 |
||||
|
|
November 17, 2005Woodward Enters--Doesn't Break--the Story UPDATEDAs noted below, I've been taveling today. Below is a piece I posted on the Woodward revelation in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com. It reprises a few notions from yesterday's post but also includes fresh speculation about the speculations prompted by Woodward's disclosure. See the updated material about Cheney and Richard Armitage, who is now a leading candidate in the who-is-Woodward's-source sweepstakes. And if you've seen this piece already, please scroll down to other recent postings. This week, Bob Woodward didn't break a story. He entered the story. On Wednesday, The Washington Post, Woodward's home base, disclosed that two days earlier the nation's most prominent reporter had given a sworn deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. According to a statement issued by Woodward, the week after Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald asked Woodward to come in for a chat--under oath. What had happened was that a senior administration official had recently revealed to Fitzgerald that in mid-June 2003--a month before conservative columnist Bob Novak published the administration leak that outed Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA official--this Bush official had told Woodward that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA as a WMD analyst. (The official apparently has not permitted Woodward to disclose his or her name publicly.) This revelation changes the chronology of the leak case. Previously, Libby's June 23, 2003 conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller was the first known instance of a Bush administration official telling a reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. Now, it turns out, another top administration figure shared this classified information with Woodward a week or so earlier. Yet another round of Plamegate guessing has exploded. Who was Woodward's source? Was this person Novak's original source? (As of now, only the second of Novak's two sources--Karl Rove--has been fingered.) Why did Woodward sit on this information and not even tell the editor of his paper about this conversation until late last month? (Woodward has apologized to Post executive editor Len Downie Jr.) Did Woodward's possession of this inside information prompt him to criticize the leak investigation repeatedly on talk shows? Was he putting down Fitzgerald to protect or curry favor with one of his insider sources? Will this have any impact on the case against Libby? As for the big who-is-it question, no sooner had the speculating begun that several obvious suspects denied being Woodward's source. An unnamed administration official quickly told The New York Times that neither Bush, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr, nor White House aide Dan Bartlett had spilled this secret to Woodward. Spokespeople for Colin Powell, former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA director John McLaughlin did the same. (By the way, how can an administration official issue such a denial when the White House position is that it will not comment on the leak case while the investigation remains open?) A lawyer for Rove said that Rove was not the one. (Rove only talked about Wilson's wife with Novak--supposedly as Novak's second source--and Time's Matt Cooper.) As the Times noted--slyly?--"Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials." Nor, it seemed, did Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state under Powell. After these denials came out, a smart columnist called me and asked isn't it now clear the available evidence indicates that Cheney, who was previously interviewed by Fitzgerald, was Woodward's source and that Libby had lied to prevent Cheney from being charged with perjury. Not necessarily, I replied. It's worth noting that, according to the Libby indictment, when Cheney told Libby on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, he said she worked at the Counterproliferation Division, which is part of directorate of operations (aka the DO), the clandestine portion of the CIA. Woodward claims that his source described her as a WMD analyst. The difference in the terminology might be significant. Then again, it might not be. It's also hard to imagine Cheney approaching Fitzgerald and conceding anything, even if he was worried about Libby flipping (and there have been signs of that). But if Cheney--who had been collecting information on Wilson's wife apart from what Libby was doing--did tell a reporter about Valerie Wilson (particularly after finding out she worked in the DO, where most employees are undercover), that would be a rather dramatic shift in the leak saga. [UPDATE: On Thursday night, Associated Press reported that a "person familiar with the investigation" said that Cheney was not Woodward's source. Richard Armitage, look out. CNN is reporting that a spokesperson for Armitage said "no comment" when asked if Armitage was Woodward's source--which makes Armitage the only person on the Official Speculation List who has not yet denied it. ] But the whole why-would-Libby-lie fuss has been overblown. It is no great riddle. Ideological allies of Libby have claimed that since no crime was broken by the leakers, there was no reason for Libby to mislead purposefully the FBI agents and grand jurors who questioned him about his role in the leak. This argument is thin. First, who knows if no crime occurred. Perhaps one did, but Fitzgerald cannot prove it. More importantly, at the time Libby first spoke to FBI agents about the leak in October 2003 (and claimed he had only passed to reporters scuttlebutt he had picked up from other journalists), he nor anyone else could be certain no crime had transpired. Yet aside from protecting himself--or another (such as his boss)--from being charged with a crime, Libby had