Don't forget Libby

Just so we don't let the Fitzgerald Investigation and subsequent indictments get buried, here is a round up of articles and opinions:

ABC News: Reid Says Rove Should Resign
CBS News: Arraignment This Week For Libby
CNN: Vice president's top aide indicted
Fox News: Cheney Fills Libby Posts at White House
MSNBC: Cheney’s ex-aide to make first court appearance
NPR: White House Tries to Leave Scandal Behind
WaPo: Known for Discretion, Libby Is A Surprising Figure in CIA Leak
NYT: Intrigue Has Familiar Ring for Libby and Associates
LATimes: Leak Case Prosecutor Raises Questions That Demand Answers
Chicago Tribune: Indictment likely to hurt Bush agenda
USA Today: Bush sets out to salvage 2nd term
Time: What Scooter Libby And I Talked About
Newsweek: Karl Rove: Last-Minute Evidence

"Scalito" as racially insensitive?

Okay, Drudge, where do you get your talking points? Judge Alito picked up the nickname for two obvious reasons. One--the name. Two--Alito clerked for Scalia and is said to follow him closely ideologically. No one is saying that because they share a similar heritage, they must be the same.

The right looks pretty dumb when they try to use far-left talking points.

Second Try: Alito (Scalito)

From what I can gather from the snippets I've heard on the radio and read on the web, it sounds like Bush (along with attempting to distract us from high-level idictments) has delivered a nominee in the mold of Scalia as promised. I doesn't sound like we'll hear much of the intra-party dissent that filled talk radio since the Miers nomination. If the right can all agree, and agree quickly, about the nominee I don't think we will see much of a fight by the Democrats. I have to agree with The Note:

Our guess: the country ain't in the mood for a big fight, and the left is too disorganized and divided to mount one effectively.

If Alito is as staunchly conservative and his personal views will get in the way of his interpretation of the Constitution, then he must be opposed immediately. If we need to know more, we can wait and see. But I think it will be too late to oppose him by the time of the hearings

Volcker Report

The Many Streams That Fed the River of Graft to Hussein

In case you've missed any of this in all the hub-bub:

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 27 - Paul A. Volcker's report on the oil-for-food program in Iraq includes industrial giants like DaimlerChrysler AG, Siemens AG, the Weir Group P.L.C. and Volvo, as well as little known traders.
The individuals named as having profited from contracts with Iraq ranged from recognizable politicians like Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in Russia, and Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister, to unfamiliar names like the Rev. Jean-Marie Benjamin, a Swiss priest who put his profits in his Vatican bank account.
What brought them together in Thursday's report was their participation, witting or unwitting, in the exploitation of the program, which funneled $1.8 billion in illicit profits to Saddam Hussein.

Eschaton: Market Soars on Indictment News

Eschaton

I guess the question is whether the market was reacting to there being no Karl Rove indictment, or were they feeling better because someone (anyone) is going down.

The Italian Press explains the docs

Jefferson Morely at WaPo scoops:

According to La Repubblica, Pollari was providing the false information, specifically a batch of forged documents concerning alleged Iraqi efforts to purchase nuclear material in the African country of Niger. The documents, rejected as genuine by the CIA and State Department earlier in 2002, were fed to a "parallel intelligence conduit" created by Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo say officials working for Cheney and Wolfowitz were "determined to produce the evidence for 'regime change’ in Baghdad." President Bush then used the information to make the case for invading Iraq.
. . .
La Repubblica's account suggests the forged documents were the product of an Italian government eager to curry favor with President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. They were originally produced by a rogue cop on the payroll of both French and Italian intelligence services, the newspaper reported. The French wanted to follow up on reports from the late 1980s that Iraq had bought nuclear material in Niger, so the cop, in need of money, sold them the phony documents.

Let us not forget that our government was fully aware that the docs were questionable before we used them as part of the rationale for war.

Poo-pooing this at The Corner.

The Corner on National Review Online: "I think the indictment stinks. You have to parse it very carefully to figure out whether Libby is accused of lying to the grand jury or the FBI, or to journalists. Go look. I finally concluded that it says that Libby lied to the grand jury (and elsewhere the FBI) when he testified that he told (Cooper, Miller or Russert) things that in fact he did not tell (Cooper, Miller or Russert)."

Surprised? The right already thinks this is unreasonable. I'm sorry Michael Ledeen, a crime is a crime. I have to have faith that Fitzgerald as enough evidence to prosecute Libby for his lies.

"Serious Breach of the Public Trust"

After the Fitzgerald Press Conference, here's what we know:

- The leak of Valerie Plame's name to the press was a crime.
In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified.

- Libby lied to both the FBI and the Grand Jury.
It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true.
At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

- The scope of the investigation is large and this is far from over.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Why the Right Was Wrong - Hugh Hewitt

Why the Right Was Wrong - New York Times: "The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around."

Oh, Hughie. I guess this means your support for Miers was only "strategery?" Sorry, we all expect better things out of someone as smart as you.

Libby Resigns

None too soon. I thought Bush talked to Libby and was reassured that he wasn't involved. Who else is lying?

Update: And now Cheney "regrets" his resignation. These guys are full of regret lately, aren't they?

Libby Indicted

5 counts.

F.B.I. Is Still Seeking Source of Forged Uranium Reports - New York Times

F.B.I. Is Still Seeking Source of Forged Uranium Reports - New York Times: "But a little-noticed passage in another government report said the C.I.A. had determined that foreign intelligence passed to the agency in the months before Mr. Wilson's trip also contained information that was 'based on the forged documents and was thus itself unreliable.'"

