This is in response to two postings from "truthdr" on the Washington Post Forum, in italics below.
Yes the White House is essentially open in this investigation and the two are very much unlike the actual Watergate thing. to my knowlege no one has accused Bush of covering up anything, he is letting the investigation continue to find its way. Remember here we have a specific event, the outing of Valerie Plame a CIA agent that is being investigated. but the crimes if any indictments come will be similar, obstructing justice and perjury. No one to my knowledge is accusing Bush to be involved in either. there has been some talk of cheney but from what I hear and read the prosecutor is not going to indict for the outing but for actions of people during the investigation.
Yes, Plamegate and Watergate are two different things. For one, Bush and Nixon are about as different, from a personality perspective, as two people could be, and the White House behaviors are influenced by that. Among the differences is that Bush would never need to be touched by the tracks of a cover-up; this is so clearly a Rove/Cheney pulling-the-strings-on-their-own operation. As for Veep himself, his methods give him plausible deniability; unless a sizable fish decides to cop a plea--which will lead to a whole box of pain--he can't be touched directly (only through actions of his "office", of which we will be told to believe that he remained unaware).
In Dubya's W.H., the dirty tricks are more furtive, more self-aware. From a legal technicality standpoint, more advanced. The basic idea remains the same, though: "Get (in Dubya/Rove's case, "Git") so-and-so. Use the appropriate methods--and don't get caught."
The problem is the "don't get caught" part; Plamegate shows that Watergate is far enough down the river that its basic legal lesson--that the coverup was more punishable, more broadly incriminating, than the crime--has been forgotten in Washington.
One big difference is that the crimes here were crimes of state (relating at least indirectly to national security and war), whereas Watergate's were "just" ones of politics. This very much aligns with the characteristic trait of the Bushite administration, that "everything is politics".
It's time for the purge to begin. I'm OK with the point that, like Nixon, it's become Bush v. world, as the evangelical rats and other right-wing extremists seem to have been as quick as any to jump ship.
We will all be "anti-Bushites" soon, and there are some good results to expect from that. But what we have to be careful about is the fact that anti-Bushism can carry us in so many directions, all improvements but some opposed to one another.
Bush should not have been reelected. Grid lock with Kerry and a Republican Congress would have been better.
One big question is on whom the chickens will roost for their support of Bushism, particularly in 2004. I think the two biggest victims so far appear to be the liberal Republicans (particularly of the N.E.) and John McCain.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG
I made a few notes off Judith Miller's report today of her time in jail and her time before the grand jury, as well as the article about her by some Times staffers, and an editorial by Frank Rich on the subject. I will try to organize these thoughts on the fly, and if necessary come back and re-focus.
To me, there are some key names, and these provide associations in my mind to some major unanswered questions:
Valerie Flame--This "name" was found in Judith Miller's notebook. Importantly for her testimony, not in the section of the notebook where her notes from meetings with Scooter Libby were located.
I give her credit for taking some precautions. She claims to have no recollection of who might have mentioned this proper noun to her and in what context. This seems to me a clear case of selective memory: Miller makes clear in her memoir that she agreed to testify only when Fitzgerald acceded to her request that the grand jury testimony be limited to questions about her meetings with Scooter. In spite of which she somehow did get asked, and denied, meeting with VP Cheney on the subject. (A meeting with Cheney, of course, being impossible as he was in his undisclosed location at all times).
The error in the first letter of the last name (as one would presume it is in fact an erroneous--or encoded--rendering of the name of formerly clandestine CIA agent Valerie PLAME) is interesting to me: I've made the same error in print myself, several months ago. Was I channeling her confusion, or she mine?
OK, a more interesting question is, in what context was "Flame" found in the notebook? Hmm?
Victoria Wilson--another name found in Miller's notebook. This time the surname may be correct (or may not be, certainly not politically correct)but the given name is in error. Here, I think even more clearly, there is supernatural, or subliminal, channeling going on: I recognize the dire echoes of "my name is Victoria Winters" (the start of every tiresome episode of "Dark Shadows", the macabre soap opera/thriller of the what? early 70's?)
Victoria Wren--Actually, this name was not found in Miller's notebook, but at this point, it is time to bring in the common thread: the Lady V. herself, the one from whom we have not yet heard. I call upon Thomas Pynchon to be the muse we all need to unravel this mystery, certainly one worthy of Herbert Stencil. The latest straw the media have grasped is a photograph purportedly of Plame, who appears in her latest incarnation as a young, foxy blonde (ah, but the powers of plastic surgeons have come so far since Valletta, haven't they?)