plenty of reason not to own up to being involved in the Plame leak. A crime or not, the leak seemed to be part of a hardball--if not ugly--effort to discredit a White House critic, and it potentially damaged national security. Certainly, Libby would not be eager to acknowledge that he and the vice president had gathered material on Valerie Wilson and that he (Libby) had slipped information about her to reporters. This would have been sufficient motivation for Libby to not tell the truth--especially in those early interviews with the FBI, which occurred before Fitzgerald had been appointed. At that point, Libby might have seen the FBI inquiry as yet another routine leak investigation destined to go nowhere. He might have believed he could get by with a convenient cover story. But once he told the FBI agents he had merely disseminated gossip--when, according to the indictment, he had actively sought and obtained information on Valerie Wilson--he had to stick to his tale, even after Fitzgerald, the bloodhound prosecutor, inherited the probe. So the Woodward revelation does not provide an answer to the not-that-important question of why Libby lied (if he did). Nor does it help Libby's case much, if at all. On Thursday, the Post published a news story titled "Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby." The article noted that "legal experts" (note the plural) said that the Woodward disclosure could "cast at least a shadow of doubt on the public case against Libby." But it quoted only one legal expert--a former federal prosecutor named John Moustakas--making such an argument. He said that the Woodward revelation "casts doubt about whether Fitzgerald knew everything as he charged someone with a very serious offense." But who says a prosecutor has to know "everything" before bringing a case? Libby's legal team reportedly plans to use Woodward's deposition--in which Woodward notes he talked to Libby and Libby did not out Valerie Wilson to him--as evidence that Libby was not hell-bent on revealing Valerie Wilson's CIA connection. But none of this has anything to do with whether Libby lied to investigators and the grand jury when he was asked what he had said to other reporters. The Post article also quotes Randall Eliason, former head of the public corruption unit for the US attorney's office in Washington, DC, dismissing this legal strategy as "defense spin" and noting that the Woodward news "doesn't really tell us anything about the central issue in Libby's case." The newsflash about Woodward tells us more about Woodward (he sat on information while blasting the investigation) and presumably provides Fitzgerald yet another lead. Where this might take Fitzgerald, if anywhere, is open to wide-ranging conjecture. But one need not know the identity of Woodward's latest secret source (Top Throat?) to ask a pointed question of the White House. When the CIA leak first became the subject of an investigation, Bush declared that everyone in his administration with any information on the matter had to come forward and "speak out." Obviously, Karl Rove did not do this. Neither did Libby. The White House grandly--but falsely--denied they had been "involved" in the leak. And here's another administration official who did not come forward until late in the game. (Why Woodward's source contacted Fitzgerald at this stage is another guessing game.) When is Bush going to acknowledge that he has been surrounded by people who ignored the come-clean command? If the White House can leak word that Bush is not Woodward's source, it certainly can explain why Bush has yet to demand that White House officials be held accountable for disobeying his order. Posted by David Corn at November 17, 2005 09:35 PM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
Comments
Troll Alert!
I still say Tenet is Woodwards source.
Posted by: TRH at November 17, 2005 09:41 PM
Mr. David Corn,
Great post from on the road!
Thanks
Kirk
Posted by: capt at November 17, 2005 09:50 PM
"When is Bush going to acknowledge that he has been surrounded by people who ignored the come-clean command? If the White House can leak word that Bush is not Woodward's source, it certainly can explain why Bush has yet to demand that White House officials be held accountable for disobeying his order."
I, for one, will not hold my breath.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 17, 2005 09:52 PM
Saladin I left an example of some of Art's writings from Israel here is one of Peggy's. I did send the e-mail of Trish to capt. Sorry I am such a klutz with this linking and getting through. This world of the blogoshere is not in my nature. But I am learning....slowly
Peggy will be leaving for Iraq again this Friday for 4 months. Art will be leaving for Israel and the occupied terrtories once again.
I have over 80 e-mails that they have sent over the last few years, if you would like a chronological overview of what they have been doing. Trish the main conduit would certainly send their e-mails also. They have both written books also.
From: Trisha Lachman
Date: 23 Aug 2005, 03:45:48 PM
Subject: from Peggy in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 August, 2005
Waleed?s* Quest
By Peggy Gish
After two years of searching, Waleed is still trying
to find his nephew, Yasser, who was last seen in U.S.
military custody in the spring of 2003. The nephew has
been part of CPT?s Adopt-a-Detainee Campaign, and
Waleed has come to our apartment many times to share
information. While trying to find Yasser, he has also
been helping other families with their searches. When
CPT held vigils in Tahrir Square in spring of 2004, he
joined us a few times, holding Yasser?s photo. At one
point he told CPTers, ?Even though you were unable to
find concrete results, you are here with us in our
suffering.? Yet as he became more discouraged about
the progress CPT made in finding the disappeared, he
came less often.
