Buck Naked Politics

Caught in the Crossfire at Justice

Posted by PBS Mind | "The Crux" usually covers the DoJ issues, and she is so thoroughly versed in it that it's usually best just to leave her to it. However, I read something today that I just had to share.
It's from the June 4th issue of Newsweek (yes, I'm just now getting caught up):

"... It is worth remembering that before Richard Nixon could find someone at the Justice Department willing to fire the Watergate special prosecutor in 1973, he had to accept the resignations of the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus. (Solicitor General Robert Bork finally did the deed.)
"So consider these scenes from March 2004, described by two former top Justice officials who, like other ex-officials interviewed by Newsweek, did not wish to be identified discussing sensitive internal matters. Attorney General John Ashcroft is really sick. About to give a press conference in Virginia, he is stricken with pain so severe he has to lie down on the floor. Taken to the hospital for an emergency gallbladder operation, he hallucinates under medication as he lies, near death, in  intensive care. On the night after his operation, he has two visitors:  White House chief of staff Andrew Card and presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales. As described in public testimony, they want Ashcroft to sign a document authorizing the government's top-secret eavesdropping program to go on. The attorney general, who thinks the program is illegal, refuses.

New Roadmaps Out of Iraq.

posted by Damozel | The current situation in Iraq reminds me of a line from a certain novel by Kingsley Amis:  "It's, like, a cat can get his claws stuck into you, you can't get them out and neither can he."   Meanwhile (except of course for the Bush Administration, everyone)---including now perhaps even the Iraqi government---seems to be wishing for a way for the US and the Iraqi government to detach with the minimum amount of damage to either side.

Following the assessment of his government's failure to meet Congressional benchmarks---and  even perhaps with a certain degree of resentment (?)---Prime Minister Maliki announced at a press conference that coalition troops can leave whenever they wish, instead of waiting as the Bush Administration wishes to do until security and stability are achieved. (Washington Post) "The government is serious about increasing the numbers of troops, training them, rehabilitating them and buying weapons so that they can be more capable of holding the security file the moment the multinational forces decide to reduce their numbers or to withdraw from Iraq,"  he said. (Washington Post) He did acknowledge that Iraqi forces need more training and more weapons. (Washington Post) 

Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Gordon Brown and the US

Posted by Cockney Robin | Note:  Cockney Robin has given up trying to spell in the American fashion and intends to spell  as God intended him to!

Will the Brown government break up with the Bush Administration?  The consensus seems to be "Yes, eventually, but don't hold your breath."  It's going to be one of those drawn-out, painful ones, like my two-year break-up 25 years ago with a madly insecure girl called Claire. 

After the alarm stirred up by Douglas Alexander's Washington speech (BBC), new cabinet minister Mark Malloch-Brown has caused a further rift in the lute by saying that the UK and the US will no longer be "joined at the hip." (BBC News) But Brown himself---an "Atlanticist," friendly to the US--- has been most anxious to deny even the appearance of any intention to detach (for now, anyway) the linked iliac crests of the two nations. (BBC News) Washington, in the manner of my former girlfriend, is murmuring of "mixed messages." (Times Online)   In the meantime, Brown is  saying what one always says under such circumstances, "My feelings for you haven't changed....Nothing's changed, I swear....well, okay, I'd fancy just a bit more space....No, my feelings haven't changed, I swear it...."   

Britain pulls away; Bush presses forward---Democrats push back. Should Democrats Give War a Chance? (UPDATED)

Posted by Cockney Robin | Clearly, President Bush is coming under serious pressure to wrap up the war in Iraq.  It's not just the Democrats; Republican Senators Warner and Lugar have now drafted legislation which "represents a sharp challenge to Bush." (The Washington Post)

IS BRITAIN PULLING AWAY FROM THE U.S.?  Now that we don't have Tony to kick around anymore, Gordon Brown's Labour government seems to be positioning itself to reposition itself and its relations with the U.S. In Washington last night, to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brown's International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander,  said:  ""We must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world but ones which reach out to the world." (The Telegraph) 

British papers all consider this a "hint" to the US of an impending foreign policy shift.  A hint, eh? According to the BBC, "Downing Street has denied claims a speech by a Cabinet minister was critical of US foreign policy."  Do they protest too much?   But decide for yourself:

The Ordeal of Sarah Taylor.

posted by Damozel | Andrew Sullivan says that this videotape exemplifies the Bush Administration.  He's not wrong.

