Memo With Plame's Name Marked Secret

Found this off the CNN website:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A classified State Department memorandum that has been the subject of questioning in a federal leak probe identifies a CIA agent by name in a paragraph marked "S" for secret, sources told CNN Thursday.

The paragraph, they said, did not indicate that she was undercover or that her identity was protected.

Nevertheless, a former homeland security adviser to President Bush said the rules on such matters are clear.

"Anything in a paragraph marked 'secret' needs to be deemed secret, and revealing it to someone without proper security clearance or without a need to know is not authorized and is a violation," said Richard Falkenrath, a CNN security analyst who has not seen the memo.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released the information knew of the officer's secret status.

Valerie Plame was not some simple CIA analyst, reading and writing reports. Her identity was to be protected. She may have been an undercover operative. What is especially interesting is that this memo is the memo that Secretary of State Colin Powell took with him aboard Air Force One as he accompanied President Bush to Africa. The CNN story says the contents of the memo:

discussed allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa, notes that Plame attended a meeting about sending her husband, a retired career diplomat with a background in African and Iraqi affairs, to look into the claims, according to the government sources.

Now if Rove and Libby were working together to contain the damage caused by Joe Wilson's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, and the criticism surrounding Bush's arguments for going to war with Iraq, and if either of them came into contact with this memo, they--Rove especially--could have easily seen the political value that this memo has in deflecting the press away from the Bush arguments for the war, towards a story where Wilson was sent by his wife to investigate the claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa--the same claims that Wilson was criticizing the Bush White House as being false. The problem here was that probably both Rove and Libby did not realize or discounted the fact that Valerie Plame was a top intelligence official whose identity had to be protected.

More to come.

For Two Aids in Leak Case, 2nd Issue Rises

I found this off the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 21 - At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.

The two issues had become inextricably linked because Joseph C. Wilson IV, the husband of the unmasked C.I.A. officer, had questioned Mr. Bush's assertion, prompting a damage-control effort by the White House that included challenging Mr. Wilson's standing and his credentials. A federal grand jury investigation is under way by a special counsel to determine whether someone illegally leaked the officer's identity and possibly into whether perjury or obstruction of justice occurred during the inquiry.

People who have been briefed on the case said the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, were helping prepare what became the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier.

They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president's political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet.

At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush's speech.

Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were working together to respond to the criticisms on Bush's arguments for going to war with Iraq. Those two were working to contain the fallout caused by Wilson's Op-Ed article in the New York Times. Even more interesting is that these two political operatives were working with both CIA director George Tenet and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley--who would have had access to classified material regarding Wilson's wife Valerie Plame. This whole scheme of having the White House political machine working with intelligence and national security offices in what is essentially a White House public relations campaign raises a lot of questions and suspicions. Was classified material regarding Valerie Plame shared between Hadley, Rove and Libby? And if so, when? The White House political machine and the national security offices are two operations that run separately. The reason you keep these two offices separate is to protect the long term intelligence operations and national security assets of the United States from being exploited, abused, or destroyed by a White House political machine for short-term political gains.

Also in the same Times story is the special prosecutor's interest in a particular memo. According to the Times:

Lawyers with clients in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald and his investigators have shown interest in a classified State Department memo that was provided to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, as he left for Africa on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and his top aides on July 7, 2003, a day after Mr. Wilson made his accusations public.

The memorandum identified Ms. Wilson by name and described her as having a role in her husband's selection for the mission to Niger. A government official said the paragraph in the memorandum identifying Ms. Wilson was preceded by the letter S in brackets, a designation meaning that contents of the paragraph were classified secret. The designation was first reported on Thursday by The Washington Post.

The investigators have been trying to determine who else within the administration might have seen the memo or learned of its contents.

Here is the reason why you don't combine the White House political machine with the national security offices for particular tasks. Classified information gets leaked between the two offices. Who was on Air Force One when that memo was passed around? Who had seen that memo?

Among those asked if he had seen the memo was Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, who was on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell during the Africa trip. Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the document, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury.

Mr. Fleischer's role has been scrutinized by investigators, in part because his telephone log showed a call on the day after Mr. Wilson's article appeared from Mr. Novak, the columnist who, on July 14, 2003, was the first to report Ms. Wilson's identity.

In his column, Mr. Novak referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, which she had used when first employed by the C.I.A. Mr. Fleischer has told the grand jury that he did not return Mr. Novak's call, a person familiar with the testimony said.

So Fleischer claims he never saw the memo, however his telephone log says he made a call to Novak after the Wilson article appeared? What did Fleischer say to Novak in that call? The Times also reports that Karl Rove claims he never saw the memo, and yet Rove was also one of the sources for both Novak and Cooper's articles. Rove and Libby were working together in damage control to contain the criticisms against Bush's arguments for going to war in Iraq. They were working with both Tenet and Hadley in this PR work--and Hadley was consulting with Tenet on the issue. There are so many holes where this information could have been leaked between the two offices. And once Valerie Plame's name and cover got into the White House political machine, that information became too tempting to use to destroy Joe Wilson's reputation for short-term political gains at the expense of U.S. long term national security.

Democrats Forgo Discord on Court Pick, at Least for Now

Something tells me the Democrats are going to shoot themselves in their arse, regarding Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
From the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats, after months of preparing for a full-scale fight with President Bush over a Supreme Court nominee, found themselves Wednesday instead weighing whether or how to battle his choice of John G. Roberts Jr.

The problem Democrats face is that Roberts, a well-known Washington lawyer before becoming a federal appellate court judge in 2003, appears to be more conservative than they would like but less ideological than they had feared.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) set the tone the day after Bush selected Roberts, taking pains to describe the nominee as an accomplished lawyer and a "very nice man," but withholding judgment on whether he deserved to serve as one of the country's nine most powerful judges.

"Ever since Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor announced her retirement [July 1], I have called on the president to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it," Reid said. "It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people."

Several Democrats complained that Roberts had served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for only two years, and therefore had a limited judicial record. As a result, they were considering requesting copies of material he wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.

"Given that his record of his own views is rather sparse … those kinds of documents should be available to us," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The White House has resisted requests for internal executive branch documents in other matters, and senators from both parties said access to such documents could become a point of contention.

"That's what's called hitting below the belt, because they know that no self-respecting administration would give away confidential materials," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said. "I hope they won't play the same cheap old tricks on this."

For the most part, Democrats adopted a carefully calibrated wait-and-see approach toward Roberts.

Then I found this also on the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON -- The group of maverick Democrats and Republicans who reached a truce in partisan warfare over judicial nominations this year decided Thursday that President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court was not "extraordinary" enough to break that peace.

At their first meeting since Bush picked the appellate court judge to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the so-called Gang of 14 decided that the nomination did not warrant a filibuster — at least, based on what is known about Roberts so far.

