Truespeak

'Nuff said!

If you're like me, you spent a good portion of the day in front of the television trying to get a handle on the indictment handed down from Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. As it turns out, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts: 2 counts of making a false statement, 2 counts of perjury, and 1 count of obstructing justice. He then immediately resigned his position as Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Having read the indictment, I was surprised at the blatant falsehoods peddled by Libby. This man is a former attorney. Surely, he must know that the statements he made are going to be contradicted. He has to realize that each of those statements can be refuted by simple fact-checking. So I'm left to wonder, "What was he doing? Why would he knowingly give false and misleading statements to investigators and the grand jury?" Judging by the lack of other indictments, and the nature of the charges against him one has to assume that if he had cooperated he wouldn't have been charged with anything. So in what I assure you is a very rare instance, I have to agree with Tucker Carlson who said today that he believes there's "something bigger going on, here."

Obviously, if Libby was lying to the grand jury he feels as if he has something to hide. But what would that be? As Patrick Fitzgerald indicated at his press conference this afternoon, it is extremely difficult to prove whether or not someone intentionally did anything meaning that he was going to have a hard time proving that Libby, or anyone else, intentionally leaked an undercover agent's name. Being a former attorney, Libby should obviously know that. So why would he lie? Unless, of course, he's trying to cover for someone else. We've seen it before. Can you say Oliver North? It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for someone in Libby's position to take the fall for another. Knowing that Fitzgerald was somewhat limited in the scope of the investigation, Libby could have easily obstructed the investigation and perjured himself in an effort to turn the attention away from other officials.

So for the sake of argument, and keep in mind that this is all speculation on my part, let's say that Libby is covering for some one else as I believe that's the only excuse for lying to the grand jury. The next logical question then is, "Who?" Well, let's take a look. As Josh Marshall points out over at Talking Points Memo, the indictment seems to indicate that Cheney's office knew that Plame was covert:

Go to page 5 of the indictment. Top of the page, item #9.


On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.


This is a crucial piece of information. The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the spies, the 'operatives', come from.

Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.

So Cheney's office, and thereby Cheney himself, knew that she was a spy. Cheney also knew, as revealed in Libby's own notes, that Libby had learned of Valerie Plame's position at the CIA from none other than Dick Cheney. Hmmmm.... I'm starting to see a pattern here.

I know, I know....Cheney and Libby discussing a CIA operative is not a crime. They both have a security clearance and are allowed to do so. I know that Cheney is not under indictment. I know that according to Patrick Fitzgerald, Cheney didn't do anything wrong. But here's what the indictment doesn't say that I think it should: DICK CHENEY KNEW THAT SCOOTER LIBBY WAS LYING WHEN HE SAID THAT HE HEARD ABOUT VALERIE PLAME FROM REPORTERS!!!!!

To me, this presents a couple of problems. Number one: Cheney could have saved the tax payers about $750,000 had he come forward with the truth or if he had encouraged Libby to come clean. Instead, he allowed Libby to continue lying, wasting the grand jury's and the special prosecutor's time and the tax payers' money. It's not a crime to allow someone else to lie, but to stand back and allow it to happen when you know better is not the behavior of an honest public servant.

And number two: This presents a real problem for George W. Bush. It goes back to something I, and several others, wrote about a long time ago: What did Bush know and when did he know it? If Bush knew what Cheney knew, that makes him complicit in the behavior. If he knew that Libby was lying, he's just as morally corrupt as Libby and Cheney for allowing the lie to continue. However, if Bush was kept in the dark about it, then the situation's not much better because now he has a vice president that has not been telling him the truth. Or, finally, it could just be that Bush didn't have the common sense to ask. Which I guess is the best that he can hope for. How sad is it when your best-case-scenario is that you were too stupid to ask?

As I said, this is all just speculation on my part, but I can't see this any other way right now.

from the "No Shit" files.

Link

A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

[...]

On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.

This is, unfortunately, a perfect example of the disconnect that exists in today's society. Anybody who was paying attention knew these things last year. But there were too many people who were, in my opinion, under-informed. But that is the MO of today's conservative party. Keep the people in the dark whenever possible. What's that? You want to know about the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court nominee? Sorry, out of luck. Remember the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission? What about their Social Security plan that never materialized? The list could go on and on.

In an ideal America with a proper press, the public would be well informed. But our lapdog press was too scared to question the big bad war president for fear of being shut out of the inner circle. Thus we have an uninformed electorate and a second term for Georgieboy. But now that Bush's poll numbers have started to take a dive in the wake of Katrina, the impending fallout from Plame-gate, and the ongoing Iraqmire, the press has rediscovered their backbone. Too little, too late in my book. Had they stepped up to the plate earlier when there was an election on the line, maybe we would be in an entirely different situation right now.

Thanks media. Thanks for nothing!

