hearsay evidence. Baker seemed confident that any complete answers to his basic question could only fall within the last or, at best, the second category.

Baker led the witness through different time frames for both the break-in and the cover-up to show that his knowledge was based only on circumstantial or hearsay evidence. Dean counterattacked with a memorandum he had prepared for the President’s meeting with Baker to discuss the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee…. Dean preserved his credibility and Baker his. But the moment disarmed Baker…. After Dean’s revelations, Baker seemed more muted, even more obsequious and deferential to [Sam] Ervin….

BTW the comment editor is previewing buggy html as being fine. I wouldn’t trust it.

Redd:
Forget it. The Republican statesmen are all gone. Back in 1973 there was not only (Howard) Baker, but Al Haig, Elliott Richardson, Barry Goldwater and numerous others. Trent Lott was one of few that voted against impeachment in committee and we savaged him for it. Now Trent is viewed as a non-fascist Repub Senator. I don’t think that Trent’s views have changed one iota over the last 30 years. It just that Republicans at large have shifted towards authoritarianism, so Trent doesn’t seem as repugnant. I’m sure that Barry Goldwater and all other honest and libertarian Republicans of that era are turning over in their graves now.

This conversation came up once before, a long time ago, around here, and I always thought Warner of Virginia had the stature and credibility.

He’s an old senate lion with big defense credentials, he’s been supportive of Bush but he’s not a product of the Bush/Rove machine or movement, and he’s been independent from time to time in his career.

The real comparison is to Goldwater, who went to 1600 Pennsylvania to inform Nixon he had lost the support of Congress and would be impeached. That led to Nixon’s resignation. In today’s environment, I think that delegation might be led by Warner.

*ilson46201 gave the name that came to my mind at #19, but I’m afraid he’s too “retired” to have much effect. Witness the great reaction (*yawn*) engendered by his comments (as an Episcopal priest, no less) against the takeover of the republican party by the religious right.

The arrogance of the NeoCons is that they believe they know what is best for our country. And they have the Administration by the balls. Now they want military action against Iran…and they’ll likely succeed. Hell, most of the leading Democrats (Clinton, Biden, Feinstein) support these guys…

fiat n.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

What we have here, (What Bush has done) is not only an act of political expediency but something a kin to “if I do it, it’s good, if you do it, it probably isn’t.”

DC (#9)
“My understanding is that there’s no settled law concerning whether a sitting president could be prosecuted for committing a crime.”

That’s true only because it has not happened before. However, since the executive power is vested in the President, an indictment of him (even if it is deemed Constitutional) is only symbolic. He has the power simply to order an investigation and/or prosecution halted. Then we’re stuck with impeachment as the only solution.

Warner might have Dan Coats with him too … Danforth might tag along as well

Thanks everyone — my figners are a little stiff this morning. I’ve fixed the 1006 to what it ought to have been — 2006. Appreciate the heads up. *g*

This disclosure came at such an appropriate time…..I feel Fitz is getting ready to pounce on some CON very soon.

I was reading the Libby/Bush story in this mornings Chicago Tribune and was wondering if your excellent blog plans follow up on the story? Did the Presidents denial in 2003 specifically ” if anyone leaked classified information”…It would have been a weaselly denial since he was asked specifically about the Plame outing. Even if Bush is hiding behind semantics and his legal power to declassify documents to his political advantage, isn’t outing Plame still a crime if he was involved? I hate it when this administration moves the goal posts and we all just go along, calling 3rd and long plays instead of 3rd and inches we just had. They are on the ropes. If Rove thinks setting the President up for the political heat he’ll take for the ” I declassified , I’m president , its within my power” position is better than the true Plame fallout it’s time to bear down on Plame.

Warren Rudman, ex Senator from New Hampshire, is another candidate.

oddly enuff: Dick Lugar would be a dark-horse candidate to inform the Preznit “It’s over!”

Thomas C, thanks a lot. I agree that it seems clear-cut that if it wasn’t declassified, it is illegal for even the President to leak it. It also seems to me that it’s legal for the President to declassify it, provided he has an opinion from DCI that it’s OK.