"There's no indications so far that there will be a filibuster, and I think that was the consensus in the meeting," Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said. "But I think people are reserving the right to see what comes out of the [Judiciary Committee] hearings."

The seven Democrats and seven Republicans in the group represent enough votes to prevent Democrats from mustering the 41 votes they would need to sustain a filibuster. As a group, they also could thwart Republican efforts to change the rules for filibusters.

At the time of the judicial showdown in May, the 14 decided that their agreement on filibusters could be broken only by "extraordinary circumstances" — a term they deliberately did not define.

At least at first glance, they said, it did not mean Roberts.

"This is a credible nominee, and not one that, as far as we know now, has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist," Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) said.

For the most part, the group's Democrats were more circumspect than the Republicans, emphasizing that they could not make a final judgment about Roberts until he had been vetted more thoroughly.

"I'll know what extraordinary circumstances are in this case if and when I see them," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said. "It's a little early to make any comments beyond that."

Senate Democrats--You are shooting yourselves in the arse! First you claim you can't decide whether Roberts is qualified to sit on the court since you don't have all the documents you need, and then you claim that a filibuster against Roberts is unlikely--Roberts is not "extraordinary" enough to break the peace. This is a prime example of Democratic flip-flopping and infighting over an indecision. And all the while, the White House and Republican PR machine is pushing their talking points on how Roberts is a qualified individual who should be confirmed quickly. Democrats, you are losing the war in this confirmation process, and the confirmation process hasn't even started!

There is a way to fight back against the White House PR machine. What the Senate Democrats should do is unite together and demand that the Bush White House release copies of material Roberts wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under Bush Senior. The Democrats should also demand that the Bush White House also release documents on Robert's writings considering the war on terrorism, and the Endangered Species Act. And if the Bush refuses, citing national security, then the Democrats should filibuster Roberts.

Of course, the Democrats will not force a showdown. Roberts will be confirmed, and this country will be in worst shape.

Bush Nominee is Likely to Have Immediate Impact

If you want to have an idea as to the effect that John Roberts would have in the Supreme Court, check out this article from the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON -- If confirmed by the Senate, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee could have a decisive impact this fall on cases involving abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty and the government's pursuit of the war on terror, judging from the schedule of upcoming cases published by the court Thursday.

The court has been closely split on those issues in the past, and the cases illustrate how a more conservative replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could tip the balance to the right -- and right from the start.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., if confirmed, would face such a test in his first week on the court. On Oct. 5, justices will hear the Bush administration's challenge to the nation's only "right to die" law.

Voters in Oregon have twice approved a state measure that allows terminally ill persons to obtain from their doctor medication that will end their lives. But soon after taking office in 2001, Bush's then-Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that doctors who give lethal medication to dying Oregonians will lose their licenses to prescribe medicine.

Oregon's governor and several doctors sued to stop Ashcroft, and they relied on a state's rights argument. They said the regulation of medicine is traditionally left to the states. A federal judge in Oregon and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled Ashcroft had overstepped his bounds.

Justice O'Connor had been a steady defender of state's rights, and the Oregon case has parallels to last month's medical marijuana Supreme Court case. Even though she would not have voted to legalize medical marijuana, California voters did so, and the court should uphold this decision, she said in dissent. In the Oregon case, anti-abortion activists have filed briefs siding with the Bush administration and arguing that assisted-suicide is a crime, even if the people of Oregon think otherwise. The case could signal whether Roberts would support state's rights, the traditional conservative position, or vote to impose federal drug policy on Oregon.

This is only one example. There are two abortion cases coming up to the court, a question on whether the Pentagon has a right to send military recruiters to colleges, a question on whether President Bush has the power to capture and hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely without the right to trial. There is a question of the death penalty and whether new DNA evidence can raise new doubts about an old conviction, and a question of whether federal civil rights laws for disabled persons can be enforced against states, public colleges, and prisons. If Roberts is confirmed, he could reverse many of the swing-vote decisions that Sandra Day O'Conner has made in the past on these issues.

Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views

From the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."

So, we have a Supreme Court nominee with a vague paper trail which can provide information on his thinking and views, and we have his wife who is strongly anti-abortion. According to the Times story, Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and has donated from $1,000 to $2,500. This is no small-time volunteer. This lady has every intention of overturning Roe, and has used her legal knowledge and her resources to achieve this goal. And now her husband will soon become a Supreme Court Justice, possibly tipping the court's balance rightward towards overturning Roe. I can understand spouses who will have different political opinions. But when you have spouses who will devote extensive resources towards a particular political cause--and $1,000 to $2,500 is pretty extensive resources--that issue has got to be taken into consideration as to whether John Roberts is the right individual to be on this court.

Public Sees Bush as Less Trustworthy, Poll Shows

From The Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (July 19) - Americans have growing doubts about President Bush's honesty and his effectiveness, according to a poll taken at a time people are uneasy with the war in Iraq, uncertain about the economy and nervous about the terrorist threat.

Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April.

One of Bush's strong suits throughout his presidency has been the perception by a majority of people that he is honest.

The slide in trust in Bush comes at a time the White House is answering questions about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the public leak of the identity of a CIA operative.

"If the economy were doing better, the Iraq war wasn't as tenuous and people weren't as uneasy about terrorism, then they might be willing to cut Bush some slack on the Rove issue," said Robert Shapiro, who specializes in public opinion at Columbia University. "And it's all tied back to how the war was justified, so it raises all those issues as well."

When you start to see an major erosion of trust, this quickly, there is a serious problem within the Bush White House. The man sitting in the Oval Office is now out of touch with the American people. Let's face it. Every decision he has made, has caused this country to become more divided and partisan--even the Supreme Court nomination of a staunch conservative John Roberts to replace moderate Sandra Day O'Conner will continue to split this country. His economic policies seem to benefit the ubber-rich and big businesses, at the expense of ordinary workers. Environmental and energy policies are to let big business do as they please. The war in Iraq is to give the neocons their new American imperialism. And John Roberts will please the Religious Right as they tear Roe to shreds.

There is some other interesting news tid-bits here in the story. Consider the following:

Only half the public is closely following the allegations that Rove leaked the identity of a CIA operative, according to Pew. Democrats are predictably more inclined to say Rove should resign than Republicans.

But GOP support for Rove is lukewarm. About four in 10 Republicans said Rove shouldn't resign; about the same number said they were not sure.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said an analysis of the survey suggests the Rove controversy is contributing to the president's credibility problem. The belief that Rove has committed a serious offense is having an impact on Bush's ratings on believability, he said.