Let us not forget that our government was fully aware that the documents were likely forgeries, so much so in fact that the CIA would not back up the use of the information in the State of the Union and so the President cited British Intelligence instead.

Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination

Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination: "Bush responded that he was 'reluctantly' accepting the decision."

Not really the response he should be giving, I would say. And citing executive privilege doesn't sound like the right way to go either. There were so many other things wrong with this nominee. I hope some are now doubting whether she has the abilities to be White House Counsel

George Will - Defending The Indefensible

Defending The Indefensible: "As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material."

Monday Headlines

Some articles you can be sure they're not reading at the White House:

Frist's Prior Comments Disputed
Fitzgerald's CIA Leak Probe Praised as Nonpartisan
Resignations May Follow Charges in CIA Case
Miers Gets Criticisms Rare for Nominees to Court
All Is Just Fine in the White House These Days, or Is It?
Washington Memo: Leak Case Renews Questions on War's Rationale
Cast of Characters Grows in CIA Leak Drama
Senator: Miers Lacks Votes To Win
Leak Indictments This Week?
GOP Senator: Libby, Rove Should Go If Indicted
Challenges Ahead for Bush Administration This Week
Doubts Arise Over Miers' Readiness for Hearings
Stock probe will affect Frist's 2008 plans

Why is this man smiling?

Because he has no shame.

Delay is a smart man--dirty, but smart. How much more fun would it have been if he had that typical mugshot frown?

Quill Awards

I have to admit that I'm a literary snob. I have no real affection for genre fiction and I tend to think that the best literature is underappreciated by the masses. That said, when I heard a segment on NPR about the Quill Awards I actually thought it was good. The Quills Literacy Foundation is sponsoring award that is for the most part judged by the public at large. We can guarantee that the winners here will be different from the National Book Award winners, but I don't think it's a bad thing.
It is good for all writers when interest in reading is high. If a more populist award can draw more readers to the bookstores, I think we all benefit. Sure, Harry Potter won book of the year, but we also had winners we're liable to see on more prestigious lists (Sue Monk Kidd, Langston Hughes, and of course the crew at The Daily Show).
I'm still looking forward to the other awards being announced so that I can add to my reading list.

Tancredo and "The Threat of Multiculturalism"

Tom Tancredo (R, CO-6) doesn't get it. In a Q&A with coloradopols.com yesterday he was asked about how immigration became his primary issue. It's really his sole issue, but anyway... he answers:

In the early '90s, I read Arthur Schlesinger's "The Disuniting of America,"
which had a profound effect on the way I looked at the threat of
multiculturalism.

Now I'm not a big fan of what's being done in the name of multicultralism. I think many of the efforts do more to split us apart than help us understand what we have in common. But to use the term "threat" demonstrates the adversarial nature of his viewpoint. What is multiculturalism threatening but his white-American way of life.

For more proof that he doesn't get it, he doesn't even bother to retract or clarify his statement about bombing Muslim holy sites. Instead he says:

Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed
they may have offended some. But I can't preoccupy myself with political
correctness, or who may or may not be offended by what I say. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't care if the western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages
beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or planes
crashing into buildings. Should we take any option or target off the table,
regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not - particularly if the mere
discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist
from strapping on a bomb filled backpack, or if it might encourage moderate
Muslims to start policing their own communities for extremists and jihadists.

There are many things wrong in this statement. It seems clear to me that Tancredo things that we are at war with all of the Muslim world. His words are "offensive" because they were spoken by an elected official, someone representing the people of the United States. I could care less if his words were offensive to Al Qaeda, but the were offensive to me and and a good segment of society. It'embarrassingng that Tancredo is my Congressional representative.

Faith and the Court - New York Times

Faith and the Court - New York Times: "The White House is invoking Ms. Miers's religious activities as a substitute for talking about her professional qualifications and her views about the law, which remain a mystery. But her qualifications and beliefs about the law are what matter. As this nomination proceeds, both the nation and Ms. Miers will benefit if we hear less about what kind of a Christian she is, and more about what kind of a justice she would be."

Just one of the many things that bothers me about this nominee. Sure, there are good things coming from the Republican infighting. Nice to see that some can see that Bush makes some bad decisions. Democratic silence on the whole thing doesn't have me feeling confident. Let the intraparty battles go on as long as possible, because when the left begins to attack the right will circle the wagons. We can only hope that Ms. Miers takes the National Review's advice and withdraw.

And while people begin counting the votes on the Senate floor (at most 52 right now) someone should be looking at the votes in committee. She's liable to never see a floor vote.

Hillary vs. Condi? I don't think so.

Okay, let's go over a few reasons why this will never happen so that we can get off the topic.

Hillary as the Democratic nominee would be disastrous for the party. She gets people's hackles up, including mine. While I know the party would love a strong woman to run, I think enough people know that she can't be trusted and she's just liable to set the opposition on fire and rally them enough to defeat her. Can you really see her bringing people over from the other side? It's a bad, bad idea.

And let's imagine the Republican base voting for a black, pro-choice woman... it'd never happen.

Next topic, please. (And let's don't go into all the things that are wrong with Dick Morris.)

Facing revolt, White House touts Miers "experience"

Top News Article | Reuters.com: "The conservative uprising among Bush's Republicans has fractured the party a year ahead of mid-term congressional elections that minority Democrats hope to use to increase their numbers in the U.S. Congress and perhaps regain control."

Uprising? Revolt? Interesting choice of words.

Scandals Take Toll On Bush's 2nd Term

To make you feel warm and fuzzy.

"In my administration," Bush told voters in Pittsburgh in October 2000, "we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves."