For the umpteenth time, George Bush felt compelled to remind the press that he is in charge by declaring, "I am the decision maker." I would have thought that being the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief and all would have settled the matter, but apparently this President feels he needs to say it again lest we (or his own VP) forget.
We should at least put the President's mind at ease on this point: I am reasonably certain that no other person could have made the decisions to select and tolerate the likes of Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Tony Snow and dozens of other miscreants and still believe he and the country were being well served. No one but George W. Bush would have made such awful choices nor such catastrophic policy decisions nor defended them all for so long without the slightest sign of regrets. Mr. President, be assured: the American people know exactly whom to hold responsible for six years of awful decisions.
So why is the President reminding us? Part of the stimulus for this week's decider reminder arose from the efforts of Congress to send a clear message to our President that they and the country range from deeply skeptical to firmly opposed to ready to buy pitchforks regarding Mr. Bush's troop surge plans. The national discussion about the merits of escalation is separating the civil from the uncivil. We have the gentlemanly Senator Warner worried about not offending the President, while telling him in oh-so-polite terms that his escalation plan is nuts; others are less worried about hurting Mr. Bush's feelings and far more concerned about needlessly putting more US troops in harms way in the middle of a sectarian civil war — or worse, a war against civilians.
Still, it seems the President may agree to some resolution with a link to "benchmarks," if it does not tie his hands in implementing his proposed escalation. We've learned never to trust the Republicans to rein in their own President, so watch the wording on that one. After all, we wouldn't want a resolution to embolden the enemy.
But I suspect the President's deeper identity problem stems in large part from the fact that his Vice President keeps saying and doing things that make it look like Dick Cheney is the decider, or if not, that he remains so completely out of control and out of bounds as to make the President appear foolish, weak and a helpless victim of his Vice President's never ending excesses.
This week we got repeated reminders of how much trouble a dishonest and arrogant Vice President can create for an Administration. Official Washington and its media are being reawakened once again by the Libby trial, in which the ever loyal Scooter is on trial for lying, but in which the defendent in waiting may well be Mr. Cheney himself. By the end of the week, government witnesses were detailing Mr. Cheney's and/or his trusted deputy's guilty knowledge of Ms. Plame's identy and status, while Ms. Martin, a trusted member of Mr. Cheney's own communications staff, described under oath how fixated Mr. Cheney had become about anyone who might reveal how badly he and the Administration had spun the facts to gin up a pretext for going to war.
Lying a country into a tragic war in which 25,000 of your troops become casualties is not a good thing, but it seems that in Mr. Cheney's view, the greater offense is to be publically called out for lying your country into that tragic war. But the underlying deed is not just tragically immoral; it's an impeachable offense. With interest in the Libby trial exploding, official Washington is taking note and the MSM are starting to realize that the country may need to be primed to watch the Vice President's credibility and potential legal culpability come under serious scrutiny. And we've only just begun.
The same theme was repeated on Thursday when Senator Rockefeller (D W.Va) charged that Mr. Cheney put "constant pressure" on Pat Roberts, then the Republican Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to stall the Committee's investigations into exactly the same issue: whether the White House (and the Vice President) misused intelligence and misled the country into war. It's not clear how much pressure was needed, given that Mr. Roberts always seemed more than happy to oblige the Administration's efforts to avoid serious oversight on the Administration's misuse of intelligence. (h/t SilentPatriot, at C&L) Describing the pressure put on Roberts,
"It was just constant," Rockefeller said of Cheney's alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican staffers.
Republicans "just had to go along with the administration," he said.
There is hardly anyone left to defend the Vice President, beyond his or Robert's immediate staff, who quickly issued denials of Rockefeller's charges. The VP was merely encouraging the Republican Chair not to succumb to Democratic efforts to politicize the investigation — that's their story and they're sticking to it. But what can they say to Senator John McCain, the President's faithful friend and war supporter, who struck the lowest Cheney blow of the week.
With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat.
McCain also for the first time opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president's planned troop surge fail.
Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."
In any other regime, a Vice President in this much trouble with the party's potential Presidential candidate, the country, the Congress and perhaps the law would be looking forward to retirement and the unspoken promise of Presidential pardon. Or as Paul Begala put it, "If he had any decency, he'd simply resign." h/t perris). But as we've learned to deep regret, in the Bush regime, none of the rules that lead to well-deserved firings or honorable resignations for the good of the country apply, so we are stuck with the man until folks start reading their Constitution and realize the Founding Fathers actually gave us a solution for exactly this sort of thing. In the meantime, one wonders what he'll say or do next.
Related posts:
- Liz Cheney Warns Against “Walking Away” from Afghanistan, Apparently Forgetting that Dick Cheney Walked Away from Afghanistan
- Laura Ingraham on “This Week”: Dick Cheney “Cuts Through” on Afghanistan Because “His Numbers Are Going Up”
- Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the “Unremarkable” Meat Grinder
- How Dick Cheney Cowed Obama
- Dick Cheney Spied on the State Department–Did He Intercept Torture Whistleblower Emails?





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitz!
J A N E !!!!
It’s his “job” to worry about such things…
also it’s “hard work.”
Bush. The Republican decider. Senator Clinton. The Democratic decider. Yuk.
Hillary Clinton, bleh. I do not like her in a boat, I do not like her with a goat…
Been working on some anti-Hillary designs. But I’m stuck at the moment in need of fresh slogans. (I recognize immediately that the “in a boat, with a goat” thing is one for the circular file.)
Obama and Hillary are way too accommodating. I want partisanship. I’m not up for compromising with the Republicans. And especially the neocons.
This whole Goddamn game is coming unwrapped rather quickly. At home and abroad.
These are times when you need competent leadership not power hungry sociopaths intent on increasing their own power and their corporate cronies bottom lines.
It’s gonna get a whole lot worse.
-GSD
By not impeaching Bush, Congress effectively removes impeachment from the Constitution. Actions by future Presidents will be measured against the Bush era. If Bush’s actions are not now impeachable, it’s hard to imagine a future President doing anything more impeachable than what Bush has done.
All clap.
Jane’s back!
See Jane chase Dick and Spot (i mean Scooter) up a tree (an aspen tree).
Welcome back Jane.
You can’t compromise with people who have swung so far to the right that “meeting half-way” is still way right of center.
