Buck Naked Politics

Wars, Current Leaders, and Founding Fathers

Today, I think of wars: the obviously worthwhile war our nation fought before signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776; and the war our nation started some 227 years later, based on unquestioned claims that turned out to be untrue.

Most of our leaders didn't fully read the intelligence reports before voting for this war and likely regret that 3,500+ young Americans died and thousands more have come home severely wounded. As a reminder, I re-posted the Mile-Long Memorial photo).

Then there's the new war that some leaders are itching to start. Today, as in 2003, I hear accusations against their target-nation reported in the media without question, giving me a most unsettling case of dejas vu.

Naturally, I think about our Founding Fathers, though not the fascinating aspects discussed in today's Washington Post. Rather, I think about how they might react to the current state of their nation.

After giving Ben Franklin a week's furlough on model-populated South Beach, the original patriots would congregate for a serious sit-down. Thomas Paine would volunteer for deployment to the White House and Supreme Court -- glove in hand -- to commit serial bitch-slappings over the erosion of his cherished separation of church and state (and other First Amendment tenets).

How Just is our Justice Department?

My stomach knotted as I read evidence of what is at best a disregard for life -- at worst, an underlying blood thirst. We expect that from serial killers, but from America's foremost law-enforcement agency?

Last week, former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton testified before Congress that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ordered him to pursue the death penalty, even in cases where evidence was lacking (Washington Post).

Charlton described one case against a drug dealer who allegedly murdered his supplier. Charlton decided against the death penalty, because he didn't have a murder weapon, DNA or the victim's body. Charlton didn't want to risk killing the wrong person.

He believed the victim's body was buried in a landfill and asked the Justice Department to pay  $500,000+ to retrieve it. The Department refused, and Gonzales ordered Charlton to pursue the death penalty. (WaPo).

Put aside our Attorney General's possible misuse of his office to promote partisan agendas. What kind of person would insist on the death penalty in cases that lacked evidence? Does he not grasp that death is irreversible?  Does he believe each skull on his belt incrementally boosts virility?

Since Gonzales became Attorney General, how many people were unjustly executed? 

Truthout has video and a summary of an exclusive interview with Charlton. See what others are saying (next page):

The Scooter Libby Commutation and/or Subsequent Pardon: Playing Right Into Liberal and Progressive Hands?

posted by Damozel | Rejoice, fellow liberals, and especially progressives!  The Bush Administration fell for it.

  As my colleague The Crux has already noted, Robert Bauer,  "General Counsel to the Obama campaign," speaking for himself and not at all for any of his clients,  published this article in The Huffington Post on June 14, 2007: The Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon.

A Swift Solution to Bush's PR Problems.

No discussion of the commutation of Libby's sentence would be complete without input from sensible conservative Jon Swift, who is always there to point out calmly and rationally and sensibly where we liberals have got it wrong.   Those whose heads are exploding (Why? Why? What in the world else were you expecting? I wasn't at all prepared for this level of outrage),  I can only commend you to Jon Swift, who would like Bush to Give Scooter Libby a New Job.

Bush Still Might Pardon Libby

Though President Bush already commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, he refused today to rule out a full pardon for Libby, who was convicted of lying to Congress about the blowing of Valerie Plame's cover (Washington Post). The smart thing for Bush to do is wait until Christmas Eve, like his dad did when pardoning the Iran Contra perps back in 1992. Americans are more forgiving during the holidays. 

I imagine yesterday's conversation went something like this (after the appellate court refused to let Libby remain free during appeal):

Bush: Hang in there, little buddy. You've done a heckuva job. I stand by my men.

Libby: If I spend one minute in prison, the beans'll spill all over your black crocs.

Bush:  I'll keep you outta jail. A nuculer bomb couldn't drag me away from my mission.

Perhaps Bush-senior had similar exchanges with Iran Contra perps -- including similar mis-pronunciations and mixed metaphors. 

Back to 2007: the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin bluntly floats questions that've been on many minds:

"Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny?"

Froomkin's reasons for asking such juscy questions follow:

The Legal Experts Weigh in on the Libby Pardon and Scooter Libby's Very Special Treatment.

posted by Damozel | According to The Washington Post,  Bush is now considering a full pardon for Libby.  See there; I said that my fellow liberals weren't going to give him any credit for maintaining a (wafer-thin) veneer of respect for a jury verdict in the Libby case.  Poor W.  He might as well have just pardoned the guy to start with.  For one thing, the legal ramifications of wiping the slate clean would be quite a bit less complicated, as  this note will show.  And it isn't as if  it's going to make people that much angrier.