We susp
ect that in most of these cases, the disappeared
person is actually dead. Friends and family have said
this to him, but Waleed, like many others, has not had
any evidence to give him closure, and hasn?t given up
his search. A man came to him claiming to have
Yasser?s prison identification number from a prison in
Qatar. Whether true or false, it has given him new
hope. A week ago he came with information about many
men who had disappeared and said he hopes to get help
from a U.S. military official in charge of the
detainee system.
Waleed told us about his own four hour detention last
week. U.S. soldiers stopped him at a checkpoint near
Fallujah, handcuffed and blindfolded him after they
found papers with him referring to Yasser?s capture by
the U.S. military as a criminal act. While searching
him, they found a CPTIraq card and he said he was
associated with our team. He thought that may have
helped him convince the soldiers to let him go.
He said that recently U.S. soldiers took two women
from their homes near Fallujah as hostages, in order
to force their husbands to turn themselves in. They
later released them, but that did not remove the shame
for them and their families. ?In our society,? he
said, ?it is more difficult for us to have a woman
detained than for a whole village to be bombed.?
I asked about his family and home has fared since the
November 2004 US assault on Fallujah. His home, being
outside the city limits, and his family were not
harmed. His milk factory, inside the city, however,
has been closed since then. ?But,? he said, ?it?s not
just about me. It?s about Iraq. It?s horrible. People
are suffering so much.?
Today, he looked very discouraged as he came by
briefly. The U.S. Military official he had hoped to
meet had just left for a three week vacation. For him
it is another delay without any promise. We said, "We
are sorry.? He knows we care, but we are also among
the many in the past two years who have been unable to
help him find the truth that can help him move on with
his life.
*Not his real name
Message 2 of 56
Posted by: kathleen at November 17, 2005 10:00 PM
I'm stuck on the primary issue. How can an overt CIA agent working at Langley claim covert status? The Philip Agee law was clearly drafted to protect real covert operatives in danger for their lives. The trail of corpses after Agee's revelations bears this out.
Washington, and the CIA itself, is a firehose of classified information. Why the obsession about one agent, in no danger, working in Virginia?
Moreover, doesn't the CIA reporting the 'outing' of the 'covert' Plame suggest even they didn't take her covert status seriously? If she was a real covert agent the CIA would have made some effort to deny or deflect as they've always done in the past.
Look at all the "weather reconaissance" we did around Soviet missile and radar sites during the Cold War. It wasn't until Powers was in custody they gave up the obvious ruse.
Posted by: Chip at November 17, 2005 10:01 PM
Access journalism: it's what's for dinner!
But what really pisses me off is all those cashiers saying, "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas." Well, they will be soon, anyway...the bastards!
Posted by: Don A at November 17, 2005 10:05 PM
Way back when I always thought Woodward was a rat-fink but now I don't think he is such a bad guy.
Posted by: Prof. B G D'Gre at November 17, 2005 10:12 PM
This sure does not look good for Mr. "group think" Woodward. Trashing the investigation, referring to the leak as gossip, chatter, that it would not amount to much. All the while with holding his own involvement.
If he had really wanted to protect his source he would have kept his mouth shut instead of publicly trashing the ongoing investigation. Protecting a source...Bull crap.
He owes more than Len Downie Jr. and apology. He owes his colleagues and the public an apology. He was operating in the public arena with an agenda. And that agenda was to mis-lead the public, the Washington Post and Fitzgerald. He made no effort to shed light or truth on the investigation. He made radical efforts to deny, diffuse and di-vert.
Is this a good example of a high quality journalist? Is this an example of integrity and journalistic principles? Is this someone to be trusted? Not in my book.
This new revelation would seem to widen the net for Fitzgerald. It would seem that he could pull more fish in with his investigative net with this news. The possibility for conspiracy charges seem even greater. I sure hope so.
Kerry hammered away at Cheney tonight on Hardball. Kerry went as far as Wilkerson and called the group that pushed the false intelligence a "cabal".
Woodward received a beating on both Hardball and Olberman. He deserves it.
David do you really consider dessiminating the identity of an covert agent..."dessiminating gossip"?
Posted by: kathleen at November 17, 2005 10:37 PM
"The aspens turn in clusters, because their roots connect them". Whose next? Will Cheney drop out because of health issues?
Posted by: kathleen at November 17, 2005 10:49 PM
Bush wanted them to come clean while he was hiding under the rug with the rest of them.