Only half the public is closely following the Rove scandal? I wonder which half? Here is another example of the partisan divide, where Democrats and liberals are closely watching this Rove scandal unfold, whereas conservatives are reiterating the same talking points from Fox News--which are regurgitate from the White House PR machine.

Only a fourth of people in an ABC News poll out this week said they believe the White House has been cooperating fully with the investigation of the CIA leak.

About half, 49 percent, in the Pew poll said they approve of the job being done by Bush on terrorism - as low as he's been on that issue since Sept. 11, 2001. Many independents have abandoned support for Bush in this area.

Bush's job approval in the Pew poll was 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving.

This country is going down a wrong track. We are in a war we cannot win. We have an economy that is in shambles. We have a government, where the top officials believe they are above the law, and will do whatever they can to destroy the opposition. I seriously wonder if the American public will ever wake up before Bush and his neocon minions send this country over the cliff.

Bush to select John Roberts for Supreme Court

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will select U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the nation's highest court, CNN has learned.

Two sources, including a Senate Judiciary Committee source, said Roberts will be Bush's choice when the president makes a formal announcement in a nationwide address at 9 p.m. ET.

So who the heck is John Roberts?

One thing I will say here, and that is that the White House PR machine has been wrestle control of the news away from the Valerie Plame / Karl Rove scandal with this show-blitzy, prime-time, Supreme Court announcement. Of course, Bush and Roberts will be standing together in solidarity for the TV and press photographers. The White House could not have a better public relations story to divert attention away from the Karl Rove scandal. For the next two weeks, the press is going to be busy digging through John Roberts' past to figure out who this guy is and what is views are--especially concerning abortion.

The CNN biography on Robers is as continued:

Roberts, who serves on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the bench in 2003 after his confirmation was held up for months by Senate Democrats.

This tells me that Roberts confirmation on the court of appeals was filibustered. Roberts may not have been as controversial as Janice Rogers-Brown, but his views will be staunchly conservative. He is not a Sandra Day O'Conner moderate.

From 1982 to 1986, he worked in the White House counsel's office, then at Hogan & Hartson law firm, and from 1989 to 1993 was the principal deputy solicitor general for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Roberts, 50, also clerked in 1980 and 1981 for Justice William Rehnquist before he was elevated to chief justice.

Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. Enough said there.

Roberts has argued 33 cases before the high court. He is considered by some a brilliant appellate lawyer who has impressed many in his work so far as a judge. He is a 1979 graduate of Harvard's Law School.

Two prominent liberal advocacy groups -- NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Alliance for Justice -- opposed Roberts' nomination because of the positions he argued as an advocate for the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

NARAL alleged that Roberts had actively worked to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state laws outlawing abortion.

The Alliance for Justice criticized Roberts for his arguments against the use of racial considerations by the public sector, known by its supporters as affirmative action.

Let's face it. The White House is trying to push a hard-lined ideologue down our throats. What makes Roberts an ideal choice is that this ideologue doesn't have the extensive judicial record of decision-making in court cases that the Senate Democrats can pick through. It is not a bad strategy--push an unknown ideologue, while masking him as a moderate with an extensive White House PR campaign.

The Religious Right-wingers will certainly support Roberts. In a CNN story giving the reaction to Roberts nomination,

Brian McCabe, president of conservative group Progress for America, opined that Roberts is "a man of great character who deserves genuine consideration and not automatic attacks and partisan indignation."

While the Senate Democrats have this to say about Roberts in the same CNN story:

But a spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had a less enthusiastic reaction, saying Roberts has "suitable legal credentials." Spokesman Jim Manley said Roberts, a law clerk for then Justice William Rehnquist, "needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

In short, there will be a bitter partisan fight on the Senate floor. There is no way Roberts will be swiftly confirmed--even if the Republicans try to set up a swift confirmation hearings for September. If the confirmation hearings are set up for August, that will only give the Democrats more time to pound Roberts for his opinion on every possible legal issue. Expect a filibuster showdown to take place in the Senate--a filibuster showdown that will not be diverted by moderate senators from either party.

What a lousy choice.

Poll Finds Foreign Policy a Top Concern for Americans

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (July 18) - Americans have turned much of their attention over the last three months back to the economy and foreign affairs - including the war in Iraq and terrorism - as the nation's top problems, pushing aside worries about non-economic domestic issues, AP-Ipsos polling found.

People were asked in an open-ended question last week to name the nation's most important problem.

Four in 10 picked foreign affairs - with war being the concern picked most often, followed by terrorism. That's up from 32 percent in April. Nearly three in 10, 28 percent, cited the economy - up from 19 percent in April. Concerns about other domestic issues dropped during that time.

Several months after the 2004 presidential election, people were beginning to shift attention from the issues that dominated the campaign - the economy and foreign affairs. But recent events have forced the two back to the forefront.

''The two of them are interlinked,'' said Richard Davis of Pines Circle, Minn. ''The Bush tax cut and the war in Iraq have caused us to overspend our budget and we're in a huge deficit that's starting to hurt the economy.''

It is all about guns and butter--too many guns and too little butter. Both issues are certainly inter-related--Bush tax cut and Iraq war caused U.S. to overspend and create new budget deficits. Increasing deficits result in increasing interest rates, which can result in businesses cutting back on in investment into new plants and equipment, which can also result in less hiring of American workers. It is interesting to note that consumer confidence has also dropped.

Consumer confidence over the past month slid to a two-year low, according to Ipsos polling in the United States for the Royal Bank of Canada. Economists say terrorism fears rekindled by the London bombings probably played a large role in the decline.

The fade in economic optimism may be related to concerns about terrorism, rising energy prices, worries about inflated home prices that may eventually drop again and anxiety over retirement security.

People often mentioned their worries were related to the war and terrorism.

Tack on this continuing story of the Bush Administration leaks in Valerie Plamegate, and you have a recipe for a disaster. Continued revelations of the Bush leaks will certainly cause more Americans to lose support of the president, and embolden the Congressional Democrats to take stronger opposition stands against Bush's policies. It will be difficult for Bush to push through his proposals for Social Security, energy, or even a Supreme Court justice nominee if the White House becomes even more embroiled with the Valerie Plame leaks. And the White House is becoming more embroiled, with a new press report saying the vice president's chief of staff Lewis Libby was also a source to Time Magazine's Matt Cooper's Plame story. And the Valerie Plame story links back to the Bush White House's justification for going to war in Iraq. The dots are starting to connect to form a new picture of America. The public is starting to see this new picture, and they are worried.

Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story

From The Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (July 17) - The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that Libby and Rove had no connection to the leak. [Valerie] Plame's husband is Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq at the start of the Persian Gulf War.