WHIG--the Rich editorial (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/16rich.html) says there were eight members of the White House Iraq Group, an ad hoc conspiracy to force the invasion down the (mostly willing) throats of the American people, come what facts there may. Rich's text names only six: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, Mary Hughes, Condoleeza Rice, and Stephen Hadley (a national security official). It might be implied that chief of staff Andrew Card, who set up the group, would be a seventh member. Who was the eighth, and why does Rich not dare to name him/her? Could it be that the eighth member maintained plausible deniability, retains immense power, and has a reputation for ferocious infighting?
Then there is the seemingly mysterious, portentous line from Libby's famous letter releasing Miller from any need to further protect him as a unnamed source: "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." Miller followed this with some anecdote about how she had been surprised to meet Libby out West in Aspen.
This screams, "Cover story!" No, not for a newspaper, but for spy business. What else do aspens do besides turn in clusters, and have complex connecting roots? They quake, that's what. Libby is talking about the cover-up, the threat that some of his fellow Bushite cronies would turn themselves in en masse, and reveal the hidden conspiratorial connections--if only they were not mortally afraid? Of whom? Who gave the name to Novak?
I think the message is clear: The Eighth Man. That man of the West. Benny Profane's Ivy League-educated half-brother, Dick.
To me, there are some key names, and these provide associations in my mind to some major unanswered questions:
Valerie Flame--This "name" was found in Judith Miller's notebook. Importantly for her testimony, not in the section of the notebook where her notes from meetings with Scooter Libby were located.
I give her credit for taking some precautions. She claims to have no recollection of who might have mentioned this proper noun to her and in what context. This seems to me a clear case of selective memory: Miller makes clear in her memoir that she agreed to testify only when Fitzgerald acceded to her request that the grand jury testimony be limited to questions about her meetings with Scooter. In spite of which she somehow did get asked, and denied, meeting with VP Cheney on the subject. (A meeting with Cheney, of course, being impossible as he was in his undisclosed location at all times).
The error in the first letter of the last name (as one would presume it is in fact an erroneous--or encoded--rendering of the name of formerly clandestine CIA agent Valerie PLAME) is interesting to me: I've made the same error in print myself, several months ago. Was I channeling her confusion, or she mine?
OK, a more interesting question is, in what context was "Flame" found in the notebook? Hmm?
Victoria Wilson--another name found in Miller's notebook. This time the surname may be correct (or may not be, certainly not politically correct)but the given name is in error. Here, I think even more clearly, there is supernatural, or subliminal, channeling going on: I recognize the dire echoes of "my name is Victoria Winters" (the start of every tiresome episode of "Dark Shadows", the macabre soap opera/thriller of the what? early 70's?)
Victoria Wren--Actually, this name was not found in Miller's notebook, but at this point, it is time to bring in the common thread: the Lady V. herself, the one from whom we have not yet heard. I call upon Thomas Pynchon to be the muse we all need to unravel this mystery, certainly one worthy of Herbert Stencil. The latest straw the media have grasped is a photograph purportedly of Plame, who appears in her latest incarnation as a young, foxy blonde (ah, but the powers of plastic surgeons have come so far since Valletta, haven't they?)
WHIG--the Rich editorial (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/16rich.html) says there were eight members of the White House Iraq Group, an ad hoc conspiracy to force the invasion down the (mostly willing) throats of the American people, come what facts there may. Rich's text names only six: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, Mary Hughes, Condoleeza Rice, and Stephen Hadley (a national security official). It might be implied that chief of staff Andrew Card, who set up the group, would be a seventh member. Who was the eighth, and why does Rich not dare to name him/her? Could it be that the eighth member maintained plausible deniability, retains immense power, and has a reputation for ferocious infighting?
Then there is the seemingly mysterious, portentous line from Libby's famous letter releasing Miller from any need to further protect him as a unnamed source: "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." Miller followed this with some anecdote about how she had been surprised to meet Libby out West in Aspen.
This screams, "Cover story!" No, not for a newspaper, but for spy business. What else do aspens do besides turn in clusters, and have complex connecting roots? They quake, that's what. Libby is talking about the cover-up, the threat that some of his fellow Bushite cronies would turn themselves in en masse, and reveal the hidden conspiratorial connections--if only they were not mortally afraid? Of whom? Who gave the name to Novak?
