Very suspicious: Washington Post article includes line connecting Cheney to Plame leak, which suddenly is deleted in later editions
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006893.php
[Before] On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.
Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
[After] On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and said Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by Wilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
The consensus interpretation: this account points the finger at Ari Fleischer as “Mr X” (the original source of Novak’s story) and possibly as Walter Pincus’s source as well
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2205
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/ari-fleischer-is-third-man.html
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/10/libbys-motive-cheneys-exposure-and-why.html
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012939.html
How Libby’s lies impeded the rest of Fitzgerald’s investigation
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/of-course-fitzgerald-didnt-charge.html
[John Aravosis] Fitzgerald mentioned this on Friday, but it's worth repeating, since the Republican surrogates are now suggesting that no "real" crime occurred because Fitzgerald has yet to charge anyone with leaking classified information. . .
More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/30/115434/85
David Addington, Cheney’s choice to replace Libby, is ALSO implicated in the Plame mess
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1030nj1.htm
Michael Isikoff reports that Fitzgerald went to see Bush’s lawyer to tell him Rove wasn’t going to be indicted. Digby says that, if true, this is serious professional misconduct by Fitzgerald
Isikoff: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865842/site/newsweek/
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_digbysblog_archive.html#113069507047785026
Atrios says it’s a bunch of crap http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_atrios_archive.html#113071740513942979
Swopa says it’s probably disinformation put out by one of the defense lawyers to slime Fitzgerald http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2210
Rove: so now we know, his eleventh-hour ploy was apparently evidence that he had neglected to mention the Plame conversation with Matthew Cooper to a colleague – this is their proof that he “forgot”
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/10/30/last_minute_evidence_spares_rove.html
Two problems with this ridiculous excuse: (1) it can equally be taken as evidence that he was COVERING UP his conversation with Cooper
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/round-up.html
(2) Rove reputedly has a “photographic memory”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_digbysblog_archive.html#113070586868419784
More: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/lets-tell-mikey-hell-print-anything.html
The case against Cheney
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/indicting_dick.html#more
The oldest trick in political hackery: Rove wasn’t found to have done anything illegal (yet), so this means he’s “exonerated.” Hold on guys, there are a few non-legal questions remaining. . .
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/senator-cornyn-r-tx-says-its-okay-for.html
[John Aravosis] Senator Cornyn [R-TX] is on THIS WEEK this morning saying that Fitzgerald's investigation proves that Rove broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
Great, then the White House's surrogates are saying the investigation is over and Rove has been exonerated. And finally Karl and Scottie can come clean with everything they know that happened. Did Karl lie to Scottie? Did Scottie lie to the press and the country? Did the president lie when he said he wanted to get to the bottom of this and he already knew it was Karl? Did Cheney lie when he shut up for 2 years while he knew Scooter was the leaker?
Thank you, Senator Cornyn. We now know it's okay to demand answers from the White House since Karl has been "exonerated."
Why Cornyn is wrong: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001047.html
Rove isn’t off the legal hook yet, either
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000348.html
Even Repubs are calling for an investigation into Cheney and punishment for Rove
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/politics/30cnd-policy.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051030/pl_nm/bush_leak1_dc
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392406
Will Bush fire Rove?
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/10/what-does-it-take-to-get-fired.html
The indictment: filling in the missing names
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007458.php
On the genealogy of the phrase “criminalizing politics”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007457.php
Frank Rich on Plame and other lies: enjoy
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/29/215512/81
Krugman too
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_digbysblog_archive.html#113074568490235723
The emptiness of most punditry when it comes to actual matters of guilt and innocence
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/30/20183/704
[Hunter] And you can repeat that statement, to a less overtly crass degree, for nearly every Republican and Democratic professional spinner, on both sides. During this particular week, we have actual news. It means something, something important. We don't know all the facts yet, or even whether or not a man is guilty or innocent, and finding out is deadly serious business. So how about we start finding out the facts? How 'bout the media start, instead of turning this story into the same Rolodex-emptying game of Hollywood Squares that producers have managed to turn every major national story into, these last ten years?
Woody smooches Scooter
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/30/22044/596
Josh Marshall, who was onto the Niger forgeries and Italian intelligence story before it was “cool,” offers a comprehensive review of the story: here’s Part One
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_30.php#006896
As you can see, quite a lot of information seemed to suggest that the Italian government played a large role in the story of the Niger forgeries, even if it might be an innocent or unwitting one. Yet neither the CIA nor the FBI, a knowledgeable source told me, seemed intent getting to the bottom of what had happened.
