Gonzales withholding Plame emails
Sources close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have revealed this week that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office that may incriminate Vice President Dick Cheney, his aides, and other White House officials who allegedly played an active role in unmasking Plame Wilson's identity to reporters.
Moreover, these sources said that, in early 2004, Cheney was interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating the Plame Wilson leak and testified that neither he nor any of his senior aides were involved in unmasking her undercover CIA status to reporters and that no one in the vice president's office had attempted to discredit her husband, a vocal critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. Cheney did not testify under oath or under penalty of perjury when he was interviewed by federal prosecutors.
Moreover, these sources said that, in early 2004, Cheney was interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating the Plame Wilson leak and testified that neither he nor any of his senior aides were involved in unmasking her undercover CIA status to reporters and that no one in the vice president's office had attempted to discredit her husband, a vocal critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. Cheney did not testify under oath or under penalty of perjury when he was interviewed by federal prosecutors.
The Nader effect
Two ghosts stalk the national Democratic Party in its pitiful, 21st century incarnation. One is George McGovern, who taught them that only Republican values matter in a national election. The other is Ralph Nader, who taught them who the real enemy is.
The present hamstrung state of the party is the result of its abject fear of these ghosts, which has given it a permanent moral stammer. A party that doesn't believe in itself is doomed to lose over and over, even if it represents the majority of the people and even - as Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 - when it gets the most votes.
While the ghost of McGovern, who was mauled by Richard Nixon in 1972, is the most deeply ingrained and enfeebling, seeming to guarantee uncritical Democratic support ("we love America, honest") for every cynical Republican military or civil-liberties outrage concocted in the name of national security, the ghost of Nader is the most life-threatening. Its effect is emetic, causing an immediate discharge of rationality among the party faithful at every hint of a challenge from the party's values base. The Nader Effect causes Democrats to upchuck the very medicine that will save it.
The present hamstrung state of the party is the result of its abject fear of these ghosts, which has given it a permanent moral stammer. A party that doesn't believe in itself is doomed to lose over and over, even if it represents the majority of the people and even - as Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 - when it gets the most votes.
While the ghost of McGovern, who was mauled by Richard Nixon in 1972, is the most deeply ingrained and enfeebling, seeming to guarantee uncritical Democratic support ("we love America, honest") for every cynical Republican military or civil-liberties outrage concocted in the name of national security, the ghost of Nader is the most life-threatening. Its effect is emetic, causing an immediate discharge of rationality among the party faithful at every hint of a challenge from the party's values base. The Nader Effect causes Democrats to upchuck the very medicine that will save it.
Cheney’s dodge: Taking responsibility
When Dick Cheney surfaced on Feb. 15 long enough for an interview
with Fox News eminence Brit Hume -- an event that CNN’s Jack Cafferty
promptly likened to “Bonnie interviewing Clyde” -- the vice
presidential spin emerged from a timeworn bag of political tricks.
Cheney took responsibility. Whatever that means.
The New York Times website swiftly made its top headline “Cheney Takes Full Responsibility for Shooting Hunter.” Just before Fox News Channel aired interview segments at length, the summary from anchor Hume told viewers that Cheney had accepted “full responsibility for the incident.” Hours later, the Washington Post’s front-page story led this way: “Vice President Cheney accepted full responsibility yesterday...”
Ironically -- while news outlets kept using the phrase “full responsibility” -- the transcript of the interview posted on FoxNews.com shows that Cheney never used any form of the word “responsibility.”
The New York Times website swiftly made its top headline “Cheney Takes Full Responsibility for Shooting Hunter.” Just before Fox News Channel aired interview segments at length, the summary from anchor Hume told viewers that Cheney had accepted “full responsibility for the incident.” Hours later, the Washington Post’s front-page story led this way: “Vice President Cheney accepted full responsibility yesterday...”
Ironically -- while news outlets kept using the phrase “full responsibility” -- the transcript of the interview posted on FoxNews.com shows that Cheney never used any form of the word “responsibility.”
What really happened back at the ranch
THE FACTS
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his hunting partner, mistaking him for a covey of quail. As of this writing, the victim remains in the intensive care unit.
This is the first time since 1804, when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, that a sitting vice president has shot anybody.
The shooting occurred at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, about 60 miles southwest of Corpus Christi, where the vice president and several companions were hunting quail. The shooting victim was a 78-year-old man named Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, Texas. Whittington was reportedly 30 yards away from Cheney when he was hit in the cheek, neck and chest. Cheney was using a 28-gauge shotgun. Each of the hunters was wearing a bright orange vest at the time.
Removing Attorney General Gonzales
The Attorney General is supposed to be America’s top lawyer. His job duties require him to direct the law enforcement efforts of the federal government. Alberto Gonzales seems to think that he works for Bush and Cheney instead of the American people. When Gonzales was first advanced for his position by the Bush White House, Democrats feared that Gonzales would politicize the Justice Department and overlook or excuse law-breaking by the Bush Administration.
Attorney General Gonzales has demonstrated in his recent testimony before Congress concerning the illegal NSA wiretapping authorized by the Bush White House that the worst fears of his Democratic opponents were justified. The performance of Gonzales before Congress was a clear example of excusing political abuse of office. He reminded many observers of similar performances by Nixon’s former Attorney General John Mitchell. Mitchell disgraced his office by trying to cover-up the crimes of the Nixon White House. Both Nixon and Mitchell were eventually forced from office.