Posted by: Damn_Em at November 17, 2005 11:08 PM
Sorry I meant Bunnypants
Posted by: Damn_Em at November 17, 2005 11:11 PM
This tune just seems appropriate at this time. Al together now..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist: Jimmy Cliff Lyrics
Song: The Bigger They Come The Harder They Fall Lyrics
Well they tell me
ThereÕs a pie in the sky
Waiting for me when I die
But between the day
You're born and when you die
Oh Lord, they never
Seem to hear even your cry
And as sure as the sun will shine
IÕm gonna get my share of whatÕs mine
And then
The harder they come
The harder they fall
One and all
Oh the harder they come
The harder they fall
Well the oppressors are trying
To get me down, trying to drive me
Under the ground, and they think
That they have got their battle won
I say: "forgive 'em Lord
They no not what theyÕve done"
And as sure as the sun will shine
IÕm gonna get my share of whatÕs mine
And then
And I keep on fighting for
The things I want, though I know
That when youÕre dead, man you're gone
But IÕd rather be a free man in my grave
Oh, than living like a puppet or a slave
And as sure as the sun will shine
IÕm gonna get my share of whatÕs mine
And then
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Song Lyrics for Soundtrack Harder They Come:
ARTIST/BAND NAME SONG LYRICS
Jimmy Cliff Lyrics You Can Get It If You Really Want
[More Harder They Come Lyrics]
Posted by: kathleen at November 17, 2005 11:19 PM
Lately political life has been a string of the worst case scenarios so . . .
"The aspens turn in clusters, because their roots connect them". Whose next? Will Cheney drop out because of health issues?
I have considered what would be the worst case?
Cheney resigns, inoculating Bush (he never knew - right), Bush pulls a PNAC pal in to replace Cheney (Jeb, neo-Condi, James Baker or ???) then Bush strokes out crashes his truck or dies from a bizarre chain-saw accident from cutting brush while eating pretzels.
The VP ascends and the stuffed black-box voting machines takes the new neocon for a full two term ride. (yep 2016)
The Neocreeps will say: the people have spoken, not that old sour grapes again, and we fixed those issues with the secret "Diebold act" that was passed without any representative or senator allowed to even read it because it is a matter of national security that nobody ever knows how they count votes.
*perish the thought*
capt
Posted by: capt at November 17, 2005 11:48 PM
Kathleen, I would be VERY surprised if Cheney "dropped" out because of health issues. I mean, he is running the show...why do you think he's dragging his fat ass out to snarl at his (and the cabals') detractors? Cheney is -- and has been -- the de facto president since bush was selected by SCOTUS. The only way Cheney would "drop out" is if they had bush OUT first (by what means...?) and Cheney and his henchmen had the opportunity to select the "appropriate" vice president to take his place in the event of a "health issue" that would require him to step aside.
Nope. Cheney ain't going anywhere -- unless he does just pop off and die before they get their ducks in order. But, I admit, they are having big trouble with figuring out exactly what to do.
Lately, they are fucked in the drive through.
But, they are working on it.
Posted by: micki at November 17, 2005 11:51 PM
Well, capt and I described slightly different scenarios, but they are in the same genre.
I base my scenario partly on my belief that bush is TOAST. No matter how you slice it (not the toast), bush is PERCEIVED as the one who is the drag on the party. bush is of NO USE to the Repugs at this point. Cheney runs the neo-con show.
Posted by: micki at November 17, 2005 11:57 PM
House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal
Vietnam vet says the Iraq war is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion
November 17, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.
"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran and former Marine was choking back tears.
"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.
Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.
He said announcing a U.S. withdrawal would provide the Iraqi government with an added incentive to have their own security forces take control of the conflict.
Murtha is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout.
*****end of clip*****
This is no small message. I remember Senior Democrat Rep. John Murtha was the first Vietnam vet to be elected to office (1974 I think). He is well respected (basically a hawk) and is a quiet guy, not much fanfare, floor speeches or media face time.
He is one of the guys most look up to, ex-marine that could probably kick butt to this day. He is senior and the "go to guy" as far as military action goes. (I think he has always supported military action before this statement)
He is still, and more than ever, my hero now.
Truth to power, we need as much of that as can be mustered.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 17, 2005 11:57 PM
Democratic hawk presses for U.S. Iraq pullout
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, in a statement issued with Bush in Pusan, South Korea, said Murtha is a respected veteran and politician "so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Moore is a liberal movie producer and sharp Bush critic whose documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" criticized the Iraq war.
"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer," McClellan said.
Murtha, a defense hawk, decorated Vietnam War veteran and retired Marine colonel, made a reference to the draft deferments that kept Cheney out of Vietnam.
"I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.
----------------------
Scott McClellan needs to enlist. He needs to do a few tours. Or maybe he could visit the miliary personal like Murtha does.