Attorneys interviewed by The Washington Post "see irony in the case."  Here's one reason:  "The 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Federal court records indicate that 382 people were convicted for obstruction of justice over the past two years. Three of four were sent to prison. The average prison term was 64 months, more than five years. The largest group of defendants drew prison terms ranging from 13 months to 31 months."  (The Washington Post)  Actually, I don't think "irony" is quite the right word, but I have no doubt it's being used ironically.

In the meantime, it's instructive to see what the law blogs have to say about his attempt---just this once---to exercise his constitutional power of clemency.   What does it mean to---or about---the federal sentencing laws or the rule of law generally?

Did DoJ Official Lie to Congress re: U.S. Attorneys?

Evidence suggests that Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson deleted an email re: the fired U.S. Attorneys and misled congressional investigators about the deletion. Matt Renner reported:

"Kyle Sampson, ... a central coordinator of the US attorney purge, deleted an official email on January 12, 2007. The email was a correspondence between Sampson and the DOJ White House Liaison Monica Goodling that dealt with the controversial appointment of GOP loyalist Tim Griffin to the post of US attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

"Three months after this email was deleted from Sampson's computer, he was interviewed behind closed doors by Congressional investigators....Sampson was asked directly if he destroyed documents or emails relating to the US attorney purge. He answered 'No.'... The DOJ did not respond to repeated inquires into this matter." (Truthout)

Apparently, Sampson wasn't under oath during the interview. That aside, the U.S. Code provides criminal penalties (including up to five years' prison) for making false statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001).

.

This is not the only time evidence seemed to contradict something Sampson said. In March, Sampson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not have replacement candidates in mind when creating the list of US Attorneys to fire; Justice Department emails released two weeks later indicate that Sampson had considered replacements. (New York Times)

Whistleblower Talks about Wiretapping and...

Former military intelligence worker Adrienne Kinne is talking about the Bush Administration's illegal wiretapping and the "fixing of intelligence in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq." (Truthout) 

Kinne said it was "unacceptable" for intelligence workers to listen in on Americans before September 11, 2001, but intelligence workers were given a "waiver to spy on Americans" in mid-2002. Kinne also described an incident in 2003 involving a fax whose validity she questioned: she was reprimanded for questioning it (see story).

That's not surprising, given what we've been learning this year. This is the part that raised my eyebrows:

"Kinne dates this incident to the period just before the official invasion of Iraq, or possibly just after.  She says that because the US engaged in so much bombing prior to the official invasion, she cannot recall for sure."

Am I the last to learn that our leaders regularly bombed Iraq before that orchestrated media lead-up to the "official" invasion (the one that included embedded journalists)?

Kinne wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy about her desire to talk, but he hasn't responded yet. I suspect he will, given that the Committee recently subpoenaed the White House for information relating to its illegal wiretapping programs.

Iran: Did our Media Learn Nothing from Iraq?

Yesterday, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner claimed to have evidence that Iran's government has aided U.S. enemies in Iraq (Washington Post and New York Times).  I don't have security clearance and don't share a bedroom an office with someone who does, so I cannot challenge validity.  I can, however, remind readers of the medias' pattern of uncritical reporting as I try to shake off the deja vu.

A few short months ago, Bill Moyers' show "Buying the War" sought to answer the question "How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?" (See USA Today and PBS transcript at Truthout.)  Why did reporters blindly believe that Iraq had WMDs? Why did they fail to challenge the Administration's implications about an Iraq-9/11 link? Why did they unquestioningly celebrate when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003?

Four years later: those massively destructive weapons remain un-found; Bush emphatically denied links between Iraq and 9/11 (though not until after the invasion); and, our bungled mission in Iraq has no clear end in sight. Worse yet, pre-war intelligence reports indicate that the Administration was warned that the Iraq war would be long-term.

Basically, Moyers' pointed out that America's media failed America's people by failing to question their President, which compelled some journalists to hang their heads in mea-culpa shame.

And yet, while we listen to officials build a case to attack Iran, prominent media report the claims without questioning.

Conservative Andrew Sullivan on The Libby Pardon.