The cover-up is starting to unravel. Let's face it. Wilson went to Nigers to investigate allegations that uranium yellowcake was sold to Iraq. He didn't find evidence supporting these allegations. However, the Bush Administration refuted Wilson's intelligence report, claiming that Saddam was developing his weapons of mass destruction. The yellowcake purchase was another rational for the U.S. to invade Iraq. After Wilson criticized the Bush White House in a New York Times editorial, conservative columnist Robert Novak published a column saying that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent.

This is a White House smear campaign to discredit and destroy Wilson, after he criticized the Bush Administrations rational for going to war. Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove was a source of Plame's leak in both Cooper's story, and Novak's column. Novak claimed that Rove was the second source and the first source who spilled the story was a "non-partisan gunslinger" type. However, Novak is not credible in this "non-partisan" statement. This entire Plame story is completely partisan--Plame's cover was broken in Novak's column after Wilson published his editorial.

And now we learn that the vice president's chief of staff Libby was also a source for Cooper's story.

Libby and Rove were among the unidentified government officials who provided information for a Time story about Wilson, Cooper told NBC's ''Meet the Press.''

Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted ''A War on Wilson?'' on its Web site on July 17, 2003.

The reporter refused to elaborate about other sources. He said that he has given all information to the grand jury in Washington where he was questioned for 2 1/2 hours.

In his first-person account, Cooper said Rove ended their telephone conversation with the words, ''I've already said too much.'' Cooper speculated that Rove could have been ''worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else.''

''This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife,'' Cooper wrote of his phone call with Rove.

Cooper also had a conversation about Wilson and his wife with Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

According to Cooper, ''Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect'' when Cooper asked if Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Cooper's testimony about Libby came in August 2004, after Libby, like Rove this month, provided a specific waiver of confidentiality, Cooper said.

Someone like Lewis Libby does not just spill the beans on a CIA agent by himself. As the vice president's chief of staff, he would certainly have had access to classified material regarding CIA operations, and he would have known the serious consequences of leaking an agent's identity to the news media. He would not have leaked this information on his own--he would have had authorization. He would have gotten authorization from his boss--Vice President Dick Cheney. And Libby would not have leaked the story only to Cooper. He was probably also the first source--the non-partisan gunslinger--who gave the story to Novak. Rove could have easily gotten this information from both Libby and Cheney in developing this smear campaign against Wilson. Rove and Libby started this campaign of planting information to the reporters to see who would take the bait--Cooper sniffed it, New York Times reporter Judith Miller probably also received the information from those two, but didn't publish the story. It was Robert Novak who took the bait from both Rove and Libby and published the story.

So now Lewis Libby is in a major jam. He has been identified as a major source to the Cooper story. There is no doubt that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will place some heavy pressure on Libby to confirm if he was also Novak's source. Libby would have had access to classified information--he could have easily gotten Plame's identity. There's a good chance that Fitzgerald could charge Libby with leaking Plame's name to the press. The question now is will Libby keep his mouth shut, and become the fall guy for the administration? Or will Libby cut a deal with the special prosecutor, telling the prosecutor and the gran jury what he knows in exchange for lesser charges? How loyal will Libby be if he is going to be charged, convicted, and sent to federal penitentiary? Because the heat is now on him.

SChwarzenegger, Under Fire, Cuts Financial Ties to Magazines

Some more stories on our Governator's magazine scandal.
This is from the New York Times:

LOS ANGELES, July 15 - Reacting to a storm of accusations about a conflict of interest, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he would sever a financial relationship with a publisher of fitness magazines that would have paid him at least $5 million over five years.

"When I became governor, I pledged to put the people of California front and center," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued by his office. "I don't want there to be any question or doubt that the people have my full devotion.

"Therefore, effective today, I will relinquish my title as executive editor and forgo any compensation from the magazines."

So the Governator has got his hand caught in the cookie jar. And now he's trying to say "Everything is okay, I'll go back to being the people's champion of reform."

The problem, Governator, is that the political damage has already been done.

First, you never bothered disclosing the details of these financial dealings. The public never knew that as you were vetoing the bill restricting the use of supplements to high school athletes, you were also receiving compensation from businesses that had a direct financial interest in the killing of this bill. The public never knew this conflict of interest. Whatever you say about the regulation of these supplements, the public will still believe that you are kow-towing to an industry for financial greed. You haven't given back any of the money the magazines have already paid you--which the Times estimates to be around $1 million. Is that $1 million payment for your veto services rendered?

Second, what other deals are you making under the table? Oh, these deals certainly don't have to include the exchange of compensation, but rather the exchange of political favors for possibly campaign contributions? What are the real reasons for your support of these special ballot initiatives? Who really benefits from these initiatives? What interest groups or individuals have you talked to regarding these initiatives, and what have they given to you in terms of campaign contributions or political support? How much have they given to you?

Lawmakers Ask Santorum to Apologize

I've been watching this little drama play out between Ted Kennedy and Rich Santorum for the past couple of days. I'm not sure if I want to classify this as "Political BS" or "Gross Stupidity." This is from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (July 16) - The Massachusetts congressional delegation Friday sent a letter to a Pennsylvania senator demanding an apology for what they called his "outrageous, erroneous and insensitive" comments in a column linking Boston's liberalism to the clergy sex abuse scandal.

"We are deeply disturbed that you would offend Massachusetts by using an abuse scandal, one that has been mirrored in your state and in others, to score cheap political points with far right political groups," said the 10 lawmakers in a letter to Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

A spokesman for Santorum said Friday that the senator stands by his comments.

Spokesman Robert Traynham said it was very sad that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and other Democratic liberals "have decided to politicize comments that were three years old."

Santorum wrote in the July 2002 column for Catholic Online that promoting alternative lifestyles feeds such aberrant behavior as priests molesting children.

"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Something tells me that Santorum is goading the Democrats into attacking him for his remarks in an old, conservative column. Then Santorum can feign innocence, claiming he was just telling the story, and his opinions, as it was when the clergy sex abuse scandal was raging. Thus, Santorum can claim he was the wounded victim in the liberal PR campaign as the 2006 midterm elections start to gear up. There's another little dirty trick that Santorum can use. He can take this publicity and claim that the "seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism" of Massachusetts power--Senator Ted Kennedy--is trying to use their power and the power of the liberal media to influence Pennsylvania elections in a deliberate smear campaign against Santorum. Of course, this type of campaign PR by Santorum would be directed at Pennsylvania's conservative base--are you going to let the evil Ted Kennedy and his minions in Massachusetts take over the elections in Pennsylvania?

I'm not sure how far Santorum can get with this type of counter-attack. His public opinion polls have already started dropping, and the starting of the 2006 midterm election campaigning is at least 6 months away. The Bush White House and Republican Party is already caught in the scandals of Karl Rove, and the public's unease with the Iraq war. Santorum is certainly one of the high-profile Republican politicians, in the nation, that the Democrats will target in 2006. Whatever the outcome, this Senate campaign in Pennsylvania will be especially nasty, and closely watched.