Watch Senator Patrick Leahy slooooooowly explain to a very confused and harried Sarah that IN FACT the oath that she took was to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Sarah make it completely clear in every respect that this is news to her.   "I took an oath to the President...and I take that oath very seriously.... I did not take a second oath to the President....I believe taking that oath means that I need to respect---and do respect---my service to the President." 

LEAHY (grindingly):  "Your oath is--- NOT ---to uphold--- the President....Your oath---like my oath----is to uphold---- the Constitution."   

The Muzzling of Carmona: Other Reactions.

posted by Damozel | I've already said my piece here.  I've complied a set of my favorite comments from other bloggers  (many found via Memeorandum),   These are mostly comments by liberal blogs..  I'd have liked to include more reactions from the right, but the rightward-tilting blogs I usually read haven't (yet) taken a position.  You can see how it would be a bit of a challenge.

At Swampland, Karen Tumulty says:  "As a presidential candidate, George Bush promised over and over again that he would be guided by "sound science." But almost from the outset, his Administration has come under repeated accusations that it has distorted or quashed science in favor of political or ideological considerations. (The Surgeon General's Report; links in original)  Yes, this is what's so magical about the Bush Administration:  It says one thing, does another, and doesn't give a damn if you point out the difference, because its advocates all stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALALA I can't heaaaaaar you!!!" 

At Donklephant, Justin Gardner says:  "As much as I don’t agree with it, I can understand politicizing the hiring and firing of US attorneys....However, politicizing the Surgeon General? And turning him into a partisan hack?..Does Rove have ANY strategy besides “make it more partisan!”? Seriously, it’s kind of sad to see this ship sinking under the inept leadership of Cappy Rove, who doesn’t seem to have any other plays in his book besides party loyalty." (Controlling The Messenger; links in original)   That's what's so amazing:  that when its erstwhile crew explain why they abandoned ship, the White House just sends its mouthpieces out to blink at them in surprise and consternation.  Tony Fratto was merely "disappointed"  that Dr. Carmona felt silenced by the Administration and didn't make better use of his opportunities.   

Ex-Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona: "Muzzled." (Updated!)

posted by Damozel | Bush's former Surgeon General has just confirmed to Congress what people who were paying attention already knew: the Bush Administration didn't shrink from reframing science and medicine to serve its own political agenda.   I suppose that when you know (or "know") that you are right (or Right), allowing your experts to express their own views or stick to mere facts just seems finicky if not obstructionist.  After all, nothing should get in the way of Truth, including truth.

But Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General from 2002 to 2006, self-servingly believed that the Surgeon General's duty was to the nation rather than to the Administration.  The Administration begged to differ.  ""Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried....The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party,"" (Reuters) 

Dr. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that "political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B."  (The Washington Post)

Another Justice Department Lawyer Speaks Out

In a scathing op-ed last week, John Koppel -- a 26-year Justice Department attorney -- discussed the Bush Administration's "disrespect" for law and ethics, particularly regarding the Justice Department. Koppel still works for Justice (at least he did last week), meaning he took risks when speaking out. In part, he wrote:

"The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse....