I would like to offer up some synonyms:
the masticator
the realisticator
the knowIdoingwhat’er
the cudchomper
the decisionerater
the “do”odler
the comandooer
please continue
Hey! One of my slogans made today’s New York Times!
“We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war.”
I love it when that happens.
Something I posted a couple of days ago but seems more appropriate for this thread…
Some say that I am obstinate
And will not change my views
Some say that my advisors
Fear to tell me what is true
Some say I need to change the course
An’ start bringing troops home soon
But (heh heh heh) decidin’ is just
What I’m s’pposed to do
so..
STFU bloggers
And you generals an’ admirals too
An’ you pollsters need to give it up
’cause’ I ‘m just ignorin’ you
And that goes for all you voters
I don’t care about your views
As long as I’m the President
I’ll say S T F U
Everybody says they want ‘real leadership’. Has Hillary shown real and strong leadership over the last six years? Now I ask you?
NewsHour this evening, Shields & Brooks segment:
Jim Lehrer cues up a segment of Cheney/Blitzer, “, tremendous successes in Iraq, “, leading Brooks to ask, “What planet is this guy on?” and later to characterize the current Bush/Cheney relationship as “war in the leper colony.”
Their wheels can’t fall off fast enought for me.
In the middle of cooking dinner, will come back in a few to read what is surely one of scarecrow’s masterpieces, but in the mean time
scarecrow, you’ve got mail ;-)
A note to those who wish to celebrate:
February 11, 2007 is the one year anniversary of the Harry Wittington shooting.
If they had any decency, they wouldn’t have lied us into war in the first place.
P.S. Impeach Alberto!
Scarecrow- nice thoughtful post weaving things together, so to speak.
Can’t find the link to the MSNBC poll the other eve- anyone know if it has changed from 89% (edit 87%) for impeachment?
And, BTW, sc, did you see my comment that I was the L/N fairy? Thought the addy would be included in the emails. I’ll know better next time.
RevDeb @ 17
Never mind the mail. What’s for dinner?
The impression here is that it is not just men who support the horror that is Iraq.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 7
Sorry if someone mentioned it already today, but Krugman has up his most brilliant piece (of many and MANY) on this issue in the NYT, framed around the key economics issues today (have and have nots). It is must read for everyone.
All right, after Darth Cheney and the Decision Maker, I needed some antidote.
Baby otters at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 15
She’s led the protractor corps – triangulating the way behind….
Renee in Ohio @ 6
Seems Billary didn’t either – hence the separate digs.
Has anyone checked the trash for the late Friday news dump?
Oklahoma kiddo @
22
Well Balrogs certainly don’t, if that’s what you were implying…
Suzanne @ 25
Not I. But it was kinda weird to see that particular “conspiracy theory” confirmed in Cathie Martin’s testimony. VG waves!
Tonight on Lehrer, David Brooks was basically referring to mrC’s attitude & actions being other-world-ly, so to speak – and it was NOT a compliment.
The interchange tw’ Brooks & Shields on the program was, imho, well worth the -ahem- uncomfortable view, & some study.
Just my gut feeling, which I realize means nothing in the great scheme of things, but regardless of whatever distance that may or may not growing tw’ jr & bigtime, the latter is a dangerous, dangerous person to have anywhere near [important buttons], much less possibly earth-changing governmental policy decisions.
Combining the current demonstrated personality traits & publicly-stated views on the imperial status of the presidential BRANCH of govt, I cannot imagine anything more urgently crying for immediate attention than whatever the heck is going on within the exec. branch of our very own, formerly democratic gov’t.
we could be close to a constitutional crisis folks, or already deeply mired & merely clueless. i hope i’m totally wrong on this…
Valley Girl @ 20
Hi, VG — the link was to something at Buzzflash, not MSNBC, IIRC.
Also, as soon as I commented, I saw your fairy note, and went back and edited my comment to acknowledge you. Thanks for L/N links. You were right; the stories were not identical but they came from the same root, and I still think that a Yahoo glitch accounted for new version being reposted yesterday.
Suzanne @ 26
Try this one.
Troops abducted, executed. Liars lie.
What’s for din-din? Marinated Libby. Oysters Cheney. And stuffed Bush. And for dessert; Hillary’s jubilee.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 32
With a side dish of Condi rice.
link via DU
Bustednuckles @ 33
And Condi-ments.
Balrog @ 31
Yep, I agree. They’ve known that the original story was phony for several days. Not only does it go out Friday night, but the Regime tries to cover it with the story that Bush and the Republicans have agreed to some resolution with “benchmarks.” Problem solved; nothing going on here; move along.
Scarecrow- the Buzzflash link in turn led to a poll at ? MSNBC. Buzzflash just had comments about it.
Sorry I didn’t see your comment, tho I was checking. Just wanted to solve the mystery for you. That’s what I get for using “refresh comments” instead of F5ing. And, yes, I now agree that it was some kind of glitch, having read the articles more closely. Dang. I was hoping for evidence of nefarious activities.
stibbert @ 16
I noticed Brooks took the time to try to distance himself from being one of the VP’s goto guys for planting stories. He took great pains to say that he only had lunch with Scooter twice in his life and that Scooter said absolutely nothing – and paid for his own lunch. What a crock!
I wouldn’t be suprised to learn the Cheney compels Bush to go and say those things when the light shines too brightly on Cheney himself.
Balrog @ 27
Implying? Well I suppose I was referencing Hillary and a lot of Republican and/or neocon women. I would reject the notion that the Iraq war from a U.S. perspective is gender specific. ;)
They need to pull the electrodes out of Cheney’s neck so they quit re-animating him.
Scarecrow @ 36
This kind of shit doesn’t even shock me anymore.
Read it, knowing nods, alert FDL, sleep fitfully.
Sad but true.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 40
Well, the Orcs and Trolls may be on the side of the Dark Lord, but Balrogs are known for their liberal leanings.
And Middle Earth has applied for secession from the U.S..
Balrog @ 35
“Condi-ments.” Yumo!
Now all of these news stories are popping out about just how compromised the media is…..So now in order to redeem themselves they may begin some token pushback…..
Perhaps someone should look into just how many meetings Brooksie did have with the Whitehouse propagandists.
-GSD
P.S. Former Mass. Gov. Cellucci is going to support Rudy G. over his colleague in office Mitt Romney.