I think the message is clear: The Eighth Man. That man of the West. Benny Profane's Ivy League-educated half-brother, Dick.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Who is Harriet Miers?
...and how many milliseconds of difference are there between her point of view and Justice O'Connor's?
If you read my piece below on the Roberts nomination (and preview of this one), you won't be surprised to read that my opinion was that Gonzales was Bush's first choice, but he was convinced not to go with it. Unlike Gonzales, Miers' fingerprints are not all over some of the more controversial White House decisions, like the Guantanamo detainee practices, stretching the Geneva Conventions, etc. These would have caught Gonzales up in a prolonged mess before confirmation--which would not have been assured. Apparently some of the right-wingers were planning to dig in their heels about him, as well--as they have with Miers. (Not that I believe many--or any--Republican Senators will end up voting against her). And, although Hispanic, he's not a woman. (Duh!) So, I think the Bushites decided to go a similar direction with the less well-known Miers, who was intended as a female Gonzales with less well-known views; a sort of Roberts/Gonzales chimera.
I think Bush had to give up on Gonzales, at least for this go-round; anyway, he still gets to be Attorney General. I think that the prevailing impression when the Miers nomination goes to the floor will be that she will resemble O'Connor in her decisions--which I do not agree is the right standard, but I certainly believe it will be the standard that will be applied.
The Tar-Baby Scam
I, for one, am not going to accept that Democrats should not filibuster her appointment because either: 1) right-wingers are disappointed in her selection; or 2) Harry Reid supposedly suggested her name as a possible nominee. There are major unknowns, and there is undoubtedly some dirt related to various Bushite messes she has had to try to clean up. There will be a lot of requests for information for the White House--most of them will not be fulfilled. I think the question of whether to allow a floor vote for her should depend on the relevance of unanswered questions (after the committee hearings, which I think will be like Roberts'--rather unrevealing).
The right-wing lobby did want to provoke a knock-down, drag-out fight on this nomination, and they are disappointed that they may not get it. I think that was the Bushites' intention here, that is, to come up with a woman nominee who has a fairly good chance of getting through without a filibuster. I watched the Pres' news conference quite closely the other day; he seems actually to want Congress to do something (though the likelihood they will, and the value of any legislation they could come up with are two completely different matters) rather than get totally bogged down in partisan warfare. At this time.
I think that's a smart call; right now things are running rather strongly against the Bushites.
The right doesn't have to despair over an opportunity forever lost, though. There's quite a good chance that there will be another nomination to the Court during the 3+ Bushite years remaining. If it were to be a replacement for Stevens or Ginsburg, a war is almost assured. So, don't be upset--it's probably still coming, just not so soon. I don't believe the majority will be stronger after 2006, but it will probably not be radically different, so the game will essentially be the same. The most interesting outcome of the congressional election will be to see whether the voters reward or punish the Gang of 14 members who have to run for re-election. That will have a chilling or encouraging effect (depending) on those who want to deepen the trenches between aisles in Congress.
You know, I'm not one of them. It's not because I'm a "moderate", but because I'm a "radical". Why should they pretend they have such differences when they agree on so much? The answer: It's about power, of course; but I'm only interested in the power to do something. Since neither party has much of a vision of the future, so what? Until we start getting our act together, I'm all in favor of cooperative muddling.
On the Washington Post Politics Talk Forum:
From: DAVIDJEROME
To: chinshihtang
(22 of 23)
5317.22 in reply to 5317.17
what type of nominee do you think Bush will select when Miers goes down?
Reply
From: chinshihtang
To: DAVIDJEROME unread
(23 of 23)
5317.23 in reply to 5317.22
Actually, I don't think she will "go down" (no distasteful sexual allusion intended). I think she'll slip through in a relatively close vote, after a fairly prolonged confirmation process (due to White House stonewalling of Senate information requests). I don't think a filibuster will hold longer than, say, 30 days, and I think the Republican senators will vote in lockstep for her when it comes down to it.
A few of the Gang of 14 members will break ranks and say that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to merit a prolonged filibuster, while reserving the right to vote against her. The threat of Nuklar Option Mofo will be, like a sharp-breaking inside curve ball, enough to bend a couple Dems' knees. They will realize that it would be unchivalrous to filibuster a woman who's going to be doing her best to smile a lot and look gracious.