So our choices for what happened are:
1. It was never declassified (which you make a good case for)—clearly illegal
2. It was declassified correctly, and somewhere there’s a memo from George Tenet saying all this is fine–probably legal
3. It was “declassified” but not in accordance with the EO–seems like it would be illegal
4. Scooter is lying (that is, after all, what he was charged with…)

But I’ll say again: our President lied to get us into a war, then blew an American spy to cover that lie, then instructed his staff to lie about that through an election. It shouldn’t matter whether it was all done legally. If this can only be addressed in a court as an illegality, our political system has failed.

(And if I hear another Democrat call the King hypocritical this morning I’m going to scream. He’s not “hypocritical”: he’s a liar who’s been caught trying to cover his tracks.)

Billy Graham

wiki thingie here:
Politically, Graham has been a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party, although more recently he has adopted a flexible position, choosing to cast his vote with either party, depending on which he considers most appropriate at the time. He has had close relationships with Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton, but he is still very close to the Bush family. Just two days before the 2000 presidential election, Graham spoke at a prayer breakfast in Florida with George W. Bush in attendance and stopped short of formally endorsing him. His messages have been apolitical.

Christy, Josh has a snippet from the Post. It wasn’t a Libby lie.

How do we know that these people who are getting mentioned here didn’t already tell Bush these things? There sure wouldn’t be an anouncement about it.

Great, thought provoking, post.

I think it is up to the Democrats to push this issue.
AND WE THE PEOPLE!
We need to stand up to this tyranny. I have a sense that if the people do not demand the impeachment of this administration, our country as we know it is lost.
My generation is the generation of Watergate and Vietnam.
We need to ban together and let our elected leaders know what and how we expect Washington to act or vote then out of office or even recall them.
The republicans have used all the above tactics.
I felt it with Nixon and I feel it with Bush & co they need to be impeached.
I think our country was done a great disservice by not impeaching nixon.
It left a legacy that the president can get away with anything.

Here’s the post exerpt (via TPM):

A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.

Rev. Billy Graham also shocked the whackos when he endorsed the Nuclear Weapons Freeze …

“Warner might have Dan Coats with him too … Danforth might tag along as well”

Not likely. Danforth? Although I appreciate his honesty (maybe the last honest Republican on the planet), he’s a wingnut ideologue. (Remember how he shepherded Clarence Thomas around the Senate during his circus…er…confirmation hearing? This is what I meant when I stated that extremism looks less bad when the whole party becomes extreme. Dan Coats is a wingnut non-entity, a latter day Roman Hruska, although probably less dishonest. If you don’t know who Roman Hruska was, you understand my point exacly.

I’m not sure Hagel has the “gravitas” in that he’s a relative youngster and he’s a sitting senator, but he could play a role. I lean toward minnesotachuck and *ilson46201’s ideas–Rudman and Lugar. Oh, I like the Kean idea too. Can’t think of any other Repug governors that have some “national” status that also have ethics (which definitely rules out my ex-gov, Tommy “Ladies’ Man” Thompson…gag).

But when has Bush ever considered a serious, thoughtful idea brought to him? Why would he now?

The thing is that all the ethical Republicans either left the party or have been purged by now. Chuck Hagel is the one that comes closest, and he’s Mr. Diebold.

“Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done.”

Wow! Bush is unveiled (in case some did not already know) as a real, live Humpty-Dumpty!!!!!

Wonderful points and questions, and this was asked in much shorter form in yesterday’s comments by someone. I doubt there is a Republican who has not in some way had pressure brought to bear on them by the Bush/Rove machine, making this kind of discussion almost unthinkable. Watching the body language Bush displayed while Harry Taylor was speaking yesterday, and the fact that he interrupted him to incite laughter by the audience, reinforced my belief that Bush cares only about Bush and Bush’s inner circle and thier agenda. He has no concern for how any American feels or thinks about any of it; he intends to do whatever he wants without consideration for the people who elected him, especially those who earn less than 100K, who can’t push his agenda in the way he prefers. His public appearances are nothing but manipulations and propaganda shows. His word means nothing and there is not an empathetic bone in his body.