Last night I watched (in and out) a series of shows on our local Public TV station on the Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler. I mean the similarities of events then with those taking place now days are absolutely eerie! This whole crew CURRENTLY at the top of the food chain in DC just don’t get it and I believe it is time to participate in the festivities scheduled for DC this Saturday!
All the best Jane and the remainder of the FDL gang!! Keep up the pressure.
Balrog @ 43
I am so advised. ;0)
Inonthefly,
Rent Downfall you’ll be chilled to the bone.
-GSD
Can we surmise what Decider Dick was describing with his hand gesture above?
Class?
Liz Taylor “endorses” Hillary. Well that does it. I’m voting for Clinton.
Balrog @ 49
“Scooter is my scapegoat, and everything is o-tay!”
A Web exclusive
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Jan. 26, 2007 – White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
link via muckraker
Having lived on this planet for a little over a half-century, there’s at least one thing I know for certain: If you have to repeatedly remind people that “you’re in charge,” you aren’t. Consider THAT, Commander Codpiece!!!!
If he leaves office before 2008, expect that he will get a Medal of Freedom like all those other incompetents from this administration.
Matthews is saying on “Hardball” that Pelosi’s daughter’s movie on evangelicals is worth a watch.
On other sites, insiders say that chainy will go and be replaced by condi. Impeachment insurance and no more strings. Got to be careful what we wish for. chainy may be bat-shit, but he does sorta function as a drag anchor to tinpot. The Hooded Cobra can only enable. Personally, I didn’t think tinpot had six mths left himself, but condi?
On the other hand, it gives a good reason for Eleanor Holmes Norton to get VP slot w/ dems ‘08.
I posted this in the last thread but it is more appropriate here. This is the Warner Nelson Collins Resolution. I have edited out most of the Whereases. The full text (all the Whereases) can be found here:
http://warner.senate.gov/press…..70122a.htm
What this Resolution does is give the impression of taking action without actually doing anything. All it asks is that Bush reconsider a policy that it is clear he will not reconsider. So what’s the next step, John, or will you be retired by then?
Terrific condensation, even more terrific is the analysis. You’re the greatest. RevDeb is right. Blessings and thanks,
I disagree. Not that Chimpy doesn’t have serious self-esteem issues that “perhaps” rise to the level of psychosis. I agree with that.
I disagree with the Cheney as puppet-master theme. First, I think it gives Chimpy an out – nothing is his fault, it’s Dick Cheney’s fault.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, what evidence is there that the actions of Chimpco aren’t the result of Chimpy’s
whimsdecisions? I don’t think there is. That he has surrounded himself with sycophantic toadies (that’s redundant, but I’m going for effect) who agree with and support his in(s)ane, disasterous decision making doesn’t mean that they are not his decisions.Anyway, assuming you have proof that Cheney really is the puppet-master and Chimpy the puppet, please give some examples.
My preferred take on Chimpco is that Chimpy is the head moron surrounded by like minded morons, and that Cheney is the moron tasked with running all the things they want to keep in the shadows. Still doesn’t mean Cheney is preznit, though it might mean he is the No. 1 to Chimpy’s Dr. Evil (if I need an analogy).
Bush accepts Republican House resolution on Iraq
By Thomas Ferraro
CAMBRIDGE, Maryland (Reuters) – President George W. Bush met privately with House Republicans on Friday and agreed to an alternative resolution to set “benchmarks” for progress in his plan to send more troops to Iraq, party officials said.
Conferring with lawmakers from his party, which lost control of the House of Representatives last November, Bush was confronted with their plan to hold him accountable for the revised strategy, which has been widely criticized by Democrats and some Republicans.
snip
“He said, ‘I have faith in the leaders to craft a proposal, because I know in their hearts they want this country to succeed,’” said Cantor, House Republican chief deputy whip.
snip
http://today.reuters.com/news/…..-newsOne-3
And then he cried like a baby and went for the scotch.
Matthews tells Alexander Pelosi he likes her movie. On “Hardball”. I want to see this documentary.
Isikoff’s article makes it sound like the White House could be preparing for Bartlett to be in on the leaking.
Newsweek article
1 x 2 x 6 = Sounds like he could be a 2? Marcy – Swopa , who gets this one?
jeffreyw @ 34
Interesting…as the Intelligence Agents Identy Protection Act mandates that the President annually report to Congress on actions he undertook to protect the identities of covert agents.
“TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > 423
423. Report
(a) Annual report by President to Congress on measures to protect identities of covert agents.
The President, after receiving information from the Director of Central Intelligence, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an annual report on measures to protect the identities of covert agents, and on any other matter relevant to the protection of the identities of covert agents. The date for the submittal of the report shall be the date provided in section 415b of this title.
(b) Exemption from disclosure
The report described in subsection (a) of this section shall be exempt from any requirement for publication or disclosure.”
Seems that if his own staff are given imprimatur to leak the identities of agents working on WMD’s; ignoring their responsibilities to make sure that they don’t “out” covert operatives; and if the WH is full of individuals who were quite aware of the individuals who were leaking…but did nothing to stanch what clearly could be felonious behavior…then there weren’t adequate measures!
Funny…if the IAIP Act of 1982 is so riven with loopholes why hasn’t anyone taken the initiative to amend it? Are our covert agents just sitting out there with no legal protection from anyone that can assert “Whoops! I made a booboo!” or “I only revealed the identity by mentioning what street they lived on…I didn’t use their name!”
I think it was Harry reid this evening who said it best. There are 21 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008. If they want to go on record as voting against a resolution against Bush’s escalation policy, let them.
Feet up, with my fluffies on, in front of the fire waiting for Olbermann. Ain’t life grand?
choochmac @ 38
Yeah he simply passed Brooks the list of “Talking Points” and gave him the secret “entwined Aspen Roots” handshake.
On KO,
John Dean on “the Decision Maker”
Sounds like someone’s been reading your stuff.
OT- here’s somethingI missed this week. Interesting article with good links by Tula Connell, who has blogged at FDL on labor issues.
~~But when 28 senators voted Wednesday to repeal the minimum wage entirely, many across the country expressed outrage. ~~~ more…
I am liking Hagel on Iraq. Do you hear, Hillary.
Hugh – I agree. ‘08 is going to be as good for dems as ‘06 was. I don’t want repugs to change, and they won’t, cause they never do (Hagel notwithstanding).
K.O.: Rover has be subpoenaed to testify in the trial!
Did we know that?