WAR - WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 12:06 AM
Micki,
I am not a good predictor. I get creative a bit beyond that based in reality.
Either way, under either possible scenario it is we that are f**ked, they will come or go and have millions to cushion the fall. Bunnypants TRIPLED his assets in one year from (est.) $25 million to (est.) $75 million. At that rate he might catch up with Rummy.
We will likely have $5-6 per gallon regular. Poor numbers as the recession cooks our books.
That is if the economy does not go completely south due to debt.
Just ruminating.
We are (and have been) one pretzel, or bike crash from a change.
I have a feeling Bush or Cheney will not just be the very worst of the worst, they will leave their mark in their exit. First ex-vp or p to die from a drunk driving accident or some such embarrassment.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 18, 2005 12:08 AM
And now for something a little different.
Magazine: U.S. Attorney One Of Sexiest Men Alive
CHICAGO -- He's known for shaking up Illinois politics, for fighting terrorists and for his current role as special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation.
Now, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald apparently has a new distinction -- he's made the pages of "People" magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" issue, NBC5 reported on Thursday.
Under the heading of "Smart Guys," there is a big color photo of Fitzgerald.
"I played a lot of practical jokes on people for a lot of years, and they all got even at once," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "That's how it felt."
Actor Matthew McConaughey graces the cover as the sexiest man alive.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 12:12 AM
#18
Capt,
My daughter loved the binocular picture of Bush.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 12:14 AM
"so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
I heard that on AAR, I almost laughed my _____ off.
This is rich. They are as desperate as I have ever seen any administration. Their world is crumbling around them and lashing out is expected but to compare Murtha to Moore is a cry out for their base to reject Murtha. That will not happen (except with the idiots and trolls).
"I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.
Old leather-necks do not take any crap from the likes of Scotty McClueless or even scary darth Cheney-hawks! HA!
He would lay them out like a Persian rug in a heartbeat.
I enjoy the desperation from the WH, they loved his support because he had the war cred they will never ever have. As usual this WH wants to have it both ways, that is not going to happen, not this time.
Bring the effin troops home.
Enough is enough. I do not care if Bunnypants or any of them ever return to reality. F ' em.
Just bring our troops home.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 18, 2005 12:23 AM
micki, 29 from the last thread, You don't think I had you in mind? And, why not? I was born and raised in Portland, been to the Kennedy school, love McMenemins, especially the Baghdad Theatre, very cool, and great beer! If you are there when I am I would love to get together. I will be at my brothers place, if you are interested, e-mail me.
Posted by: Saladin at November 18, 2005 12:28 AM
It just burns me when Scott McClellan compares Rep Murtha to Michael Moore, like that is going to scare Murtha. Does he grasp how stupid he sounds? When Murtha stands up in front of the nation and says we need to pull out, it's time to pull out. He was a commander in Viet Nam. He knows the business of war. He knows that the Marines under his command have families and they have futures. He knows the loss that comes with every death.
And Scott McClellan makes some idiotic comment to weaken the statement of Murtha. Who writes that guy's material? He needs to hit the circuit. He's a barrel of laughs.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 12:32 AM
Hey liberals. It's called politics. There was no crime commited in the case of "revealing a covert agent". Libby is simply a liar to Fitzgerald. Who cares? The same could have been said in Clinton's case. Morons.
Posted by: ROC at November 18, 2005 12:55 AM
Hey Jeanne,
Have YOU Serverd? Hmmm....Probably not. Let the ah hem...REAL Veterans respond to Murtha. He's a bozo. A bronze star from Vietnam hardly reminds most of Sargeant York so let's get our facts staright, eh? As a Vet, Murtha is a dunce. A quick withdraw would be disaster for the USA and everyone else despite the initial reasons for war. It's too late to argue if it was right or not. We're in deep despite opinions. Bozos. Murtha is a joke.
ROC
Posted by: ROC at November 18, 2005 01:01 AM
Well, as several other bloggers have noted today, about 65% of the American people are "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
Please. Only this train wreck of an administration would try to characterize men like Murtha and Hagel as moveon.org liberal "moonbats." It's a nakedly Rovian tactic: tell a fantastic lie repeatedly until it's considered conventional wisdom. But it doesn't seem like it's working any more, does it? Or am I being naive? I sure hope not.
Posted by: Don A at November 18, 2005 01:02 AM
Is it me or is David Corn a really strange looking guy?
Posted by: Roc at November 18, 2005 01:04 AM
Jeanne-
Murtha said 18 months ago the US could not win. He is just now getting around to saying that we should leave. What a dumbass, typical of the swine that are sent to congress.