I think he would see John Warner as a Jack Murtha character, old guard, behind the times. I doubt he has any respect for anyone in Congress and cannot imagine he would even meet with them if he had an inkling what they intended to say and do.

Ouch, that’s some damned fine writing Christy.

Interesting. In response to a question of “who” amongst the repugs might come forward, 2 names mentioned above strike me as possibles: John Warner and Arlen Specter. But I’ll not hold my breath, or bet sustantial amounts of money on either!
Now then, as I’m still very new here, Ms. Christy, I compliment you on this article! Good job! Since it appears that you’re an attorney, and closely follow PlameGate, I’ll pose two questions:
1. WHEN (if anyone knows) did Fitz interview the president, and VP? And, WHEN did Libby testify to the GJ that he was given the “ok” to talk to reporters about sections of the NIE? The timeline could be illuminating. Now, of course, we cannot know WHAT Fitz asked the president or VP in his interviews of them…but I wonder if Fitz asked these guys about NIE matters, and what the president and VP said in response???
2. Next question, for the lawyers: I always thought, generally, that there must be a SIGNED Order before something takes effect. A judge might announce a decision from the bench, but it’s not “official” until the judge SIGNS an order reflecting the decision. Am I right, or in error? Does this apply to DE-classification of materials? Does the president need to SIGN a written order, or can he just say “presto, I declassify”, and that’s it? DID the president or VP ever sign such an order?
Questions, questions, questions! Everyone take care out there, Ghostman

Regarding the discussion of Republicans who may have the gravitas, etc. to stand up to Bush:

My fear is that with the Democrats failing to attack, the door is opening for certain Republicans to stand up to Bush and position themselves as “reformers”, thus leaving Democrats in the dust. I put “reformers” in quotes here because I believe that Republicans are highly unlikely (to say the least) to be the ones who clean up their own mess.

A Republican Senator with enough gravitas? How about Joe Lieberman?

Go Ned!

To paraphrase Larry Franklin—

Yesterdays revelation is riveting–the effort to smear Joe Wilson and his wife went to the very top of the White House. This was not an operation of rogue political operators. Instead, we have a rogue President.
If we can impeach a President for lying about a blow job, the time has come to impeach a President for feeding the American people a line of bullshit about Iraq in order to justify a war that has now left almost 2400 American soldiers dead and over 17,000 wounded. George Bush did not leak to protect America. He leaked to cover his ass.

That, my friends, is the pure definition of a coward.

Leslie Nielsen has a new movie coming out featuring a naked president and naked congress- guess there is a message there?

ROFL john! We have a winner! Lieberman… too funny.

Isn’t declassifying something solely to bolster your political position with the American public a misuse of your power

It is the very definition of abuse of power. Add it to the articles of impeachment.

Even if the president can declassify at will can he out a CIA agent’s identity?

Larry 61– Rogue and coward he is and he is also responsible for thousands of innocents’ deaths, maiming and the destruction of property too. He is responsible for war crimes. a criminal.

Ghostman-
According to Abu Gonzales during his senate testimony, not under oath, he said the president can declassify anything on the back of a cocktail napkin. Yesterday, he reconfirmed that in his discussion of the issue with the House.

I wanted to point out, in reference to those hearings, something we observed at the time of the Senate hearing: Abu is the Attorney General of the US, but in both of these hearings, he appeared to be continuing his role as Counsel to the President, not as serving the American People, which is his actual job as AG. I think that’s another important part of the Bush Parallel Government. Anyone in the DOJ who has dared to challenge him or the Admin has been moved or discredited, replaced by someone who won’t make waves. As a result, they are all really representing Bush et all, not any of us.