Hey, did I just hear right? I could swear Olbermann just said that Rove is being called to testify in the leak case.
RevDeb @ 71
LOL! Pinkie wish. I don’t think we did! I wonder which side.
Pelosi for President
NOW!
SharonW @ 72
Fitzgerald may yet provide the country with a ‘Perry Mason moment’.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 65
with wine and chocolate covered macadamias.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 75
I never trusted the message that Fitz gave him a ‘pass’.
RevDeb @ 71
That tidbit was in the Isikoff Newsweek article, linked above.
Rove testifying via Muckraker.
Scarecrow @ 78
Dang! When did that come out? Just today? Must go read. Thanks.
scarlet p. @ 13
I’m waiting to hear/see mine:
Oil men who own war companies
making war in oil countries!
RevDeb @ 76
;0)
don’t think Team Libby will call Rove to testify…
they could craft some questions, muddy the waters some.
But after asking Rove questions, Fitz gets to cross examine, and Rove and Fitz have chatted at least five times already… no way does Team Libby want those discussions repeated in public
Scarecrow @ 78
oh
subpoenaed by the defense
i love infighting
breaking KO – rove and dan bartlett subpoenaed
–sorry 4 the old breaking ;)
Republicans in disarray may not be sibilent,
but is sounds great to me
EPU — I didn’t say or mean to suggest that Bush is Cheney’s puppet; I suggested that Cheney keeps behaving in a way that makes Bush appear ineffective as a leader, unable to reign in a rogue VP. And nothing in the post suggests that I believe Bush is not responsible for his decisions. So I’m not sure whether we disagree on the essentials.
Wow, apparently Newsweek is where Olbermann got it from (joint news) and he’s got Isikoff coming on next.
twolf1 @ 85
Now that’s what I call a Friday night newsdump!
I will not be placed in a DLC/Clinton straight-jacket.
GSD @ 45
Driftglass is the definitive David Brooks expert. He’s probably researching this as we type. Drifty’s gonna be all over Brooks’ new tack of convenience. Dubya will be in 25 percent land as the bodies come back from the surge. Imus, Brooks, Mathews, Blitzer are all jumping ship (still working the bipartisanship – blame the dems too horse, though).
Damn twolf1, you are quick, well done.
After “jonesing” for months, I’m overdosing on the Scooter trial and loving every minute of it.
A Palestinian Christian friend from Bethlehem with whom I correspond asked, when I told her I’m thinking of attending YearlyKos in Chicago, if President Carter has been invited to that event. Does anybody here know whether or not Jimmy Carter’s been invited to speak or participate or attend?
it’s the defense calling Rove
Olbermann’s quote was great:
OldCoastie @ 94
but are they calling him a strawman?
Don’t forget Dick Cheney’s favorite quip: It (the Senate resolution) won’t stop us.
the defense is playing some wacky game – why call Bartlett and Rove? they can’t say “Scooter didn’t lie to the FBI and the GJ”… some kinda strongarm technique… a threat for a pardon? and a pardon RIGHT NOW!!!!???
Oklahoma kiddo @ 50
Hillary gets the Botox vote…
IANAL so I have a question for those who are.
The term “hostile witness” lept to mind re: Rove, but I really don’t know what this means. I was thinking it might mean someone who doesn’t really want to appear on behalf of the defense (can’t imagine that Rove would want to undergo cross).
So, first off, might Rove be called as a “hostile witness”, and what does this mean anyway?
Lying a country into a tragic war in which 25,000 of your troops become casualties is not a good thing, but it seems that in Mr. Cheney’s view, the greater offense is to be publically called out for lying your country into that tragic war. But the underlying deed is not just tragically immoral; it’s an impeachable offense.
If such misdeeds also weaken us as a nation and embolden potential adversaries, it is also the most egregious case of treason in the 231-year history of this country. In terms of potential danger, it outranks Claus Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, Tokyo Rose, Phillip Nolan, Eugene Debs (wait a minute, Debs was innocent!) and any other name I can think of right now.
I’m going to yell real loud tomorrow.
Maybe the Conservative journalists invited to the Cheney Residence to receive their “marching ordures” don’t want to be exposed!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01923.html
Tomorrow (1/27/2007) is Hillary Clinton’s first foray into Iowa as a presidential candidate. But it is also the 15th ANNIVERSARY of her national media debut, on 60 minutes. 1/27/1992. Hillary said: “I’m not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.”
Hey ET- I too am thinking about going to YKOS. fini invited me to be an Associate Producer of his video and podcasting, and TRex is gonna be the “voice of YKos. I am greatly tempted. It would be great to meet you and so many others.
The Israeli government and AIPAC are trying to tie President Carter onto the nearest railroad tracks.
Valley Girl @ 101
wiki on hostile witness
Definition of hostile witness:
A witness who displays antagonism toward the party who called him to testify, or who is a witness for the opposing party. The examining party is allowed to conduct direct examination as if it were cross-examination.
http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm
Michael Isakoff:
So, Fleischer, a man who has immunity, is more likely to be the liar? That’s not the conclusion I’d draw. The first sentence says it’s Bartlett who’s got more to lose.
Oh.. no worries there. Congressional rethugs can be counted-on with complete certainty to try to impeach the next Democratic president. And they won’t even need a reason. My only question is why we’re holding back…
Badwater @ 9
cinnamonape @ 66,
My jury’s still out as to Brooks being an administration tool, but he really got up my nose this evening, w/ that “my colleague John Burns” business, as if Burns’s credibility would automatically transfer to himself.
jw and frogger- thanks for the links. I gather from what I briefly read is that if Rove doesn’t want to testify that doesn’t necessarily make him a hostile/ adverse witness. But I can’t image that Rover would “want” to testify.
Imus, Brooks, Mathews, Blitzer are all jumping ship
It is very imprecise to say Chris Matthews is jumping ship wrt the Eyerack war – in fact it’s incorrect. See his final newspaper column or his 2003 Salon interview, both published well before our nation’s greatest strategic blunder ever spurted across the line of demarcation.
Just sayin’. And I ain’t no Tweety-lover.
-
Valley Girl @
104
I’m seriously thinking of attending, and would love to meet you and other friends – FOR SURE!
But I’d like to be able to accurately answer my Palestinian friend(s) before I decide. Perhaps Siun knows. Certainly there has been discussion about what to do about President Carter by members of the events committee. I’d like to know more, but I’ve never been a part of the Kos community.