Posted by: JCooper at November 18, 2005 01:05 AM
Don,
It ain't working.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 01:06 AM
One more post and I'll leave you nimrods alone-promise! Intelligence is lacking from Democrats so I issue a challenge-decipher this: Rocco is a "Iuris et aequarum cultor sanctissime legum"
Posted by: Roc at November 18, 2005 01:08 AM
JCooper,
That's too bad. So many lives lost. So many lives damaged. For what?
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 01:09 AM
Jeanne,
Disregard the trolls. They're part of the 35% who would bow before Bush even if the bestiality video was released.
Posted by: Don A at November 18, 2005 01:10 AM
Don,
And who are they turning their backs on? Humanity. Their lives must be very comfortable.
Posted by: Jeanne at November 18, 2005 01:19 AM
ROC: "Hey liberals. It's called politics. There was no crime commited in the case of "revealing a covert agent". Libby is simply a liar to Fitzgerald. Who cares?"
Well, Fitzgerald, for one. Looks like that's enough.
You cons may call it politics, but the real world calls it perjury.
Where's your respect for the "rule of law" that you freaks were trumpeting back in December 2000?
Posted by: Drewp at November 18, 2005 01:52 AM
In challenging war's critics, administration tinkers with truth
By James Kuhnhenn and Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON _ President Bush called Democratic critics of how he sold the Iraq war to the world "irresponsible" five times Thursday during a brief news conference in South Korea.
Bush said he agreed with Vice President Dick Cheney, who on Wednesday had accused some unnamed senators who oppose the administration's Iraq war policy of lacking "backbone" and making "reprehensible charges" that Bush and his aides "purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."
Cheney's rough-edged remarks, and the president's unequivocal endorsement of them, were the latest in the Bush administration's new campaign to challenge critics of how it sold the war, accusing them of twisting the historical record about how and why the war was launched. Yet in accusing Iraq-war critics of "rewriting history," Bush, Cheney and other senior administration officials are tinkering with the truth themselves.
The administration's overarching premise is beyond dispute: Administration officials, Democratic and Republican lawmakers and even leaders of foreign governments believed intelligence assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That intelligence turned out to be wrong.
But Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials have added several other arguments in recent days that distort the factual record. Below, Knight Ridder addresses the administration's main assertions:
*****end of clip*****
Just politics, no doubt but piss poor politics and very desperate.
See the problem is many GOPhers are done. The middle did not move left it just turned away from the lies and failed policies of the misadministration.
By offering such obvious hyperbolic BS they forgot they are saying the same thing about every GOPher that is disgusted and had their fill of the lies and smears and petty attacks from what is suppose to be a position of power with some dignity. The neocons have over-reached and over-supported a nutcase and everybody knows who started the illegal and unwise invasion that is done. We are there, it is not going to get any better. Likely it will get worse.
Only time will tell but I have a feeling the sheer arrogance and predictable ineptitude is offending a bunch of people they think still support this mess.
By January we will know how effective these petty personal attacks are on every person that has already turned on Bunnypants. Hardly a way to woo them back into the fold.
I think they might be in meltdown. Full meltdown. Nixonian meltdown. Sadly, that is what is necessary to return to some sanity, justice, honor. Who knows, maybe those things will matter again. I hope so and it cannot happen soon enough.
I expect the worst but so far the WH seems to be lost in their message and foolhardy in the delivery. If they cannot do better they have lost, maybe a bunch.
But what do I know! HA!
capt
Posted by: capt at November 18, 2005 01:57 AM
He is still, and more than ever, my hero now.
Capt, did you see his speech? I saw him fight to not break up more than once. Especially when he was describing one of his visits with the wounded. "What can I do to help?" The answer was... "My son wants his Purple Heart." And then the father explained that it was a "friendly fire" incident that blew up his son and the military wouldn't give it to him. Took awhile for the Congressman to finish his sentence (and I'm not a 'girlie-man', but I was dabbing my eyes), but he said he called the Commandant of the Corp (Marines) and told him "You get this boy his medal (pause while fighting back emotions), or I'll give him one of mine!" Hero indeed!
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 02:00 AM
ROC: " . . . He's a bozo. . . Murtha is a dunce. . . Murtha is a joke."
You people are sooooooh paiiiinfully predictable.
You must bore the hell out of even yourself.
Maybe you should consider asking yourself for a divorce.
Posted by: Drewp at November 18, 2005 02:01 AM
When is the last time we had a serious discussion about character?
Lying is lying, it was never about the sex. It was about a high official lying about a personal failure. Now that the failure is totally political it does not matter.
Sure, I am so sold.