If you're like me, you've got a family member that has strayed to the dark side. You know the one I'm talking about, he/she tries to make every conversation about politics so he/she can trash the Democrats and start a fight. You try to politely disagree, but there'll be none of that. And facts? Conservatives don't want to hear about facts! And don't try to cite some poll or investigative report, because they're all a product of the SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media). No matter how clear-cut the situation may be, it all comes down to Clinton's fault, liberals hate America, and at least George W. Bush is doing something.

Well thank goodness for fouro over at ^∞Fouroboros who has provided us all with a simple, straightforward explanation of the Plame case that everyone (yes, even that idiot conservative relative of yours) can understand. I think the pictures are especially helpful. It's also available in a "spiffy" PDF file that you can download and send to all of your friends. I recommend that you send it to everyone you know.

So link on over and check it out. Oh, and don't forget to tell fouro thanks. It's hard to talk to conservatives but with the help of people like fouro we may just get through to some of them.

It can be very confusing trying to figure out what Tom Delay means these days. Between he and his lawyer, they've provided us all with a fine example of say one thing but do another. Take, for instance, today's court appearance in Austin, TX. You see, Delay says that he wants a speedy trial, but then he goes and does something like this:

Rep. Tom DeLay appeared in court Friday for the first time since indictment, but arraignment on conspiracy and money laundering charges was delayed pending a hearing on his request for a new judge in the politically-charged case.

DeLay, who has stepped aside at least for the time being as House majority leader, did not speak during the brief court session, and was not called on to make a plea.

But at a news conference shortly afterward, he attacked the prosecutor in the case as politically motivated, and said, "I will absolutely be exonerated."

Inside the courtroom, Judge Bob Perkins told defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin that "the best way for me to handle" the request for a new judge would be to defer further proceedings.

[.....]

Apart from seeking a new judge, the congressman's lawyers are asking to have the case moved out of Austin, one of the state's most liberal areas.

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy... You're not going to get a speedy trial if your lawyer keeps filing motions that cause delays in the proceedings. There's also this whole "I will absolutely be exonerated" thing. If he's so sure that he will be exonerated on what he calls "trumped up charges," why not prove it by appearing before a Democrat judge. If there's nothing to these charges, as Delay and his lawyer have claimed, then I would think that the best way to prove his innocence and rub the prosecution's face in it would be to appear before a Democrat judge in a Democrat-leaning county. So why all the motions and claims of partisanship? If Tommy has really done nothing wrong, as he claims, then this all seems to be completely unnecessary. Yet it's happening.

So what is a person to draw from all of this conflicting behavior? The only thing that makes any sense at all. Tommy's scared shitless. He knows he's in trouble and is hoping to turn this into a political fiasco and paint himself as the victim. It's a tried and true Republican approach. If you don't like the message, smear the messenger. They did it with Dean, they did it with Kerry, they did it with Durbin, they're trying to do it with Ronnie Earle and they'll try to do it with Patrick Fitgerald. What it comes down to is they thought they could get away with it. They thought they were above the law. But much like the Democrats of the early nineties, the fat-cat conservatives that control the congress have gotten fat, drunk and stupid from their power and now they've been caught more than once with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. But as we all learned from Dean Vernon Wormer, "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

So come on Tommy... if you're so damned innocent, put your money where your mouth is. Step up to the plate and show us how innocent you are by beating us on our terms. I double-dog dare you.

I'm back! Sorry for the hiatus, but real life came calling and I'm here to tell you, life's a bitch. For the last month, I have been swamped with things at work and school. Since the middle of September my students have performed at three football games, marched in three parades and put on a full 90 minute show that involved two large group numbers, twelve individual acts, and a 17 minute choreographed medley from the musical Hairspray. Plus, it's the end of the first quarter grading period, so grades are due. On top of that, it was mid-term week at the University and I had a major exam plus a five-part assignment due.

But that's over now and I'm raring to go. Just for posterity's sake, here's a few things that caught my attention while I was gone:

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

But without any further ado, let's get on with tonight's post, shall we?

Why Does George Bush Hate the Iraqi People?

It's bad enough that the administration did a piss-poor job of planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, but now this:

The Bush administration cannot fulfill all its grand promises to rebuild Iraq because soaring security costs, mismanagement and poor planning have cost billons of dollars, federal auditors said Tuesday.

Some projects — including those to provide clean water for Iraqis — have been cancelled as a result.

In one case, security costs for a U.S. Agency for International Development program on economic reform increased from $894,000 to $37 million, an auditor told Congress. And hundreds of millions of dollars is being diverted to pay for training for Iraqis and for the maintenance of new facilities — expenses overlooked in the initial U.S. planning for the reconstruction, auditors said.

Add to that the rising prices for materials, cost overruns and delays, and there’s far less money to rebuild Iraq as the Bush administration envisioned, said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. He called the shortfall “the reconstruction gap.’’