What’s going on in the Clinton campaign is “machine politics” at its worst. I’m getting p’ssed. I need to stay calm.
stibbert @ 110
My jury asked if they could impose a harsher penalty than what the prosecution asked for.
Apparently, Isikoff thinks they want Rove to prove their “Libby was a scapegoat” theory. They might wish to bring up the conversation that Libby had with Rove after talking to Novak wherein Libby said he had heard about Valerie from Russert (to back up Libby’s memory defense), but to also point out in the timeline that after that conversation Rove then called Matt Cooper and leaked.
Of course, the Whitehouse doesn’t want Rove making headlines that he did, indeed, leak. LOL Major inhouse fight between VP office and Pres office!!!
It looks like Jane might have front row seats to the boxing match of the century! If that doesn’t help her feel better, nothing will.
Suzanne @
26
I would but Norm (Yecch) Coleman’s in there… :)
Renee in Ohio @ 24
Oh my. How utterly sweet. I needed that, too.
Rove on the stand
kirk murphy @ 99
Warner’s ex. Heh.
Valley Girl @ 105
I registered and booked the room yesterday.
The registration rates go up after Jan. 31. Just thought I’d let you all know.
If you are kind of thinking of maybe going, JUST DO IT!
It was FAB last summer!
It would be nice if Hagel would become an independent. Even better a Demo. Hegel. An anti-war Republican.
cinnamonape @ 102
But it looks like DOJ is arguing in favor of executive privilege and VP ownership of the records. That could be a bad sign if it is consistent in Cheney testifying.
I always thought they were trying to hide visits by Jim/Jeff Guckert/Gannon in the WH visitor logs.
S.O.S. from MA @ 117
snort!
twolf1 @ 119
general spew alert
RevDeb @ 71
Yes. This is not news. He was on the original witness list. One link, from 1/16/07, is here.
ET- I very much doubt that the lineup has been finalized. No specific speakers listed on the speakers link from the main site, which is here: http://www.yearlykosconvention.org/
But, Siun would surely be the person to ask about this. There may be relevant info at the regular site, but I am not a part of Kos either.
If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d bet NO. It would take a huge leap in awareness for this to occur.
Do we really think that Condi as a replacement for the big Dick is going to make any damn difference? I think that people finally have their eyes open, and a change like that ain’t gonna mean squat.
Bill Moyers would be a natural for YKos.
ET
You don’t have to be a part of the Kos community. It is THE place and event for the progressive blog world to gather. Of the 1000 or so participants last year we had something like 140 at the FDL breakfast alone last year.
This is where we meet one another face to face. This is where we will meet all of the contenders face to face and laugh as they try to buy our loyalty. This is where we plan to shape the world we want to see.
Soon. Iran.
RevDeb @ 121
And I was so jealous. But how do I answer my Palestinian Christian friend if I register and it turns out some committee at 07YK decided it was too controversial to invite the greatest living American president?
I’d like to find out soon, ’cause the first full week of August is one when I’m always on the road “down below.”
Condi would have to get congressional approval.
She wouldn’t.
Hugh @ 64
Well they seem also willing to go on the record as opposing the increase in the Federal Minimum Wage.
Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Bennett (R-UT),Bond (R-MO),Brownback (R-KS),Bunning (R-KY),Burr (R-NC),Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK),Cochran (R-MS),Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV),Enzi (R-WY),Graham (R-SC),Gregg (R-NH),Hagel (R-NE),Hatch (R-UT),Inhofe (R-OK),Isakson (R-GA),Kyl (R-AZ),Lott (R-MS),McCain (R-AZ),McConnell (R-KY),Sununu (R-NH), Thomas (R-WY).
Most of them from States where the law actually would make a difference for those working at or near the current Minimum. These states have their own minimums far behind the proposed Federal level.
Imagine working a 40-hour week and getting paid less than $8,000! I guess these Republicans think that that’s more than enough to live on!
For the record, those running for reelection in 2008 are Alexander, Bennett, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Enzi, Graham, Hagel, Inhofe, McConnell and Sununu. Toss in Brownback, and McCain for those who will have to defend how their actions are “Family-Oriented” and for the “working class”.
jeffreyw @ 115
hmm, I don’t think they let you impose longer prison terms than allowed by statute. But sky’s the limit when assessing punitive damages!
I trust Gates, Rove, Cheney, Rice and Bush on Iran. Equally.
Valley Girl @ 127
I’ve picked through DailyKos and the convention site, finding nothing. As far as huge leaps in awareness for me, my only reaction to any conscious decision by the organizers NOT to invite President Carter would be to not go.
Maybe somebody reading here can pass on the suggestion to invite President Carter to speak in Chicago……..
What difference would Rove’s testimony make regarding the charges Libby faces? Just because he lied to the FBI and the GJ, couldn’t he have lied also to Rove? That would be even worse for Libby, but would make sense as far as Libby is concerned, by trying to keep his obvious
liestory straight?oregondave @ 127
That list was of names that would come up in trial (the scorecard), some of whom would testify, not necessarily those who would be called. Marcy corrected her post to that effect. TPM often does drive-bys that don’t accurately reflect the finer points.
SharonW @ 80
Rove was on the list of prospective witnesses that somehow emerged as a result of the voir dire process. A list of “Are you related to or do you know any of these persons socially or professionally?” Many think that this is a list of potential witnesses.
Valley Girl @ 128
suin is not working on YKos this year. She did the press corralling last year but opted out this time.
stibbert @ 135
I would sentence him to a verbal duel with the tag team of Driftglass and the Rude One. Televised, with Mark Shields forced to pick a side.
Liz comes out for Hil. I’m absolutely beside myself. Wonder who Paula Abdul will endorse. Or Kidd Rock, or Pamela Anderson. This is what I want to know.
Bill O’Liely wins WPITW again.
Listened to a speech today by former President Carter who was thoughtful intelligence and integrity personified with sincerity of informed opinion, humility and gentle self-deprecating humor. He listened and responded in order to every part of every question posed. His very existence on the world stage is the most poignant rebuke to that batch of weasels currently holed up in the White House.
oregondave @ 126
Isn’t that just a “may be called” list? According to Isikoff, Rove and Barlett have now been subpoenaed by Libby’s defense. Isn’t that different?