The truth is many are facing the fact that they backed the worst most inept group of low lifes that do not share the spirit of the nation because they have become multinational citizens.
Just like the multinational coprorations they have no national pride, just the perverted quest for more profit. That is what happens when business is in charge.
If having lots of money made people good then the richest should all be in charge. It does not make anybody good, it can pervert them and corrupt them.
I might point out that the regulars on this blog have been saying the same thing all along. It is the apologists that have offered too much too often to have any credibility. The truth does not shift like so many dunes. Nobody can invent a new reality that does not conform to the old.
It will be an interesting holiday season.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 18, 2005 02:12 AM
Rove fkn snitched on somebody. Hell yeah, it fits! At Kos I'm reading about Woodward getting deposed by Fitz (under oath statements to Fitz or investigators, not to the grand jury)...
Whether that official was prompted by an inquiry from Fitzgerald, by their own newly discovered memory, by an after-the-fact attempt to assist Libby, or in an uncomfortable admission prompted by Rove's alleged "new information" that "gave Fitzgerald pause", during the week in which Fitzgerald was by multiple reports considering Rove's possible indictment alongside Libby, we don't know -- all those hypotheses have merit.
==============
As in..."You can't pin this on me, (blank) told Bob Woodward a couple weeks before my ehhh, slip of the tongue to Novak."
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 02:53 AM
*one of the best pics of our president of vice I've seen yet...
Dissent is Treason
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 03:02 AM
"Wha? Tom Delay isn't a crook. But yeah, we promise to stop doing that if you won't indict us too. Thankssss!"
The Republican Party of Texas avoided prosecution Thursday by agreeing to stop using corporate money for some political activity.
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 03:07 AM
Bush's Approval Rating
Falls Again, Poll Shows
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
November 17, 2005
President Bush's positive job rating continues to fall, touching another new low for his presidency, the latest Harris Interactive poll finds.
Bush's current job approval rating stands at 34%, compared with a positive rating of 88% soon after 9/11, 50% at this time last year, and 40% in August.
And he's not alone. Cabinet members, Congressional leaders and both parties in Congress have also seen their ratings slip, with Democrats seeing one of the biggest dips in approval, the telephone poll of 1,011 U.S. adults shows.
Vice President Dick Cheney's approval ratings slipped to 30% this month from 35% in August, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval ratings dropped to 34% from 40% and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's approval ratings fell to 52% from 57%, according to the poll.
At the same time, only a quarter of Americans polled give Democrats a positive rating in the latest poll, compared with 31% in August, while Republicans' approval ratings fell to 27% from 32%.
Mr. Bush's current ratings don't compare favorably with those of three of the last four two-term presidents at a comparable time in their fifth year in office. In November or October of their fifth year, Presidents Johnson (67%), Reagan (66%) and Clinton (58%) all enjoyed the support of majorities, while President Nixon (29%) was less popular than Mr. Bush is now. (See related chart)
In the most recent poll, Americans were also asked to name the two most important issues that the U.S. government needs to address. When considering the most important issues, 34% of those polled say the war is most important, 13% said the economy and 13% said Iraq. Other issues mentioned were health care (11%), education (10%) and taxes (9%).
*****end of clip*****
I do not get all invested in polls (generally) and I think the WH could rebound. Not with their current strategy. They need to get real humble real fast. I doubt they will do so.
The fact is, we have Bunnypants in the oval office for the balance of his term, unless the GOPhers get him to resign.
My guess is as Bunnypants' numbers fall there is not an offset in positives for the opposition. The dems have yet to take much advantage in driving their numbers up as much as attending to the drop for the WH.
That could bode badly for the dems.
capt
Posted by: capt at November 18, 2005 03:10 AM
at the Carpetbagger...
An escalation of rhetoric
Under the new standards of WH rhetoric, Dems might be justified in telling reporters, "If Bush and Cheney went after bin Laden with the same passion they use to go after congressional Democrats, the world would be a safer place."
A cheap shot? Cynical? Probably, but this is where the White House seems anxious to go. It's a shame, but if they want to play, we can play.
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 03:26 AM
David,
What's up at your new gig? Are your posts going to be anonymous, attributed to "staff" like what's up there now?
Have you posted someting already, even?
Posted by: Alan at November 18, 2005 03:37 AM
Capt. at #42
You shouldn't worry too much about Dems not benefiting from the Bush drop in polls. We all get the sense of what needs to be done to change the currnet discontent. If Dems stay true, any Repub that has any connection to Bush will be toast. I seriously doubt even McCain could recover from his loyalty. The price of loyalty to Bush is the albatross of his policies. If the Dem base is solid, things will change, and it's worth having hope when Iraq vets come home to run as DEMOCRATS because they know that moral, strong, and honest leadership or representation does not coincide with the Republican party's agenda. Forget the polls, you can feel it in the air.