“Though the causes may be numerous and valid, the existence of the gap simply means that the completion of the U.S.-funded portion of Iraq’s reconstruction will leave many planned projects on the drawing board,’’ Bowen told the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

Oooops! I can hear Georgieboy now: "Sorry, Iraq, but we've decided that you don't need any clean water because we fucked up! Oh, and by the way, we're cutting funding for power generators as well and we're going to have to put off repairing those sewers, too. But hey, don't look so glum. You've got your freedom, right? Assuming you aren't killed by a suicide bomber, a roadside IED, or disease from unclean water, there's really nothing standing in your way of enjoying a delightfully free life."

Now of course this isn't anything new. It's been reported for a long time that we are having funding issues in Iraq, but what's important about this report is who it was made by. None other than Stuart Bowen Jr., a former longtime Bush aide and a key player for Team Bush in the 2000 Florida recount. Sure, it looks like another Bush crony in a prime position, but at least the Republicans can't claim that this is motivated by partisan politics.

As the criticisms mount and the poll numbers fall, it's clear that the Bush administration is losing its grip. It's too bad that they're making the Iraqi people suffer for their ineptitude.

It's that time of year, again. I'm in over my head at work and in my classes. I've got about three weeks worth of work and only a week to do it in, so I'm probably going to be MIA for the next week to two weeks. If anything major happens, I'll check back in. During the hiatus, I'll continue to visit all my regular haunts, but Truespeak is going to have to shut down for a little while.

In the meantime, keep the faith, keep fighting, and I'll see you ASAP!

I think wanda gave me her cold so nothing tonight. Can that really happen? Transmission through blogging? Ah, who knows. The internets are a mystery.

See you Monday!

Let me just start by saying that I think the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is not what everyone seems to think it is. From the media we've been hearing that she's a "blank slate." But I have to wonder, "To whom?" Sure, she may appear to be a blank slate to us, the electorate who knew little, if any, about her prior to Monday, but I can guarantee that she's not a blank slate to the Bush administration. As Bush stated when he officially nominated her, he has known her for over a decade. But more importantly:

For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government, including one of the most important legal positions in the country, White House Counsel.

Now granted, she's only held the position of White House counsel since February of this year, but it was not her first position in the White House. According to her bio:

Harriet Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005. She was first appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.

So we're supposed to believe that this supposedly brilliant lawyer, this "trailblazer" in Texas law history was on staff at the White House for four years prior to assuming the position of White House counsel, but Bush never consulted her. He never discussed legal matters with her. Her duties were strictly non-legal in nature. Yeah, right.

For the last four-plus years, this woman has been at the administration's disposal. Don't you think she was probably consulted on the administration's policy decisions concerning the treatment of detainees? And what about the Plame affair? Bush's TANG service? Or the release of documents concerning 9/11? Or Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 9/11 commission? Or even possibly the 2000 Florida recount (keep in mind, he's known her for over a decade)?

I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that Harriet Miers has had her hands in in a number of administration decisions. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that she probably knows about a lot of things the general public isn't aware of. Do we really want someone on the Supreme Court that has had a hand in some of the White House's more shady actions? Do we want someone on the Supreme Court that has advised the administration on how to evade legal responsibility?

I know the focus on a SCOTUS nominee tends to gravitate toward the hot-button issues like abortion, but this is a case where I believe that there is much more at stake than just Roe v Wade in this case.

Just my opinion, of course.

Today, George W. Bush gave me all I needed to convince me that Harriet Miers is wrong for the Supreme Court:

"I don't want to put somebody on the bench who's this way today and changes," he said. "That's not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding somebody who shares my philosophy today and will have that same philosophy 20 years from now."

That's just what we need on the Supreme Court. Someone who thinks the same as Bush and is unwilling to change with the times. Oy!

More on Miers later in the week.

Last week we saw Tom "the Hammer" DeLay indicted on conspiracy charges. Now those of us that live in the reality-based community all said a collective "duh," but of course Tommyboy and his Republican cronies cried foul. In fact, yesterday on Faux "News" DeLay even went so far as to say that he expected to be back in his leadership role soon.

"I think it will be over and be over very, very soon. And I think I will go back to be majority leader," he told "Fox News Sunday." "And at the same time, I'm still a member of Congress. I'm going to be working on the agenda and doing everything I can to make good things happen."

Naturally, he's going to proclaim his innocence as all criminals do. But today things got just a little bit harder for the old bugman:

A Texas grand jury has brought a new charge of money laundering against Rep. Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader indicted last week on conspiracy charges stemming from a campaign finance probe, the congressman's office said Monday.

With crooks like DeLay in congress, who needs an opposition party? Between, the Plame investigation, Frist's FEC woes, and Tom DeLay's multiple indictments, the Republican party just might be the answer to the Democrats' prayers.

Thanks Tom!