Teen Jailed for Burning Flag

From The Associated Press:

MARYVILLE, Tenn. (July 15) - A teenager was jailed for nine days after being accused of burning an American flag on the Fourth of July, and he faces trial next month.

While the case could test a state statute against flag burning - an act the U.S. Supreme Court says is protected under the First Amendment - prosecutors said Andrew Elisha Staley has yet to argue that he was exercising free speech rights.

"Bottom line is, the kid got drunk," said Lisa Lee, his mother. "He's never been in trouble before."

Staley, 18, is accused of taking the flag from a residence and setting it on fire. His father said the teenager "has no reason for anger against the United States" and could easily have ignited a garbage can instead of a flag.

"He was brought up in church, and he knows right from wrong," Doc Staley said.

Doc Staley said his son has been "floundering around" since dropping out of high school. "This is where the drinking came in. And he's not very good at it," the father said.

The teenager was released from jail Thursday on his own recognizance while he awaits his Aug. 2 trial on charges of desecrating a venerated object, underage drinking, littering, evading arrest, burning personal property and theft.

The Tennessee flag-burning statute makes the crime a misdemeanor, punishable by less than a year in jail and up to $2,500 fine.

This case will go to the Supreme Court, possibly within the next two years. Tennessee has a statute, making burning the American flag a misdemeanor. However, the Supreme Court has said that burning the American flag is protected under the First Amendment free speech. It is a perfect conflict between an individual's right to free speech, and the state's desire to keep national symbols as sacrilegious. My argument here isn't about the nuances of First Amendment free speech--I believe the teen had every right to burn the flag for whatever reason--even if he was drunk and momentarily rowdy. But I am concerned about the makeup of the court within the next couple of years. Right now, Bush is considering resumes for a new candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Conner. If Bush is able to place the justice he prefers on the court--someone with the ideological background of a Scalia or Thomas--then the court will certainly tip rightward at the time when this case will be making its way into the court. Even worst is the possibility of Bush replacing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, or Ruth Bader Ginsberg within the next two years. If the court shifts sharply right, then it may uphold the Tennessee flag-burning statute. The American public's First Amendment right to burn the American flag in free speech protest will be shredded. So keep your eyes on the court justices.

Because this case will be in the Supreme Court in the next couple of years.

Some More Info on Governator's $8 Million Deal

After posting my first article on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's $8 million consulting deal with Weider Publications, I've found another article from the Los Angeles Times which describes the details of Schwarzenegger's consulting deal. There are a couple of other interesting tibits of information in this article. For example:

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., said: "This is one of the most egregious apparent conflicts of interest that I have seen. This calls into question his judgment as to who he is working for, and it calls into question what he thinks he owes the public."

He added: "For a governor to have … contracted his decision-making and judgment to a company is a real conflict of interest."

The Times gives Schwarzenegger's side of the story, saying:

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Margita Thompson, said that his financial holdings were "probably the most complicated of any governor" and that he had complied with all laws for disclosing his income. She said the consulting contract presented "no conflict of interest" because Schwarzenegger did not solicit any advertising.

"The governor did not direct sales or marketing activities of American Media and did not have personal contact with any advertisers to generate the advertising revenue," Thompson said.

But then what was the real reason for the governor's vetoing of the bill regulating nutritional supplements to high school athletes? Especially since the nutritional supplemental industry uses the publications industry to heavily advertise their products to increase sales. The health and fitness publications industry targets its magazines towards high school and young adult men. Both groups would have a major stake if California started regulating nutritional supplements towards high school athletes.

Some more interesting tibits of information from the Times article:

The agreement estimates that the governor's company will receive $2.15 million in fiscal year 2006; the same amounts in '07 and '08; and $1.7 million in '09. Those sums exceed the salary of the chairman and CEO of American Media, David J. Pecker, whose base pay this year is listed at $1.5 million.

American Media has also agreed to contribute $1.5 million over six years to one of the governor's tax-exempt groups: a physical fitness council launched this summer at Disney's California Adventure theme park. The chairman of the council is Austin M. Beutner, a director of American Media.

As a consultant, Schwarzenegger's role includes "advising on the direction of the" magazines and "otherwise helping in various ways to further the business objectives of the Weider business," the contract shows.

Schwarzenegger is going to be getting more money, each year, in those five years from his "consulting fees," than the salary of American Media chairman and CEO David J. Pecker. In addition, American Media's $1.5 million contribution to the governor's tax-exempt at Disney's California Adventure Theme Park is headed by the director of American Media, Austin M. Buetner. So Buetner gets to decide how to spend the $1.5 million that his company is giving to the fitness council that he sits on for Schwarzenegger. Finally, Schwarzenegger consulting duties gives him a say as to where the direction of the magazines are going. When discussing the magazine's future, the role of advertising will certainly come up. And the biggest advertisers for the fitness magazines will be the nutritional supplements, who wouldn't want California to regulate their supplements towards their biggest market of high school teenagers.

Here's another blow-out from the Times:

Weider Publications was started by longtime bodybuilding promoter and Schwarzenegger patron Joe Weider, who brought Schwarzenegger to the U.S. in 1968. Weider sold his magazines to AMI in 2003.

Schwarzenegger's two muscle magazines(Muscle & Fitness, and Flex) are crammed with ads for performance-enhancing dietary supplements promising chiseled bodies and surges of energy. The 257-page August issue of Muscle & Fitness contains 110 pages of ads for supplements, from creatine ethyl ester to anabolic/androgenic "absorption technology."

The governor used his regular column in the June issue of Muscle & Fitness to defend the supplement industry. He vowed to oppose any effort to restrict sales of the products in California, writing that he is "so energized to fight any attempt to limit the availability of nutritional supplements."

An article in the August issue of Muscle & Fitness said Schwarzenegger had "lent his support" to a new lobbying group that would work to promote nutritional supplements. "The governor also made it clear that he will remain a phone call away as the coalition progresses," the magazine said.

Last year, the governor vetoed a bill by state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) that would have required coaches to take a course in performance-enhancing supplements, created a list of banned substances for interscholastic sports and barred supplement manufacturers from sponsoring school events. In his veto message, the governor said that most dietary supplements were safe and that Speier's bill would have been difficult to implement. He also said the bill unfairly focused on "performance-enhancing dietary supplements (PEDS) instead of focusing on ensuring that students participating in high school sports are not engaged in steroids use."

Speier said in an interview Wednesday: "I have got to believe the electorate will be incensed that he has this relationship, that he has not been upfront in disclosing it, that he has taken action on legislation that has an impact on the very industry from which he is indirectly receiving financial support."