[The Bush Administration] "has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers…. (Denver Post)

Between 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, many Americans refrained from criticizing the Administration for fear of having "terrorist sympathizer" burned into their foreheads. It reminded me of what former Nazi supporter Martin Niemoeller said about the Nazis:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Apparently, Justice employees have been afraid to speak out about injustice for some time. For example,

Blistering Attack on the Department of Justice by Veteran U.S. Attorney.

posted by Damozel | Via a posting by Ashby Jones at  The Wall Street Journal law blog :  John S. Koppel, an attorney in the Department of Justice since 1981, writes in an op-ed in The Denver Post that "Bush justice is a national disgrace."  Among much else, Mr. Koppel says: 

"I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time....[The Bush Administration] has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.  (Denver Post)  

 Commenting on the piece in the WSJ law blog, Ashby Jones wonders "what’s to become of [Koppel] and his hitherto gainful employment?"  (WSJ/Law Blog) It's clear the point had occurred to Mr. Koppel, since he ends his letter by saying that he is aware that his statement might subject him to "a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past." (Denver Post) 

For your consideration and edification, here are a few of Mr. Koppel's additional observations:

White House Again Gives Congress the Finger

Let the Constitutional showdown begin. The White House has refused two Congressional "requests" re: subpoenas relating to the U.S. Attorney firings. Claiming executive privilege, the White House said that 1) it won't allow former employees Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor to testify before Congress, and 2) it won't give Congress written justification of the executive-privilege claim (Washington Post).

Last week, Congress formally asked President Bush for written justification, the first step in a process that could culminate in contempt of Congress charges against Bush. (BNPolitics)

Miers is a former White House lawyer. Taylor is a former Political Director. Weeks ago, Justice Department emails evinced that Miers and Taylor were involved in the U.S. Attorney firings but did not give details about their involvement. (BNPolitics) 

That's why further questioning is necessary. How else can we taxpayers find out what happened but through questioning the people who were involved? The White House has re-offered to let witnesses testify if they aren't under oath and if the testimony isn't recorded. 

The White House has taken an odd stance: it refuses to give all relevant information, yet it claims to have nothing to hide. Jon Stewart has clips showing the White House contradicting itself:

Mounting evidence suggests that Justice Department employees have used the nation's premier law-enforcement agency to promote political agendas. Links to some of that evidence are on the next page.

Putting My Mind at Ease About Fred Thompson

Posted by PBS Mind | Guys, it's no longer necessary to worry about Fred Thompson. Turns out when Nixon heard Freddie-boy was batting for the home team during the Watergate investigation, he said Thompson was "dumb as hell." We'll overlook the crummy metaphor for the moment, and instead put our faith in the two billion political polls in this country, all of which say that Bush is leaving skidmarks in the bowl. Now why, you ask, does this mean I don't need to worry about Fred? Because even Republicans are saying they don't want more of the same, and it looks like with Fred, the consensus is they'd get it!

Stephen Colbert: Profiles in Timing

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert spotlights the courage required to wait to speak out about problems until nothing can be done about them (e.g., President Bush's waiting until after the Iraq invasion to contradict Dick Cheney's implication that Iraq was linked to 9/11). Dick Lugar and George Tenet get honorable mention.

The Bush Administration to Congress: "Probe This ." Who will prevail?

posted by Damozel | Oh dear:  it's a constitutional crisis and it's heading for a showdown!  It's like Watergate all over again, only with a much less lovable Administration.  After all, as The Crux points out, the late Elder Statesman Nixon seems to have pardoned fully 50% (almost 51%) who petitioned for clemency, more than anyone since.  (Someday, when I'm feeling stronger, I shall have to look into those Nixon pardons; for now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming hat it was a Quaker thing).  Besides---setting aside details such as the Watergate break-in and the secret bombing of Cambodia ----the goal of the Nixon Whitehouse (it says so right here) was "reconciliation."  See?:  "Reconciliation was the first goal set by President Richard M. Nixon.  The Nation was painfully divided, with turbulence in the cities and war overseas.  During his Presidency, Nixon succeeded in ending American fighting in Viet Nam and improving relations with the U.S.S.R. and China."   (Biography)  Damn, that sounds so...so .appealing.  I'm getting all nostalgic.  Tricky Dick, we hardly knew ye.  I'd rather have a...Reconciliator?  Reconciler?...than a Decider any day, even a sort of cagy, paranoid one.