Attorney General Gonzales has demonstrated in his recent testimony before Congress concerning the illegal NSA wiretapping authorized by the Bush White House that the worst fears of his Democratic opponents were justified. The performance of Gonzales before Congress was a clear example of excusing political abuse of office. He reminded many observers of similar performances by Nixon’s former Attorney General John Mitchell. Mitchell disgraced his office by trying to cover-up the crimes of the Nixon White House. Both Nixon and Mitchell were eventually forced from office.
Debating impeachment among Democrats
Can you even imagine Republicans, even if they were in a minority in Congress, debating whether or not to call for the impeachment of a Democratic president known and documented as guilty of a wide range of high crimes and misdemeanors? In particular, if you can imagine that, can you imagine the Republicans who opposed impeachment arguing that they were doing so for strategic political reasons?
This is hard to imagine, because the Republicans won a majority in Congress by loudly proclaiming what they would do if they had it. The main thing they said they would do and still say they will do is oppose the agenda of the Democrats.
Meanwhile, Democratic voters and lapsed voters keep waiting for the Democrats to have an agenda. Polls show that most of us want strong positions on single-payer health care, clean elections, ending the war, shifting to renewable energy, investing in education, restoring the minimum wage, restoring New Orleans, and other policies that incumbent Democrats are usually - at best - taking baby steps on.
This is hard to imagine, because the Republicans won a majority in Congress by loudly proclaiming what they would do if they had it. The main thing they said they would do and still say they will do is oppose the agenda of the Democrats.
Meanwhile, Democratic voters and lapsed voters keep waiting for the Democrats to have an agenda. Polls show that most of us want strong positions on single-payer health care, clean elections, ending the war, shifting to renewable energy, investing in education, restoring the minimum wage, restoring New Orleans, and other policies that incumbent Democrats are usually - at best - taking baby steps on.
The polite majority
The media buzz about impeachment may be at 1 percent of the level it was during Monicagate, but guess what? The imperial presidency has less public support right now than the promiscuous presidency did at its lowest point - and as this administration's outrages pile up, George Bush seems to be losing his mandate simply to finish his term.
In two recent polls - one in October, just before the Scooter Libby indictment, and one in January, in the wake of the domestic-spying revelations - a majority of respondents considered impeachment the proper course of action for the crimes Bush is accused of.
The emperor may not be naked, but he's down to his fig leaf.
The October poll, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, which was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, presented 1,001 U.S. adults with the statement: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." An astounding 50 percent agreed with the statement; 44 percent disagreed.
In two recent polls - one in October, just before the Scooter Libby indictment, and one in January, in the wake of the domestic-spying revelations - a majority of respondents considered impeachment the proper course of action for the crimes Bush is accused of.
The emperor may not be naked, but he's down to his fig leaf.
The October poll, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, which was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, presented 1,001 U.S. adults with the statement: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." An astounding 50 percent agreed with the statement; 44 percent disagreed.
The most incredible thing about Cheney's shooting
Ok, so the vice president accidentally shot someone while on a hunting outing South of San Antonio, Texas. Accidents happen all the time, right? And besides, it's not like he offed someone during a liquor-store hold-up. So what's all the fuss about you ask? It's simple. It took the Bush administration almost 24 hours to issue any sort of statement about the accidental shooting which occurred 5:30 PM Saturday. The vice president of the United States shoots someone, even accidentally, and all we got was a statement released by the ranch owner, Katharine Armstrong, to a small town newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. It wasn't until Sunday afternoon that Armstrong called the paper. She did not notify the national media or the White House press corps. The vp's office commented thereafter.
Dick-Cheney-shooting-Harry-Whittington
AUSTIN, Texas -- Of course the jokes are flying all over Texas -- what's the fine for shooting a lawyer? -- and so forth. Dick-Cheney-shooting-Harry-Whittington is fraught, as they say, with irony. It's not as though the ground in Texas is littered with liberal Republicans. I think the vice president winged the only one we've got.
Not that I accuse Harry Whittington of being an actual liberal -- only by Texas Republican standards, and that sets the bar about the height of a matchbook. Nevertheless, Whittington is seriously civilized, particularly on the issues of crime, punishment and prisons. He served on both the Texas Board of Corrections and on the bonding authority that builds prisons. As he has often said, prisons do not curb crime, they are hothouses for crime: "Prisons are to crime what greenhouses are to plants."
In the day, whenever there was an especially bad case of new-ignoramus-in-the-legislature -- a "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" type -- the senior members used to send the prison-happy, tuff-on-crime neophyte to see Harry Whittington, a Republican after all, for a little basic education on the cost of prisons.
Not that I accuse Harry Whittington of being an actual liberal -- only by Texas Republican standards, and that sets the bar about the height of a matchbook. Nevertheless, Whittington is seriously civilized, particularly on the issues of crime, punishment and prisons. He served on both the Texas Board of Corrections and on the bonding authority that builds prisons. As he has often said, prisons do not curb crime, they are hothouses for crime: "Prisons are to crime what greenhouses are to plants."
In the day, whenever there was an especially bad case of new-ignoramus-in-the-legislature -- a "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" type -- the senior members used to send the prison-happy, tuff-on-crime neophyte to see Harry Whittington, a Republican after all, for a little basic education on the cost of prisons.