So Schwarzenegger was not only getting consulting fees from media publications--once owned by a close body-building friend--that gets their income from heavy advertising by the supplemental industry, but has also been supportive of a lobbying group to promote the supplemental industry, a lobbying group that was probably created after Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill regulating the supplements to high schools. Any new bills that come up into the legislature calling for stronger regulations of supplements in public high schools will certainly be opposed by this lobbying group, and the supplemental industry. Passage of such regulations would affect Weider Publications bottom-line magazine advertising profits, and Schwarzenegger's consulting fees. How much more egregious can this conflict be?

Governor Defends Magazine Deal

This has been playing out in the California papers for the last week. It is probably now a good time to comment on it. From the Los Angeles Times:

SACRAMENTO: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger dismissed criticism of his $8-million consulting deal with a magazine publisher Thursday, saying through a spokesman that the work takes up little time, poses no ethical conflicts and may even be saving taxpayers money.

Schwarzenegger believes that questions about his company's five-year agreement are "much ado about nothing," Rob Stutzman, the governor's communications director, said.

As governor, Schwarzenegger has refused to accept his $175,000 salary. He has talked repeatedly in his speeches of how he ran for the office to "give something back" to California, a state that propelled him to the status of box office sensation and multimillionaire.

He can more easily afford to refuse his state salary because of his private contract, Stutzman suggested. "That's one of the reasons maybe he doesn't need to take it from the state," the aide said. "He can continue to take consulting fees from something like this."

Asked if the governor had any other outside deals, Stutzman said no. "He spends very little time on this," the spokesman said. "It's something he would essentially do in his spare time. These are magazines he's had a relationship with throughout his entire career in bodybuilding and fitness."

Stutzman's unwavering defense of the deal, revealed Wednesday afternoon through a corporate filing with federal regulators, came on a day when some ethics experts, watchdog groups and state legislators sharply criticized Schwarzenegger's moonlighting and demanded that it stop.

Under the governor's agreement, he gets a fee based on 1% of the advertising revenue of various health and fitness magazines.

Much of that revenue comes from makers of nutritional supplements, and the governor vetoed legislation last year to impose restrictions on them. Stutzman said Schwarzenegger rejected the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have created confusion.

Welcome to Political Ethics 101 Governator. This is what we call a "conflict of interest."

This story is complicated. When Schwarzenegger became governor, he had forgone his $175,000 salary, claiming he was giving something back to the state. Of course, Schwarzenegger's rich--he didn't need the governor's salary. He's a mega-movie star who's made hundreds of millions of dollars with his Terminator, Conan, and many other blockbuster movies he's starred in over the last 20 years. But before Schwarzenegger became a movie star, he was a famous body builder--winning the Mr. Olympian title several times. His body-building career has also provided him with lucrative advertising contracts. Under the governor's agreement, Schwarzenegger gets a fee based on 1% of advertising revenue from health and fitness magazines. According to the LA Times:

Schwarzenegger's contract is with Weider Publications, a subsidiary of American Media Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla. Among the publications that American Media puts out are the tabloids National Enquirer and Star, along with fitness magazines Flex and Muscle & Fitness.

Schwarzenegger agreed to the deal two days before he was sworn in as governor in November 2003, according to financial records filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The contract expires Dec. 31, 2008.

The agreement holds that Schwarzenegger, referred to as "Mr. S," must "further the business objectives" of Weider and make himself available to the company outside business hours, to avoid interfering with his job as California governor.

Must "further the business objectives" of Weider Publications. Magazines make their money through advertising, not through subscription sales. So the business objectives of Weider Publications is to sell advertising space in their magazines to companies who need to sell their products. And in the case of health and fitness magazines, the companies selling nutritional supplements are candidates for advertising dollars. A bill comes up to the governor's desk restricting the use of nutritional supplements to high school athletes, especially those supplements that increase blood pressure and heart rate. These high school athletes probably make up a large percentage of the readership in the health and fitness magazines of Weider Publications, and are a prime market segment for the companies pitching their supplements in the magazine ads. What does the governator do? He vetos the bill. The governor's representatives say there was no conflict of interest. Schwarzenegger doesn't solicit any of the ads selling the supplements that can be targeted towards the high school athletes. However, according to a San Jose Mercury News article the one percent annual fee that Schwarzenegger gets from advertising revenue could come out to at least $1 million a year minimum. And both the San Jose Mercury News and LA Times point out that Schwarzenegger cannot recuse himself from signing or vetoing a bill. In the absence of the governor's action, the bill would become law. So had Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill restricting supplements to high school athletes, he would have been violating his contract in furthering the business objectives of Weider Publications.

But the corruption goes further. Schwarzenegger is also the executive editor of Flex and Muscle & Fitness--both are magazines owned by Weider. He writes regular columns for both publications. And yes, both publications are certainly targeted towards high school and young adult men, with heavy advertising of nutritional supplements. According to the LA Times:

Of the estimated $8 million that will go to Schwarzenegger's company, Oak Productions, $1.5 million is funneled to a new tax-exempt group the governor started, a physical fitness panel, according to American Media [the parent company of Weider Publications].

Asked what Schwarzenegger did to earn his consulting pay, Stutzman mentioned the column. Schwarzenegger can command such fees because of his celebrity, his office said.

So Schwarzenegger is getting an $8 million consulting and advertising fee from Weider Publications for services that are not specifically described in detail. Even more surprising is that this disclosure came from SEC filings released by American Media--parent company of Weider Publications. None of this information was ever publicly disclosed by the governor's office. The LA Times article continues saying:

Some legal experts said such disclosure was not sufficient when it came to outside employment on this scale.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a government ethics expert, said California's disclosure requirements "may not be nuanced enough" for present-day incomes and for voters to accurately gauge if a politician has a conflict of interest.

"It surprises me that the way we found out about this was an SEC filing," she said. "It surprises me that it was not [fully] disclosed. That is precisely the sort of information that the public needs."

We're going to hear more about this scandal when the 2006 governor's re-election comes up.

Pataki Will Test '08 Winds in Iowa

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 14 - Gov. George E. Pataki of New York is headed to Iowa this weekend for what associates described on Thursday as an exploration of whether he should run for president in 2008, reflecting what they called an increased likelihood that he would forgo a bid for a fourth term next year and turn to the national stage.

Mr. Pataki's associates said he viewed the trip - as part of a visit by him to a National Governors' Association meeting, taking place in a state that begins the presidential selection process with its winter caucuses - as a test of whether a moderate Republican from New York has a real chance of winning his party's presidential nomination.

If he ran, Mr. Pataki, who supports abortion rights and gun control, would most likely be the most moderate candidate in the Republican field, and would face significant hurdles with a Republican primary electorate that has become increasingly conservative, particularly in states like Iowa.