Back to the present day:  the White House has decided to deny Congress's most recent request for yet more documents in the "Attorneys Probe," as The Washington Post nicely puts it.  If you haven't been keeping up with the story, The Crux has covered the general background here,  and specifically here, here, and here.  The Bush Administration will make a Democrat of her yet, I keep telling her.

Iraq: Yet Another Surge of Deaths and Injuries

Three suicide bombings in Iraq yesterday and today (in Baghdad, the Diyala province, and the village of Amarly) have killed 143 people and wounded 247 (Washington Post). Also in today's WaPo is an editorial by retired foreign service officer Kiki Munshi, titled Lessons Unlearned in Iraq.

Though distantly related, I can't help thinking of the embassy embarrassment. For reasons beyond my grasp, some time ago our leaders committed nearly $600 million to building America's largest embassy complex in the world, which is partly built. Where?  In Iraq, while we're still fighting the war. 

America's luck with contractors being what it is, the building project and the people involved not only face the regular threat of mortar attacks and suicide bombings, but they've also fallen prey to shoddy work, some of which has posed safety risks. (See posts on fraud suits involving defense and healthcare contractors).

Bush's Clemency Record, Mockery of Woman on Death Row

Is the clemency Bush showed when commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence typical of Bush's record?  The numbers suggest not, which compelled conservative Andrew Sullivan to comment:

"Part of what makes the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence for perjury so transparently corrupt is Bush's long and remarkable record as Texas governor of denying clemency to almost anyone, and the contempt he expressed for even the process of reviewing appeals for mercy from death row."

Sullivan's statement compelled me to compare Bush's clemency record (as president) to that of other presidents. Most presidents granted microscopically few commutations, so it's more helpful to compare pardon rates.

Of the 1,295 pardon petitions received from 2001 to 2007 (I don't know which month), Bush granted 113: a pardon rate of 8.7% (Rehabilitation.org). Below are the pardon rates for six other presidents: (U.S. Pardon Attorney ):

Clinton                2001 petitions, 396 granted:   19.7%            

Bush (41)              731 petitions,   74 granted:   10.1% 

Reagan               2099 petitions, 393 granted:   18.7%

Carter                 1581 petitions, 534 granted:   33.7%

Ford                      978 petitions, 382 granted:   39.0%

Nixon                  1699 petitions, 863 granted:  50.8%

Apparently, Reagan and Nixon were more merciful than Bush, but it goes beyond a lack of mercy. In a 1999 Talk Magazine interview with then-reporter Tucker Carlson, Bush publicly mocked a born-again Christian woman on Texas' death row after she was executed. Below is a clip:

Threats to Doctors: Was it Pranksters, Patients, or Peeved Biotech Investors?

Debates over the experimental prostate cancer vaccine Provenge (made by small biotech firm Dendreon) have become so intense that two doctors requested bodyguards after receiving threats following their advising the FDA to delay approval (Washington Post).

Dendreon's stock prices quadrupled after the company submitted the application for Provenge, but prices nose-dived when the FDA delayed approval (WaPo). Blogger comments at ProvenceNow.org. (a website launched to support approval of Provenge) suggest that multiple interests are clashing:

Comment #7: "If you had cancer would you like to wait and see? I think not. You would be one of those patients that moan the loudest."

Comment #8: "Isn’t our country about free enterprise. If the FDA finds its role in profit protection, then what do small companies or individual researchers have as incentive to provide exceptional cures...."

Comment #9: "Anyone who really wants to try Provenge can do so right now with the phase III trial currently underway. Access is not a problem. I suspect you are mostly sour investors who lost your shirt in this. You should have taken profit in the 20’s and headed for the exits until final word came from the FDA...." 

Embassy in Iraq: Waste, Bad Planning and Contractor Fraud?

Our politicians committed $592 million to building the world's largest U.S. embassy. Think about that next April 15th. [Guantanamo cost $52 million].