In addition to these clues, there was one more piece of information. And here is where the two streams of information I noted above flowed together. A US government source pointed me toward a series of suspicious points of overlap between the forgeries story and a series of unauthorized meetings between Italian intelligence figures, two Pentagon employees working under Doug Feith, other Americans and the disgraced Iran-Contra figure Manucher Ghorbanifar. (These meetings were the subject of an article ("Iran-Contra II?") I published with Laura Rozen and Paul Glastris in the Washington Monthly in early September 2004.) Around the same time, another source -- this one outside the US government – told me a murky series of details about the meetings which purported to connect them to the emergence of the forgeries in Rome in October 2002. . .
Bush’s strange “leadership” style: he’s lost confidence in Andrew Card -- so now he wants to appoint him as Treasury Secretary!
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2204
Republicans really are different
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2005/10/gop_in_one_shor.html
[Digby] The Republicans will do anything to advance their agenda. They are fundamentally undemocratic --- they do not believe that the people have a right to vote, to see their elected politicians allowed to serve a full term, to know the reasons for their government's policies or even why they are going to war. They believe that they can do anything.
Brit Hume: wouldn’t he be pulled off the air by any decent news organization?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/30/hume-hose-down/
JUAN WILLIAMS: You can try to minimize it, but the fact that you have Scooter Libby, so involved in justifying going to war, and in the posture of trying to smear a critic of that justification. I think is pretty revealing and pretty damaging to the Bush White House. . .
BRIT HUME: Juan, somebody needs to hose you down. . .
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e986b/e986b353f7cdccc52fc3890a3cf2ef8604ecf9ac" alt=""
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_atrios_archive.html#113069023510156150
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5706/a570645eaee25d9adf603be181a4c836be072938" alt=""
Good way of looking at Bush's 39% approval: How can it be that HIGH?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_digbysblog_archive.html#113067268340377826
55% call Bush a “failure”
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20051031/1a_cover31.art.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2129095
The WSJ fronts a story that says Bush's decline in popularity is also affecting his ability to get things done abroad. As the president prepares to go on several international missions, some are wondering whether the increasing problems in the administration will force the president to abandon the international arena and focus more on domestic policy. A graphic accompanying the story points out that Bush's approval ratings are close to Nixon's right before he resigned.
$30 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq spent (or stolen), and this is what we have to show for it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/international/middleeast/30cnd-reconstruct.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1005fd16-4984-11da-8686-0000779e2340.html
BREAKING NEWS: It's "Scalito" for the Supreme Court. They're looking for a fight (and they'll get it)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html
Bonus item: Mark Shields
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801721.html
Who said repeatedly some variation of "every judicial nominee and the American people and the president deserve a fair up-or-down vote?" If you answered virtually every Republican senator, especially Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Bill Frist of Tennessee, you would be more than right.
In addition to that "up-or-down vote," every judicial nominee, according to those same honorable folks, was entitled to a fair committee hearing. Every judicial nominee, it turns out, except Miers. She didn't even get the hearing, let alone "the fair up-or-down vote" she deserved.
One clause in Article VI of the Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So, when some quarrelsome Senate Democrats kept asking if and how John Roberts' Catholicism might influence his opinions, the Bush White House turned away such impertinence with a prepared statement: "Judge Roberts has said in previous testimony that personal beliefs or views have no role whatsoever when it comes to decisions judges make." In other words, butt out!
But by October, the no-questions-about-a-nominee's-religious-faith rule had been conveniently repealed so that President Bush, facing "people [who] ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," could answer, "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," while Karl Rove, the man whom Bush calls "Boy Genius," would personally reassure James Dobson, a powerful leader of the religious right, that Miers was "an evangelical Christian" and a member of "a very conservative church which is almost universally pro-life." Religious faith had become a reference and a credential for high office.
"If we're going to give advice and consent, we've got to have a full picture," Brownback said. "We were not asking for documents regarding attorney-client privilege -- or privileged communications," he told CNN. "We were saying, 'Show us some documents of policy issues discussion' so we could get some framework of her policy views."
The Senate is not a rubber stamp, Brownback announced. But Republicans, including Brownback, had scorned and rejected Senate Democrats' requests for similar work from Roberts's time in the White House.
Of course, all conservatives and most Republicans are fiercely opposed to all quotas -- whether based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity. But Miers, as you may have noticed, was nominated to the seat long held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Maybe it's just a coincidence that neither is a man. But Bush kept emphasizing Miers' achievements with a strong gender twist, as the first woman to be president of the Texas bar and the first woman to be managing partner of a big Texas law firm. Not that this was intended to be the woman's seat on the court, because conservatives abhor quotas.
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***