While I will say that I'm receptive to the idea of a moderate Republican running for President, there is no way Pataki can win the presidency in 2008. There is no such thing as a moderate Republican on the national stage. If you wish to run for president of the Republican Party, you cannot support abortion rights or even gun control--which contradicts both the party platform and the Religious Right agenda, which now controls the platform. The Religious Right will never accept a Pataki as their party candidate.

One of the biggest problems with the Republican Party is that the party has been controlled by right-wing ideologues and the Religious Right evangelists. This control of the party started in the 1980s as Ronald Reagan was president. Reagan was a master showman of contradiction between what he said, and what he did. Reagan could give a speech demanding the overturning of abortion that would send the party faithful in political ecstasy, but then Reagan would do nothing in the White House to overturn abortion. The right-wingers watched as both Reagan and Bush Senior solicited their votes for the elections as moderate Republicans, but would never institute any of their policies into legislation. The right-wingers got angry at the moderates in the party wing, then started to withhold their votes from the Republican Party as moderates such as Bush Senior lost to Bill Clinton in his re-election bid in 1992, and Bob Dole failed to take the presidency from Clinton in 1996.

Enter George Bush Jr. and Karl Rove. Bush Jr. was a born-again Christian who pretty much believed in what the ideologues and evangelists wanted changed in the platform. Rove was the master political strategist. Rove was the political guru who saw the declining numbers of religious right-wingers voting for the Republican ticket. In the 2000 elections, Rove pretty much reversed the election strategy of marketing Bush as a moderate Republican to the American public. But when Bush got into office, he started governing to the hard right. The introduction of Bush into the White House as one of their own, brought the evangelists and the right-wingers out of their stupor. In 2004, they came out in record numbers to re-elect Bush. And because of their support, they are practically demanding that Bush will promote their legislative agenda--and they are getting it with the White House intervention of Terri Schiavo, the stem cell controversy, and now with the pressure of Bush selecting a Supreme Court justice to replace O'Conner. The Religious Right has taken control of the Republican Party, with President Bush as their new spokesperson. And once Bush steps down in 2008, the right-wing will not simply cede power to the moderates. They are going to continue to pressure any Republican presidential candidate to walk and talk their line. Look at Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's role in the judicial filibuster fight, the Terri Schiavo case, and the stem cell legislation. Frist also has presidential ambitions and he's been courting the evangelists ever since he became majority leader.

The Religious Right's power over the Republican Party is almost absolute. They will not cede the power they have to a moderate Republican, for whom they feel may not do their social and political bidding. The only way for moderates to gain control of the Republican Party is for the party to be handed a major string of defeats in both the 2006 midterm and 2008 presidential elections. Republican ideologues such as Pennsylvania's Rich Santorum will have to be defeated in the 2006 elections (And in fact, Santorum's poll numbers have been dropping). The Republican Pary has to self-destruct under its hubris and extremist views--similar to the way the Democratic Party self-destructed in the 1968 presidential elections when Nixon came to power. Will this happen? It is too early to say. The elements for this Republican self-destruction are certainly there--the bogged down war in Iraq, Valerie Plamegate, Bush White House lies regarding the Iraq war and WMDs, Supreme Court nomination fight, an angry and resurgent Democratic Party (although still in disarray since the Democrats do not have an alternative vision to court the voters), and dropping public opinion polls regarding Bush's job performance. The kindling and fuel is there. There just hasn't been a spark to cause the conflagration yet.

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A Officer

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.

Well, the story is out. Karl Rove lied. He spoke with Time Magazine's Matt Cooper and columnist Robert Novak. He was one of two "senior administration officials" who leaked Plame's name to the press after Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial criticizing the Bush administration's claims of Iraq's nuclear buildup. Karl Rove lied to the press and American people. What's more, Rove broke the law in revealing Valerie Plame's name to Novak, and that he identified her working for the C.I.A. The Times article raises and even more pertinent question:

The disclosure of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever discussed that conversation, or his exchange with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with [Special Prosecutor] Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

What did the President know and when did he know it? Rove is President Bush's most trusted advisor--the "Architect" of Bush's re-election campaign, and the White House political guru. Did Rove tell the president of his involvement in leaking Plame's name to Novak before the president's June 2004 press conference, at Sea Island, Ga., where Bush said he would fire any White House official who was involved in the leaks? Because if he did, that means that the Bush White House has been exposed again to lying to the American people again, only this time regarding a serious federal crime.

Robert Novak said he got Valerie Plame's name from two sources--Karl Rove is certainly one source. The Times said the second source "provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as 'no partisan gunslinger.'" This un-named source introduced Novak to the story. Novak then called Rove for the confirmation to the story. So the question I have is who is this first source? What was his reasons or motives for providing this story? Who does he work for? Why did he give this story to Novak? How many other reporters did this source give the story to before Novak? What does "no partisan gunslinger" mean?

This scandal is not over...Not by a long shot.

Bush Honesty Rating Drops to Lowest Point

From MSNBC News:

[T]the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush’s overall job rating has slipped and that his rating for being “honest and straightforward” has dropped to its lowest point.

The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of BushÂ’s job performance. ThatÂ’s a drop from the last NBC/Journal poll in May, when 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. In addition, the only time when BushÂ’s job rating has been worse was in June 2004, when 45 percent approved of his performance.

Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

The problems of the last 5 years that the Bush Administration has either ignored, such as job creation, or has driven this country into, such as the war in Iraq, is now starting to take its toll in Bush's job performance. You can only devote so muchdeceive to decieve the public, but if you don't start to tackle the problems, then the public is going to see through the web of lies you've created. The two biggest problems Bush faces today is the war in Iraq, and the jobs picture. They've flip-flopped. The article continues saying:

Also according to the poll, the public ranks the war in Iraq as the top priority the federal government should address, followed by job creation and then homeland security. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, the economy ranked first — followed by Iraq and then homeland security.

The economy started sliding into its recession at the beginning of the Bush presidency. Bush was able to get his big tax cuts through, saying they would help rejuvinate the economy and increase jobs. While the U.S. was able to recover from the recession and dotcom explosion, the recovery has been weak with job creation almost non-existent. It is a problem that has been in the American public's mind since day one of Bush's term. And Bush has either ignored this problem, or has failed to solve it.

The war in Iraq is a different matter. After the September 11 attacks, Bush shifted his attention from fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan, towards invading Iraq. We saw a concerted White House public relations campaign to shift American public opinion away from Afghanistan towards the Iraq invasion--Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was harboring terrorists, Saddam Hussein is an evil guy. The public bought into it, and the U.S. invaded and took over Iraq. But the Bush White House failed to seriously consider a post-war reconstruction and occupation plan once the invasion had succeeded. And because of this failure to effectively plan for post-war occupation, the U.S. is now bogged down in a low-level guerrilla insurrection against Iraqi nationalists, wanting to remove the U.S. military from Iraq, and foreign nationals and al-Qaida terrorists, coming into Iraq from neighboring countries. Bush created this problem when he went into Iraq. And as the fighting has dragged on with no end in sight, the public is realizing they were sold a bad set of goods--especially since the White House PR machine, and the Downing Street Memos have been revealed.