I noticed that Jon Stewart didn’t touch this last night. No doubt there will be a highlight reel of Bush in living color on Monday’s show. Mean while, Delware Dem at the Kos has done some yomen work already. It’s a rather lenghty list of Bush’s words bitting him in the ass: Bush Fires Himself: A Collection of Quotes

Good Morning Everyone,

Alas Christy, it is something of a false premise implying if someone ‘got through’, Bush would proceed differently. All the talk of the Boy King and Bubble Boy reflect this guy’s entire sheltered adult life - and frankly I don’t know whether much of what he has done is the result of him being stupid and fed bullshit or how much of it is his idea that this is simply how ‘bidness’ is done

That said . . .

Pacha offering up Warner is apt to the Baker mold, but the good Senator is from another place and time that doesn’t allow him to see Bush for what he’s done although I suspect by now he has a clue as to how endangered the Party may be as a result

No, if anyone, it’s Newt. Certainly not b/c he’s of the stature/character you apply to Howard Baker - but because when you google “craven opportunist” his mug pops up. Like a velociraptor testing the electrified wires, I believe it is he who has been leaking little nuggets to the Moonie Times - various little trial balloons - and if he’s who I think he is, he will step that up in the coming days as a means to squeeze them - in turn going to Party Elders, telling them he can get BUSHCO to stop killing the party blah blah blah endearing himself to the machine (taking advantage of McCain’s apparent solidarity w/WH and of Hagel’s hanging back too long, too quiet). Could be wrong on some of the mechanics, but Gingrich is all about doing what he can under these circumstances to appear to ’save’ the Party/Machine

I’m chiming in late to thank David for his post last night.Seems the troll only served to prove the points he made,so in that respect the troll showing up added to my own education on this topic.We live in scary times.Inciting hate and violence has now become acceptable and often comes dressed up in expensive clothes and given voice in the mainstream so it appears nice and legit.

I’m afraid,as the far right begins losing traction the violence and hatred is only going to escalate.People are going to get hurt or worse.I thought we learned the lessons of being loyal to one person or party over country long ago,but obviously this nation has forgot those lessons.

And WTF is Delay still doing all over the TeeVee? Doesn’t he have a set of legal problems he ought to be focused on?What his supporters did to Nick Lampson yesterday is disgusting and disgraceful.

I’m very worried about violence on election day this November.In the 2004 election in GA,Bush supporters in my neck of the woods were practically frothing at the mouth,screaming at voters in line,trying to shove pamphlets in people’s faces.Writing down licence plate numbers in the polling place parking lots,etc.Intimidation,and it seemed to be well organized.This year I’m bringing a camera and doing some documenting of my own.

The blogger Driftglass has been saying for awhile now that you can’t be a good republican and still be a good american,you have to choose.I used to think that sort of statement was unfair.Not anymore.And I won’t change my mind until I start seeing Republicans denouncing this madness vocally,repeatedly and often.

Why can’t Bush call off all U.S. elections for the next 30 years? (National Security reasons…â€I mean how can I trust an electorate that’s tolerated all my lies and horse-shit for the past five years…and pleeease don’t mention the innocent dead people I’ve left in my wakeâ€) he could appoint himself Emperor, with a clear line of succession, you know past the baton onto the twins, “Emperettesâ€, when they’ve finally mastered “My Pet Goatâ€â€¦I mean Abu Alberto Spier Gonzales could work this all out…
BTW he don’t leak so much when he remembers his Depends…

Shargash - Let us not forget that it was only a partial declassification - they left out the parts that undercut their case for war - so they disclosed half truths (literally) to bolster their political position. Which is even worse, in my mind, then straightforward declassification for political purposes.

RE: #49 XYZ Here’s the post exerpt (via TPM):

“A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.”

I’m sure this will be the new Repub. talking point. But if Bush felt he didn’t do anything wrong, why didn’t he come out and say this to the public at the time, instead of saying we’ll fire the leakers blah blah blah… And then let an expensive investigation begin to boot.

re the Post quote (#49)

OK, thank you for confirming! That’s pretty much what we thought!

So unless there’s a letter from Mr. Tenet somewhere, this was just illegal. There’s an argument, which is not specious on its face, that it was illegal but not particularly damaging, as it was declassified a few weeks later. But I can’t see an argument that it wasn’t illegal.