I fail to see the point of putting a known sociopath and accomplished liar on the stand unless you know ahead of time that he’s going to lie for the benefit of your client.
SharonW @
116
oregondave @ 126
Its not technically news, but since we all know Isikoff gets most of his info from the WH, it sounds like they are preparing the public that he will take the stand. After this week’s testimony, Scooter’s attorneys may be sending signals to the WH that they are going to have to call him. They obviously wanted that story out for some reason (for Isikoff to have gotten his background sources to talk).
Blub @ 109
Excellent point, Blub. I concur 100%. They will attack ASAP because that is their nature. We must not shrink from putting our bootheel on their throat and jumping down hard — because that is what they would do, and have done.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 136
Petreus(sp), too. Don’t forget Petreus! Unanimously approved in total bipartisanship.
Who said the democrats weren’t conciliatory?
choochmac at 5:51 pm
Excellent analysis, thanks.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 143
And don’t forget Britany Spears or Paris Hilton.
scarecrow.
What danger do you think there could be that, given the expansion of & imperialization of our former presidency under this admin., veep could, if he goes completely ’round the bend mentally, take some horrendous action using executive power (e.g., strike agnst another country) simply by sidestepping the prez.?
apologies. hate to bother you with what might seem an insane question. i’m not so sure we’re safe enuf to ignore such thots at this time.
RevDeb @ 139.
Thanks for the correction. I wasn’t getting what all the fuss was about . . . I like it better when things make sense.
Terre @ 138
I agree, but showing that he had the same story with an insider might be one of the few bones they have to throw the jury.
Worse than just lying to Rove, they were probably both in on it and are keeping to a story they both testified to already. In desperation, his defense may have decided to use this to deflect all blame for Libby by claiming Rove was the real guilty party. Look, first Rove spoke to Novak and then to Matt Cooper. Libby’s just a scapegoat!
Rove can’t recant his story now without being indicted for false testimony.
Ed*ard Teller @ 137
ET- I think that getting Carter to speak a yKos would be a huge coup. I have told this story before at FDL, but just to repeat… as it happened, Carter had been invited to address faculty at my U- planned a long time before… as it happened, the date turned out to be the morning after the night before “we” invaded Iraq. Carter, as I’m sure you recall, had been on TV a lot counseling speaking against the invasion. It was totally memorable to be part of the faculty audience that day. Carter pulled no punches. Totally honest and forthcoming. I respect this man so much.
twolf1 @ 119
And I thought those were the esteemed members of the MSM when offered the opportunity for a nice little “off the record” bit of “deep background” from the WH!
A naive question:
Even if on the stand and under oath does anyone seriously think that Turdblossom will tell the truth? Seriously… Would he take an oath to tell the truth seriously?
VG & RevDeb,
e-mailed this to the organizers:
I am seriously considering attending YK07. A Palestinian Christian friend in Bethlehem asked me to inquire whether or not Jimmy Carter, the greatest living American president has been invited to participate.
JML @ 145
And yet he is so thoroughly demonized by the right. I just can’t comprehend the level of venomous hatred they have for him nor understand where it’s coming from.
Ed*ard Teller @ 159
ET- hmm… maybe you could moderate a panel on the relevant issues and invite Carter yourself. But what do I know?
Scarecrow – I don’t know if we disagree on the essentials. I don’t believe Chimpy’s declarations of his authority has anything to do with Cheney, but has to do with a Democratic Congress, and members of his own party leaving the fold – the legislature questionning his authorita. I think Bush is quite happy with what Dick does and views Cheney, and Cheney’s actions on his behalf, very differently then we do.
Marion in Savannah @ 158
he will lie if he thinks he can get away with it
otherwise he will tell the truth or take the Fifth
Marion in Savannah @ 158
No. But Rove is boxed in quite a bit by his GJ testimony. Fitz presumably has gleened a good bit of info from Rove which will leave Bush’s Brain with limited wiggle room.
If you recall, Rove kept going and going to see the Fitz and it was hopeful that Rove would be indicted. Alas he was not.
Ed*ard Teller @ 160
Gina Cooper would be the one to ask.
But be aware that the thrust of the conference is about networking and online progressive organizing and how we convert it to boots on the ground. Carter would be great and would love to hear him, but is this the right venue for him? I don’t know.
Adie @ 154
I don’t think we’re in Dr. Strangelove territory. There is enough incompetence, delusion, misconceptions, ideological blinders, etc, to be sure; but (I hope) not total insanity. And if the VP were nuts,and tried to do something unilateral, I have no reason to believe that the military folks would follow orders not endorsed by the President. So I guess I’m saying there is still some rationality left, some minimal respect for the Constitution at some level that might save us from a complete nut. I read the Pentagon’s reluctance to endorse the surge unless they were given clear, finite, achievable objectives as one sign of this, and the willingness of retired generals to speak out as another, and the increasing play given by the MSM to the opposition as yet another. There are bits of light out there, but I wish there were more.
Marion in Savannah @ 158
Well, Fitz has to have a ton of testimony from Rove in hand (four, or was it five?, GJ appearances). Would seem to make it difficult to do an interpretive tap dance on the stand around all that, dontcha think?
I don’t think Rover will take the 5th b/c I think he has a deal. But even if I’m wrong, if he takes the 5th, we win anyway (it really is a classic win win situation), so I’ll live with being wrong and still claim omniscience (it’s what I do).
hackworth @ 164
Dang, you’re a faster typer than I, hackworth!
Evil Parallel Universe @ 162
I agree with EPU. Though Dubya may be frustrated at times by Darth Cheney’s superior intellect, he respects Darth as he would a friendly uncle.
SharonW @ 155
I can understand Wells trying to give that a shot, but even if they got the jury to believe that “poor Libby is the victim”, Libby’s lies about who he learned Valerie’s name from still remain. And isn’t that what this trial is supposed to be about?
Evil Parallel Universe @ 168
And you do it so well, EPU! Carry on!
Marion in Savannah @ 158
Well, he has to tell the same lies as he did before, one of which was that Libby told Rove that Libby had heard through Russert that Valerie worked at the CIA.
He has to stick to his testimony or face indictment himself, so Libby’s attorneys might be using that fact to paint Libby as an innocent. So whatever lies he told before, he’s stuck with even if Libby’s defense uses that to put Rove in a worse light or an untenable position.