Worse yet, it's being erected in Iraq while we're at war. Could enemies find a better symbolic target than a shiny new embassy complex?  The construction site is also victim to shoddy work:

"The first signs of trouble... emerged when the kitchen staff tried to cook the inaugural meal in the new guard base on May 15. Some appliances did not work. Workers began to get electric shocks.... The wiring began to melt....

"The electrical meltdown was just the first problem in a series of construction mistakes that soon left the base uninhabitable, including wiring problems, fuel leaks and noxious fumes in the sleeping trailers.

"[A State Department official] berated personnel in Baghdad for sending their message over an open embassy system, rather than keeping the complaints in-house" (Washington Post)

God forbid the taxpayers should hear about it! Former Halliburton subsidiary KBR is involved but blaming another contractor. Despite its spotted history, KBR keeps getting government contracts. For examples of problems with other contractors, see BNP's posts on fraud suits against Defense and Healthcare contractors. 

About the embassy, the blogger Minister of Propaganda commented: "Everything this Administration touches turns to crap."  See others' comments....

Fourth Senior (Loyal) Republican Opposes Bush's Iraq-War Strategy

A member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with 36 years in the Senate, Pete Domenici (R-NM) became the fourth senior Senate Republican to recently reject President Bush's war strategy (Washington Post). I'll be darned.

The other three are Richard Lugar (IN), the Foreign Relations Committee's lead Republican, who publicly gave detailed criticism of Bush's strategies; John Warner (VA), former Armed Services Committee chairman, who publicly applauded Lugar (WaPo); and George Voinovich (OH), who wrote a letter to Bush, calling for troop withdrawal (see letter).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked the key question: will Republicans actually vote to change course in Iraq?  President Bush wants to wait until Administration officials report on the war's progress in September before deciding a new course. The four senior Republican senators want to speed up troop withdrawals.

What's a few extra months?  From January - June of 2007, an average of 95 U.S soldiers per month were killed and 513 per month were wounded. (See Iraq Coalition Casualties.)  That doesn't include contractors or other civilians.

On a gossipy note, Domenici is linked to the fired U.S. Attorney scandal. (BNP)

Outside the Beltway commented: "that Republican Senators continue to bail on the war would seem to be further evidence that the insurgents are winning."  For others' reactions (pro and con), see next page.

Olbermann Lists Six Years of Sins, Asks Bush & Cheney to Resign

I've spent too much time researching government corruption to be moved by journalistic commentary on such matters. My reaction to President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence: mild surprise that it wasn't a full pardon.

Keith Olbermann's Independence-Day-Eve commentary on MSNBC  moved me. It wasn't his calling for Bush's and Cheney's resignations (millions have done that).  It was the steady stream of facts and history that Olbermann cited -- six years of sins, concisely highlighted in one place. It was like Murrow's stand against McCarthy.

Olbermann accused Bush and Cheney of misdeeds but largely avoided the schoolyard insults on which Bush's spokespeople so habitually rely.  Incidentally, for their own effectiveness, said spokespeople should drop that habit like longtime smokers facing an emphysema-scare.  I urge everyone to watch Olberman's commentary (click the arrow). Truthout has a transcript.

Please share the link with your friends.

See reactions to Bush's commutation and Olbermann:

Conservative Paper Cites Clinton to Criticize Bush

I'd stay inside today, as the skies are teaming with pigs. If you must venture out, take a sturdy umbrella to deflect airborne droppings. The hyper-conservative Washington Times editorial page partly broke from its shrieking crowd re: President Bush's commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence:

"Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence."

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "trumped-up" part.  Ever-reasonable conservative Andrew Sullivan weighed in with this:

"I think you can argue that the perjury issue was incidental to the original crime. You can even argue that there was no crime. But you cannot argue that Libby's testimony was not perjury...; or that premeditated perjury by a leading figure in the government is not something the legal system has a duty to punish clearly...."

Mercury Rising points out that the Cato Institute criticized Bush's commutation, citing examples of far harsher sentences that Bush has failed to commute. Is our nation's political discourse destined to become more reason-based and less emotional?