But I’m sure the president would never do that with any other classified information, such as an agent’s name. Not.

Also, I have to ask: if we can’t even come up with a plausible (R ) name to speak privately with the King to tell him he lacks the votes, what makes us think that the King is going to lack the votes??? As things stand, twenty-two (R )’s would have to cross for conviction. (And as with Clinton, you can be sure he won’t be leaving if he’s not convicted.) There aren’t even twenty-two (D) votes for censure.

The only Republicans I can think of who would have enough character and stature are all, unfortunately, quite dead. I am serious. Where are “todays” Senator George Aikens (the Republican Senator hawk from Vermont who said, when it had become inescapably apparent that the Vietnam War was a total debable, “we should declare victory and bring the troops home!”). There were people with whom it possible to vehemently disagree with, yet still respect.

Ché Pasa @ 26

Since the Dems will do nothing, and the Rs don’t think that anything’s wrong, and the courts are completely subverted and corrupt, it is now left to the People to take matters into their own hands.

One suggestion is to assemble (peaceably) in DC by the hundreds of thousands or millions and stay there until this whole rotten edifice is brought down

its much easier to ignore phone calls and letters than thousands of people in the street, especially in a growing and consistent movement (immigrant rights here, worker’s rights in france).

it seems to me that at the moment the ground is being prepared - we are preparing ourselves for such (nonviolent) actions, while working to spread the understanding so that many others will join us and many more will support us.

i hope it doesn’t come to that… but absent enough political leaders that speak for us in defense of the constitution and against a lawless presidency….

Larry-
I think you mean Larry Johnson.
:-)
zen

OT - Driftglass is good today.

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/

Katjam (#65)
“Even if the president can declassify at will can he out a CIA agent’s identity?”

Of course not!! But we’re through the looking glass here folks. We cannot dispassionately dissect the arguments because the analogies break down.

For instance, what if Shrub “declassified” all H-Bomb secrets and delivered them to Iran? If he can declassify other secrets, why not that too? The ulitmate answer is political. If he were to do that, 90% of the country would demand his immediate impeachment — and dispense with the parsing of “legalities.”

(Of course, the Democrats would refuse to vote for impeachment because they are afraid they’d hurt Bush’s feelings!!!)

Maybe it’s time to revisit the timing of the announcement that Al-Qaeda operative Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan was arrested, coincidentally during the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

What did the Brits think of that? From CSM:
“”The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse,” said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane’s Defence publications [who was interviewed by Reuters]. “You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within Al Qaeda, when it’s so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It’s not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it’s on the front pages every time there’s a development, is it?”

Associates of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan went on to participate in the London Bombings in July of ‘05.

The events of recent days highlight again why the timidity of the Democratic leadership to stand behind Feingold is not only unprincipled (as if that weren’t sufficient to damn it) but politically foolish. That their cowardice is born of political calculation is a bitter irony. Their apparent belief that the national security issue is best neutralized by an unprincipled cowardly silence mistakes peril for opportunity. Within these currents, the national security issue can be more than neutralized. It can be taken away and employed offensively.

The administration is a den of personal insecurities, where bragadoccio is gravitas and and feints of machismo are national security policy. What do we fear in exposing the boy behind the chaps?

Unwavering confrontation and merciless ridicule please.

The Post also reiterates this quote:

“There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch, there’s leaks in the legislative branch, there’s just too many leaks. I want — and if there’s a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”

Notice how Jr. leverages the image as a verbally inept person to hide his careful parsing.

1. It was never declassified (which you make a good case for)—clearly illegal
2. It was declassified correctly, and somewhere there’s a memo from George Tenet saying all this is fine–probably legal
3. It was “declassified†but not in accordance with the EO–seems like it would be illegal
And all of the above sounds good to me. Thank you, ThomasC & Prof. Foland. Mwahaha!

Does the Bush Administration even care about the consequences of their petty and impulsive behavior — or has cheating simply become their preferred mode of operation?