These are all guesses on my part at this point, trying to "poke the pig" to come out of her hole.
If you read my piece below on the Roberts nomination (and preview of this one), you won't be surprised to read that my opinion was that Gonzales was Bush's first choice, but he was convinced not to go with it. Unlike Gonzales, Miers' fingerprints are not all over some of the more controversial White House decisions, like the Guantanamo detainee practices, stretching the Geneva Conventions, etc. These would have caught Gonzales up in a prolonged mess before confirmation--which would not have been assured. Apparently some of the right-wingers were planning to dig in their heels about him, as well--as they have with Miers. (Not that I believe many--or any--Republican Senators will end up voting against her). And, although Hispanic, he's not a woman. (Duh!) So, I think the Bushites decided to go a similar direction with the less well-known Miers, who was intended as a female Gonzales with less well-known views; a sort of Roberts/Gonzales chimera.
I think Bush had to give up on Gonzales, at least for this go-round; anyway, he still gets to be Attorney General. I think that the prevailing impression when the Miers nomination goes to the floor will be that she will resemble O'Connor in her decisions--which I do not agree is the right standard, but I certainly believe it will be the standard that will be applied.
The Tar-Baby Scam
I, for one, am not going to accept that Democrats should not filibuster her appointment because either: 1) right-wingers are disappointed in her selection; or 2) Harry Reid supposedly suggested her name as a possible nominee. There are major unknowns, and there is undoubtedly some dirt related to various Bushite messes she has had to try to clean up. There will be a lot of requests for information for the White House--most of them will not be fulfilled. I think the question of whether to allow a floor vote for her should depend on the relevance of unanswered questions (after the committee hearings, which I think will be like Roberts'--rather unrevealing).
The right-wing lobby did want to provoke a knock-down, drag-out fight on this nomination, and they are disappointed that they may not get it. I think that was the Bushites' intention here, that is, to come up with a woman nominee who has a fairly good chance of getting through without a filibuster. I watched the Pres' news conference quite closely the other day; he seems actually to want Congress to do something (though the likelihood they will, and the value of any legislation they could come up with are two completely different matters) rather than get totally bogged down in partisan warfare. At this time.
I think that's a smart call; right now things are running rather strongly against the Bushites.
The right doesn't have to despair over an opportunity forever lost, though. There's quite a good chance that there will be another nomination to the Court during the 3+ Bushite years remaining. If it were to be a replacement for Stevens or Ginsburg, a war is almost assured. So, don't be upset--it's probably still coming, just not so soon. I don't believe the majority will be stronger after 2006, but it will probably not be radically different, so the game will essentially be the same. The most interesting outcome of the congressional election will be to see whether the voters reward or punish the Gang of 14 members who have to run for re-election. That will have a chilling or encouraging effect (depending) on those who want to deepen the trenches between aisles in Congress.
You know, I'm not one of them. It's not because I'm a "moderate", but because I'm a "radical". Why should they pretend they have such differences when they agree on so much? The answer: It's about power, of course; but I'm only interested in the power to do something. Since neither party has much of a vision of the future, so what? Until we start getting our act together, I'm all in favor of cooperative muddling.
On the Washington Post Politics Talk Forum:
From: DAVIDJEROME
To: chinshihtang
(22 of 23)
5317.22 in reply to 5317.17
what type of nominee do you think Bush will select when Miers goes down?
Reply
From: chinshihtang
To: DAVIDJEROME unread
(23 of 23)
5317.23 in reply to 5317.22
Actually, I don't think she will "go down" (no distasteful sexual allusion intended). I think she'll slip through in a relatively close vote, after a fairly prolonged confirmation process (due to White House stonewalling of Senate information requests). I don't think a filibuster will hold longer than, say, 30 days, and I think the Republican senators will vote in lockstep for her when it comes down to it.
A few of the Gang of 14 members will break ranks and say that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to merit a prolonged filibuster, while reserving the right to vote against her. The threat of Nuklar Option Mofo will be, like a sharp-breaking inside curve ball, enough to bend a couple Dems' knees. They will realize that it would be unchivalrous to filibuster a woman who's going to be doing her best to smile a lot and look gracious.
These are all guesses on my part at this point, trying to "poke the pig" to come out of her hole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