And, of course, Fitz gets to cross examine. hehe
Mack, Hackworth and oregondave,
Thanks for your responses, which clarified a lot of stuff. I had forgotten about those repeated trips to the Grand Jury, and the fact that all of that could be used to impeach (what a yummy word…) his testimony on the stand. This may be a bunch of fun to read about! (And what a job all of the live bloggers have been doing — too much for me to keep up with and still keep my job(s)!
Of course, the third possibility is no deal and he doesn’t take the fifth. It’s possible to, and perhaps the most likely, but I still like him having a deal.
“I am reasonably certain that no other person could have made the decisions to select and tolerate the likes of Dick Cheney…”
I haven’t read all the comments, so this may be a repeat, but, when Shooter was tasked with finding a running mate for GWB, he selected himself….
Evil Parallel Universe @ 163
Those are certainly important factors. I’d add that pundits/reporters have been suggesting on many occasions that Cheney is not merely the most powerful VP we’ve had, but someone who has far too much influence on Bush and the National Security team, with all of his loyal people in key staff positions. Add that to the Bush father/son image issue, and we have a President who, if he really believed in his policies, might have in the back of his mind that he needed to tell people that he made the decisions and that he, not just Cheney, fully supported his own decisions.
RevDeb @ 165
What I think about this is that last year the Plame Panel was peripherally about networking and online progressive organizing and how we convert it to boots on the ground in that the word about the importance of Plame coverage spread via the blue netroots at the same time the MSM ignored the truth or painted a distorted picture of the true story. What I’ve observed as the Carter controversy has evolved, is that we’re dealing with a similar instance here. In ways far more tricky, but similar nevertheless……
Ed*ard Teller @ 137
perhaps speakers won’t be announced until after the registration price goes up? you could email gina and ask? or ask TRex to email her (he knows her)?
As for Rove testifying, I guess I’m more cynical than ever, seeing how far and to what lengths of duplicity these…people…will go to protect their power bubble. I expect some collusion between Libby’s team and Rove to somehow blunt the precise charges against Scoot. Question would be then if Fitz has foreseen their strategy and is ready for it. Pure tinfoil hat with booster.
VG @ #161,
And I’m supposed to be giving a talk in a church about humility and personal lamentation this sunday…….
But they may try to use the “look he also told Rove the same story…that he heard it from Russert,” playing on the concept that poor befuddled Libby just remembered incorrectly and didn’t mean no harm or nuttin’…shucks. All he ever said to reporters was “yes, I heard that, too.” Who from? Russert.
If he heard it from Cheney, as we know he did, he got it from a channel that would know you don’t use her name lightly let alone leak it, i.e. it’s classified.
If he thought he heard it from Russert then he can pretend he hadn’t a clue she was anything other than an administrator or something.
Another dumb question:
I realize that because it’s a court martial it’s probably virtually impossible to get into, but is there any way that we can get the real information on what’s happening with Lt. Erin Watada? Has his court martial started yet? (If this has already been covered somewhere else, I apologize…)
scarecrow 166
Thanks for the glimmer of light, I think.
Hard not to get antsy seeing a megalo- falling so far so fast. This trial will bring him down, I bet. Period. Have seen no signs he has a clue how to yield gracefully, shall we say, in the broadest sense of the terms.
won’t be comfy here till frogmarch w/ emptypockets ‘n shackles…
Scarecrow @ 177
Now that is truly scary: “(I just checked in with the voices, and) I fully support my own decisions.”
After having read the comments, and re-read Scarecrow’s part about Cheney taking the stage from the Deciderer, I have to agree that Bush’s repeating of this meme does not arise from a directly perceived threat from Cheney. Frankly, Bush has too little ability to examine “nuance” (”I don’t do nuance”) for him to see what we see re: Cheney. Bush, bless his sorry craven corrupt soul, is in deep shit, and he knows it, and the only way that he can comfort himself is by insisting that he is the Deciderer. (p.s. edit- only read the comments from before I started typing, and I am a slow typist.)
Glorfindel @ 180
Excellent phraseology – blunt the precise charges against Scoot. Perhaps you are right. Doesn’t seem tin foil hattish to me. Let’s hope that Rove may need to focus on his own behind and therefore get thrown off his game.
If Rove does testify for defense, he will take the stand prior to Cheney. Depending on Rove’s testimony, if it hurts Scooter, it will be Dick’s job to kill Rover. Hence the shit storm.
None of this discussion makes for a decent night’s sleep, but it’s good we’re having it.
Helps comfort level to know folks like FDLers are out there thinking, all the time.
Feels as if everything we hold near & dear is at stake.
I do do it well, don’t I ;-)
I don’t think Wells is calling Rover to confirm Libby’s story. I think it is much more likely they are calling him so that they can play the “set-up” out for the jury. Remember, Scooter has to testify if he wants to go with the “I forgot” defense, otherwise the jury is going to be told they can’t consider it and to forget all the testimony they heard regarding it – and they will. And, it is highly unlikely that Scooter testifies anyway, so “set-up” testimony is the way to bet.
As someone pointed out above, Rover has to stick to his GJ testimony, the question is which version. And that is what the defense will go after, and perhaps other insider tips that Scooter knows (and I’m sure Fitz does too), but we don’t. It will be very hostile.
Now some will say that it is being done to scare the Chimpco into a pardon or whatever, but I’ve never been a fan of the pardon/blackmail idea and I’m not going to start being one now. I’ve never believed Chimpco thinks that way, and it would be admitting not simply a “mistake,” which Chimpco doesn’t really admit to, but criminality, which I don’t think they ever will/could/entertain/consider/think about, etc.
Paul Begala may engage in wishful thinking that Cheney “should resign” Na Ga Hapn.
Instead we will be treated to the delightful spectacle of Vice getting skewered and roasted over an open flame and watch every one of his lizard scales turned to crispy crunchies. I for one want to see the last vestiges of his political life roasted alive (”the last throes, if you will..”).
That is what the Libby trial is all about and why the Pettyman Courthouse better stock up on the popcorn.
new thread upstairs.
Okay. Last wild-eyed manic guess of the night from me. Methinks bigtime won’t end up getting on the stand, one way or another. I think his pride won’t let him, one way or another.
Sleep tite, wonderful pups.
FDL made history this week, & it ain’t over ;->
Thanks all. Be careful out there…
Perhaps a dumb question, but does Fitzgerald have to reveal Fleischer’s GJ testimony in its entirity, or only the parts which pertain to the current Libby indictments ? Can GJ testimony be divided up in any way if there are sealed indictments or such?