It has always been their preferred mode of operation. The reason Gore and his campaign failed in Florida in 2000 was that they (along with many of us) did not realize that these people had no intention of playing by the rules.

If Bush told Scooter to blab about Valerie Plame, we’re beyond “gee, can a prosecutor prosecute the President?”

It won’t even come to that. He’ll have to resign. The pressure will be intense. A group of elder GOP statesmen (if they can be located} will pay a little visit to the White House.

Zennurse 77

You are correct and I am shamed

jboa (#81)
“That their [Democrats] cowardice is born of political calculation is a bitter irony.”

Bravo!! The democracy is imploding and the only reason these slugs (Dems) take their thumbs out their asses is to stick their fingers in the beltway wind to see which way it blows. And another irony is that the beltway wind blows in a different direction from that of the country at large.

Lowell Weicker has some experience impeaching presidents.

Here are 2 links worth reading. If you have time call your Senators and ask them to support Sen. Schumer’s bill # S.2468. Thanks I already have called Babs and Paul. Thanks. http://balkin.blogspot.com/200.....nsure.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.....html#links

I posted this originally at The Next Hurrah. After I reread it I relized that these thoughts were triggered by J. Hamsher’s post “Context” and now those ideas have been expanded here. I appreciate the notion that there are no republicans apparently willing to step forward and own this issue. But I do think these thoughts could be useful for expanding the framing of this issue in pushing Congress:

I just finished reading what this one Booman has to say about the textual evidence that portions of the NIE and assertions constitutings its eventual contents had been continually and consistently leaked to Judith Miller since the fall of 2002.

It occurs to me that if this pattern of release goes back that far and was authorized by the President moving back that far that the essence of this selective declassification would be a contempt of Congress in a full blown technical legal sense.

In other words, while the rationale of classification was being used to deprive the peoples’ representatives of the complete evidentiary picture for the lead up to war this material was yet subject to an ad hoc decalssification to create some kind of media based justification for the actions of the administration including media based arguements for the invasion and extending to the push back against Joseph Wilson. And this double dealing was deployed to the extent that Sen. Durbin allows that he felt compelled to bite his tongue as to what he knew of the Administration’s causi belli out of respect for the system of classification. Remember classification is used to justify [limiting] the scope of the membership of Congress entitled to review of classified information.

In maintaining the assertion to Congress that certain information was classifed which had in fact been leaked or shall we say subject to some species of de facto declassification, the Administration has in fact deceived the Congress by relying on classification to justify limited disclosures to that body. And because the information sourced to classified material has otherwise been publically disclosed one would expect that any “national security” justification for limiting the disclosure of information to Congress would be strainded at best but more likely untenable. The disclosure of any classified material, cherry picked or not, necessarily involves a suggestion of “sources and methods.” And the way these particular disclosures were used was an attempt to circumvent Congressional inquiry by manipulating a public sentiment. If this pattern of disclosure to Miller was in fact authorized at the highest level it is all the more egregious in that the information disclosed has been proven to be unreliable by being taken out of context. The very context one would hope Congress would provide if given all the facts.

It seems to me that this might be a fruitful line of inquiry in moving forward in understanding the problems this latest revelation may present for the argument that the President has at all times acted in good faith in pursuing his policies.

Just a thought.

I’m beginning to think that Bush via Cheney approved outting Plame too and Fitzy is floating a trial balloon to let the evil-doers know that more bad stuff will be coming out soon…

timewarp (75), they’re not all dead. There’s still Gerald Ford: “Our long national nightmare . . . is back.”

Slothrop (#85)

I hope that your forecast (”A group of elder GOP statesmen… will pay a little visit to the White House”) is correct, but I don’t think so. Resignation will not happen unless the Democrats scream loudly and abundantly. And THAT is not yet happening. Failing that, the Repubs will roll with the punches until the story dies down (which it will if the Dems let it).

Well, well, well, as the worm turns. Kurtz has written a column called Leaker-in-Chief..

1st sentance: “So I thought George W. Bush was against leaks.”

How is Karl going to try to spin that?