I know you have a penchant for quotes, so from the greatest lyricist of our time...
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..." -Dylan
Posted by: ripple at November 18, 2005 03:41 AM
Why not Bush, himself? Woodward spent hours with him, too, while writing the Bush book.
Posted by: Oakland at November 18, 2005 05:53 AM
Has anyone noticed all the recent footage Without sound, of the press gagles hounding Bob W. every where he goes. You know he's got to be hating life right now. Isn't it great? I just wish I could hear what he's saying he looks kinda pissed.
Posted by: the Fly-Man at November 18, 2005 06:26 AM
#13 Capt
#14 Micki...I know it is highly unlikely that Cheney will go..but I can dream. As Fitzgerald's vice grip tightens around the vice Presidents nuts lets just hope he implodes. His money/oil agenda combined with the neo-con/christian right mania is a lose/lose/lose situation for the world.
I loved when Rep. John Murtha called Cheney out on the carpet, bringing attention to Cheney's (is it) 4 or 5 deferments. Murtha was fired up.
#25 Roc it is disgusting and shows a complete lack of integrity to rip another vet like that.
Just like SEnators, journalist, humans in general..it is healthy to disagree, but do it respectfully. This type of attack only says a great deal about you.
Unless of course some one is killing someone or doing irreparable harm (like sending soldiers into an unnecesary war).
#26 Don.. I agree they are desparate....this makes them even more dangerous
#32 Don.. funny
Posted by: kathleen at November 18, 2005 08:59 AM
I'd like to know why Tenent has not written a book to make himself a few million $.... I know, cuz BushCo paid him off (Swiss bank account) to keep quiet + threw-in a Medal of Freedom for good measure.
Gil
Posted by: gilgamesh at November 18, 2005 09:00 AM
September/10/2001- The Massachusetts Urban Search and Rescue Task Force -- one of the first teams deployed to the WTC -- arrives late in the evening and goes into action the following morning on 9/11 according to task force member Tom Kenney on a Dan Rather taped interview that aired on Sept. 13th.
"We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the City of New York for this disaster," Kenney said. "We arrived on late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning, and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site." -CBS News (09/13/01)
^^^^^^^^^^6
the MUSRTF is a part of FEMA, and they showed up in NY the DAY BEFORE 911 to get ready for 911. someone must be a psychic...ya, that must be it, a psychic.
Posted by: James Ha at November 18, 2005 09:56 AM
NO No James, it was just a very fortunate coincidence!
Posted by: Saladin at November 18, 2005 10:12 AM
David Corn wrote:
"It's also hard to imagine Cheney approaching Fitzgerald and conceding anything, even if he was worried about Libby flipping (and there have been signs of that)." Is this a typo? Was it meant to read: "(and there have been no signs of that)"?? I figured there was no chance of scooter flipping. I mean he will just postpone the trial as much as he wants, then do a few weeks in some country club minimum security place and then get pardoned by dubya. What motivation would scooter have to flip? What are these signs indicating he might flip??
Posted by: Rob Hutchinson at November 18, 2005 10:31 AM
ha. coincidence theories!
Posted by: James Ha at November 18, 2005 10:37 AM
You lied, when you stated that "a Republican congresswoman implied that Murtha, a former Marine, was a coward for advocating disengagement. For his part, Murtha fought back by observing that he was not going to fret about attacks from folks who had ducked the Vietnam War by obtaining multiple deferments--a direct reference to Cheney".
The congresswoman clearly stated that she was passing on a message from a CURRENT marine in Iraq, one that Murtha can't disparage.
Murtha then truly proves his cowardice, by attacking Cheney, instead of the critical Marine. It is well known that Bill Clinton avoided the draft. Did Murtha disparage HIM, too?
If you have to lie to make your point, then your stand is point-LESS. Facts are troublesome to liars.
Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2005 07:59 AM
Just became aware of your blog.
Your support for the EVIL ONES (TERRORISTS)is shameful. You certainly could not have been born and raised in America--you are so UNAMERICAN!
Good Americans are not OBSTRUCTIONISTS, DEFEATISTS, AND CHRONIC PESSIMISTS that openly aid, abet, and comfort the EVIL ONES--THE ENEMY COMBATANTS.
I'll bet you even support ABORTIONS and HOMOSEXUAL ACTS that are murdering and killing millions of people every year. Who are the real TERRORISTS?...could it be you and your ilk who still do not understand American Moral Values
Posted by: Tom at November 22, 2005 03:29 PM