Scarecrow – We can’t both bury the pundits and praise them.
And as interesting as it is to analysis Chimpy’s motivations for his statements, I think it is much more likely that his “frustration” with people questionning his authority is actually for the people (i.e. the legislature) who are currently questioning his authority. You don’t have to agree with me.
So true. The only way he goes is in some Agnew type plea deal.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 190
Isn’t calling Rove to the stand a good idea, just because it’s probably very believable that he is a mean and nasty enough guy that the jury might believe he was trying to frame Libby?
Of course, if the prosecution calls Cheney in return, then the jury will probably be stuck trying to decide which one of these men is more likely to be the evil backstabber. Good luck to them on figuring that out.
Adie @154 as VG@186 reminds us it’s not only Cheney who needs to create a distraction. Does anyone think the military will disobey if Bush orders a strike against… say Iran, ’round about next Wednesday?
Are there aspects of Fleischer’s questioning by investigators that Fitz can use that a GJ never heard?
I think as a defense attorney you have to play with the cards your dealt. Do I think it is a good idea? I don’t know b/c I don’t know whether he has a deal, or what he might have testified to, or how or if he changed his story, etc.
That being said, I would go with not a good idea for the telling reason, at least as I see it, that assuming he’s there to press the “set up,” whatever testimony he provides doesn’t answer any of the charges against Libby, but rather, IMO, reinforces them, and potentially opens up other charges.
please try to remember: Cheney is in charge. Has been since he “nominated” himself for VP. Bush is an empty suit. Has there ever been any real evidence to indicate otherwise? Read Paul O’Neill’s book, or Richard Clarke’s, or just about anything blessed Molly Ivins has written. Shrub is a dolt; a figurehead. Cheney is the true power behind the throne (in some cases, he actually shares the throne – remember how he rewrote the reg on classifying and declassifying documents?)
JML @ 198
Yeah. I realize that. But bigtime’s the one with one humungous ego, w/ absolutely nothing to lose (e.g., how many heart ‘events’ has it been now?).
He’s been behind the scenes for decades while others called the shots & got the kudos. This has been HIS gameplan, his chance to get what he wants for his chums & own ego.
Besides, he’s the one acting really weird just lately – WHEN have you known him to come out from his lair and endure a face-down like the messy blitzer-meetup? He just does not do interviews, unless they’re totally controlled & smooth as glass.
He suddenly (perhaps cause of these last-minute subpoenas?) acts as if he’s under enormous pressure, unusual for him. He’s acting as if he knows the jig’s up, the trial’s gonna sink ‘em. & I don’t see him being able to take a defeat like that. So what would he do to avoid it?
None of us knows, but then we don’t know much about his ‘real’ personality, do we? He’s quite the poker player, only with real life.
Some people do incredibly bold things out of courage. Others might do the same, but out of desperation & as a way to retaliate before it’s too late to do so.
Obviously, I’m straying way too far with the speculation. Discount any or all of this at your whim. Just stay tuned. I think we all will.
Thank heaven, for the 1st time ever that I know of, this new communication capability, in the hands of goodguys (yay), has a chance to make a difference agnst what would in the past have been insurmountable odds.
Without FDL’s live-blogging, all the news about this trial would be in the Fridaynews dumpster. Technically, the story behind it is just too complicated for the public to understand, or so the MSM & people like rove would have it. Well, that particular cart was just dumped end over end this week, and here comes Marcy’s book to keep things humming, and Fitz, dear Fitz, and threads like this one tonight, with all your good discussions.
reasons for hope…. ;->
JML @ 198
no, but I still think c’s more dangerous by far, & lately he’s been acting weird, as if under w-a-y too much pressure to continue on without blowing a gasket in some fashion.
(see #201)
TiredFed – Sorry, the fact that he is a dolt doesn’t mean that he isn’t the dolt in charge. As much as we might like to believe the meme doesn’t make it true.
Scarecrow @
166
Isn’t the Libby trial a perfect example of how the VP office misdirected us into Iraq? He works in the shadows and presents the argument to the prez in a way that is almost guaranteed to get the results the VP wants. He appears to be a master of controlling people and events.
He’s making the rounds now to familiarize the media with his ‘no response’ answers to acclimate them to his upcoming testimony.
…just my opinion and speculation, of course.
tiredfed @
201
I agree with all of your comment except the empty suit description of GB as it relates to DC. The Bush41-Cheney-Rummy friendship also has its roots in the CIA and back in a time when behavior control was a big goal. The entire Bush admin appears to be based on that control dynamic and secrecy.
I think DC has played George to perfection as all of them have.
I just re-read Swopa’s “Understanding the Libby-Rove Headfake” and think he is right. 1 is Fleischer from AF1 , 2 Rove, Libby. I also agree with EPU that, with the Libby indictment done, Rove made a deal that will corroborate Fleischer to nail Libby and Cheney. fwiw.
So if it comes to pass, remember to thank Theodore Wells for his gift to us, a Dick in a box.
kirk murphy @
25
DISH!!!
There is a lot of speculation here and elsewhere about DC’s motives. Talking W into Iraq, pushing the ISG, stovepiping the bogus DIA/OSP intel, being so intimately involved in having f-all to do with Wilson’s conclusions, etc. My Q is: What the hell was driving him? mA personal hatred of SH? Some ‘tough-guy’ thing he clings very deeply to? Why does he so frequently speak phrases like “One of the best men I ever knew” and “My Dad taught me how to handle a gun at an early age” – is the man psychologically twisted?
Evil Parallel Universe @ 204
semantics
tblankley@washingtontimes.com
this is tony blankley’s email
http://www.kcrw.com/news/progr…..ill_releva
this is where he tells us that the wrong doings of this administration (in regards to Cheney) may be morally wrong but not illegal
http://dir.salon.com/story/new…..ex_np.html
this is whats on the plate so far for the administration…
hackworth @
164
Actually, Sealed vs. Sealed is still sealed. I think it’s better than even money that it’s U.S. vs Rove. Rove understood that elements of this are a capital crime and he didn’t want the ax to fall on him so he SANG. If no when he testifies he must deliver specific testimony incriminating others. I’d bet my bottom dollar that means a Cheney trial.
Very funny
twolf1 @
119