It is especially important to note that this survey was taken before the allegations of Karl Rove's leaking Valerie Plame's name to Time Magazine's reporter Matt Cooper had exploded into the latest controversy. So the Karl Rove controversy is not reflected in this survey. How Bush responds to the Rove controversy--whether he fires Rove, or keeps him in the White House--will be measured in the next public opinion survey.

A big change in this poll has been the nine-point drop in Bush's marks for being "honest and straightforward," from 50 percent in January to 41 percent today. Throughout his presidency, Bush has always had strong support in two catagories--the war on terrorism, and his honesty. Now his honesty rating has dropped significantly, possibly into a negative rating where more people think he is dishonest than honest. Again, people are listening to the White House spin, and are looking at the events occuring in this country that contradict the White House remarks. And if the latest Rove scandal continues to make headlines in the next six months, with Bush continuing to keep Rove on the payroll, Bush's honesty marks may drop down to the low-to-mid 30s in the next poll.

The next big controversy brewing will be the Supreme Court fight, possibly in September. According to the MSNBC story:

[S]trong majorities believe Bush would be making a positive step if he appointed a justice who continues to allow references to God in public life (63 percent), who is a woman (60 percent), and who upholds affirmative action laws and policies (55 percent). However, 50 percent think Bush would be making a mistake if his choice changes the courtÂ’s balance on Roe v. Wade.

The poll also notes that 41 percent (vs. 30 percent) want Bush to appoint a strong conservative to the court, while a nearly equal proportion (40 percent to 25 percent) would like for him to take into consideration the views of secular and liberal groups.

In some ways, the results are contradictory. The public wants a conservative on the court, who believes in God, would take into consideration the views of secular and liberal groups, and would uphold abortion. Bush has stated that he favors judges in the mold of either Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas--two of the most conservative members of the court. If he selects a justice with similar conservative views, there is a chance that the court could overturn abortion. Looking at these results, you could almost say that the public wants the court to remain in this ideological middle ground, somewhat conservative but willing to keep the status quo on social policies. So if Bush selects someone in the ideological mold of Sandra Day O'Conner, the public would approve and give him better marks in his job performance. The Democrats in the Senate would certainly accept a nominee similar in qulifications of O'Conner. However, Bush is under enormous pressure by the Religious Right to select a hard-line ideologue. And there's a good chance he will select either an ideologue, or possibly his friend Alberto Gonzales as a reward for Gonzales' loyalty to Bush, to the court.

Bush Says He Might Consider Newcomers for High Court

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 13 - President Bush said today that his nominee for the Supreme Court may be someone who has never sat on the bench before.

"Would I be willing to consider people who had never been a judge?" Mr. Bush said. "And the answer is, 'You bet.' "

Mr. Bush said he had had "a very good meeting" on Tuesday with Senate leaders of both parties, who had encouraged him to look beyond the federal judiciary for candidates to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"We're considering all kind of people," Mr. Bush said after a Cabinet meeting today. "Judges, non-judges. Laura gave me some good advice yesterday, which is to consider women. Which, of course I'm doing." First Lady Laura Bush said she would be pleased if the president nominated a woman to fill Justice O'Connor's seat.

Can anyone say Alberto Gonzales?

The Evolution of Hillary Clinton

From the New York Times:

This is a fascinating New York Times article showing how New York senator Hillary Clinton has evolved from a Democratic partisan to a robust, centrist and respectable senator. She could become a major player in the 2008 presidential elections.

As she gears up her re-election campaign for the United States Senate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is presenting a side of herself that might have given some of her supporters great pause just a few years ago. Nothing captures this new face of Hillary Clinton better than the Web site her campaign started this week: It portrays her robust stand on national defense and her desire to reduce the number of abortions, among other positions.

In fact, in the last few months, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly confounded the expectations of people who judged her from her White House years. She has appeared publicly with Newt Gingrich, her onetime political foe. She has called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice." She has stood fast in defense of her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Over the last few weeks, she has found defenders among prominent conservative commentators who feel she was maligned in a new unauthorized biography.

It is a striking departure from just five years ago when she was seen as a fierce Democratic partisan and a symbol of the liberal excesses of the Clinton years.

Today many Republicans acknowledge somewhat grudging respect for Mrs. Clinton as a senator and say they often find common political ground with her. Mrs. Clinton has become known as anything but the political extremist that many of her critics expected her to be, and has done and said things that have surprised friends and foes alike.

Although she has found allies on the Republican side of the aisle, her public statements and positioning on issues have aroused suspicions that she is setting the stage for a presidential run. Tellingly, some liberals, who make up the core of her political base, have complained that she has been ceding too much to the right, especially in her support for military action in Iraq.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton has defied simple ideological labeling since joining the Senate, ending up in the political center on issues like health care, welfare, abortion, morality and values, and national defense, to name just a few.

Bush Won't Comment on Rove's Role in CIA Leak

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (July 13) - President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete. The lack of an endorsement surprised some Bush advisers who expected the president to speak up.

''This is a serious investigation,'' Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove sitting just behind him. ''I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete.

''I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports,'' he said, when asked whether Rove acted improperly in discussing CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.

Talk about all the ducks quacking the same tune. On Monday, we had Scott McClellan give the standard White House double-speak of not commenting on the Rove leak until the investigation is complete, and now Bush is quacking the same tune. I sort of wonder if Karl Rove thought up this quack of a comment?

Bush will never fire Karl Rove--he can't. Karl Rove is the only brains left in the Bush administration and he's been in the center of just about every scandal and rumors of corruption that has come out of the White House for the last five years. The moment he falls, the Bush presidency falls. The only thing that Bush can do now is to stall for time, or pray for a crisis outside of the White House to emerge which will divert the press away from Karl Rove. The problem is that the longer the Bush White House stalls, the more the press and the American public will believe that Bush and Rove are hiding something. This could cause the press to dig deeper into the scandal, and the American public to cast their opinion in the voting booths--possibly switching control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. Bush and the Republicans especially need Rove to implement a mid-term election strategy for the Republicans to maintain control of Congress. If the Democrats do gain control of Congress, you can bet they'll start a number of congressional investigations into the many scandals in White House--Valerie Plame, Iraq War, WMD intelligence briefings, Halliburton contracts, Cheney's energy policy meetings. There's a lot to choose from.