Sullivan, an ethical conservative (there used to be a lot more of them, I seem to remember) points out what I only hinted at in my note on the Libby pardon: 

Remember that Mr Bush is notoriously pardon-averse. He has only issued 113 pardons in nearly seven years. In Texas, he sent many, many people to the execution room, even those, like Karla Faye Tucker, who had genuinely expressed remorse and been born again. In fact, he famously mocked her petition for clemency. So she was killed. But Bush finds a way to spare his own apparatchik from mere months in jail for a clear case of perjury.(The Daily Dish)

And Sullivan really is angry now.  In fact, he is way angrier than this liberal, since Bush only did what I expected him to do (and what his father did before him).  Sullivan, though, is shaken.  "I'm surprised by Bush's chutzpah. I retained some minimal respect. No longer. We now know full well what his beliefs are: the law is for other people..." (The Daily Dish) 

Pardon This: Bush Rescues Libby from "Excessive" Prison Term.

posted by Damozel | Well, well.  Bush didn't exactly pardon Libby, but he did decide that Libby's prison term of 30 months was "excessive."  So he sliced that baby right down the middle, doubtless ensuring that he will end up pleasing nobody. "Mr. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Mr. Libby, and Mr. Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby." (The Wall Street Journal)

As far as I'm concerned it's the least he could do for Cheney's pet scapegoat.  Was it also the most?  The WSJ law blog pointed me to this article from the Washington Post in which William Otis argues "the case for commutation."  (The Washington Post)

Anyway, it's always fascinating to see one branch play "scissors" to another's "paper."  And it's actually kind of a tradition for Republicans to pardon their own (Exh. A; Exh. B), which W didn't do.  (As The New York Times helpfully explains, "Like a pardon, a commutation is a form of clemency, granted to the president by the Constitution. But a pardon is an official act of forgiveness, whereas a commutation simply reduces the penalty, without making an official judgment of forgiveness."  Many conservatives were asking for a full pardon. (NYT).)

Update: Fired U.S. Attorney Scandal

Three things recently made news re: the fired U.S. Attorney scandal:

New Evidence re: Partisan Ousting of Iglesias

New Mexico lawyer Patrick Rogers reportedly pushed to have ex-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias fired after unsuccessfully pressuring Iglesias "to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed"  (McClatchy/Truthout). Rogers was secretary of the non-profit group American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund, which pushed legal requirements that tend to target poor and minority voters. 

The group was linked to the Republican National Lawyers Association, which seemed to have a similar legislative agenda. According to McClatchy, both well-funded groups "appear to have vanished" some time after the November 2006 elections.

Leahy's Fight to Enforce Subpoenas

You've likely heard that President Bush refused to turn over documents re: the fired U.S. Attorney scandal that were subpoenaed by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a few weeks ago (BNP). Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy said he will fight to enforce the subpoenas, a process that could lead to a contempt of Congress citation against Bush (BNP and Washington Post). See joint letter to the White House from Patrick Leahy and John Conyers.

Seventh Justice Official Resigns...

Enforcing Subpoenas: Congress Takes Next Step

Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said that he will try to cite President Bush for contempt of Congress if the Bush keeps refusing to comply with subpoenas demanding information on the fired U.S. Attorneys (Washington Post). Friday, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees took the first step toward enforcing those subpoenas:

"The committee chairmen told the White House to provide a signed letter from Bush asserting executive privilege, as well as a description of each withheld document, a list of who has seen the documents, and the legal basis for arguing that they may be shielded from public view.

"That demand, with a July 9 deadline, is the beginning of several steps lawmakers are empowered to take to try to overcome the executive privilege claim. Those steps could culminate in Congress voting to find the president in criminal contempt and to refer the matter to a federal prosecutor with a recommendation to issue an indictment." (Washington Post)

Committee chairmen Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Patrick Leahy, put their demands in a detailed letter that blasts the Bush Administration for creating a "veil of secrecy." (See letter.)

White House press-official Tony Fratto said. "They are not interested in facts. They are interested in sending off letters with vitriolic language" (WaPo). After six years of doing it, Administration officials still don't grasp that responding with non-substantive nastiness merely makes them look like they're up to something and desperately trying to hide it.

Actually, Congress is asking for facts, simple ones: who decided to fire the U.S. Attorneys and why. The White House keeps saying it'll let aides testify -- but only if they aren't under oath. Translation: only if Congress can't hold aides accountable if they lie.

Related Posts:

Jon Stewart Video Shows White House Contradicting Itself (Again)

Wan Kim Testimony: Partisan Politics at Justice Department

Committees Subpoena Ex-Administration Officials

 

Secret Terrorist Report Could Have Helped Brits?

Yesterday, the U.S. Homeland Security Department publicly predicted that al Qaeda is planning a "terror spectacular" this summer. ABC News reported that the U.S. government received reports two weeks ago that terrorist attacks were planned against airports and infrastructure in Glasgow and Prague:

"U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News... that the United States did not 'have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point.'

"The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target." (ABC)

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain."  I don't know how to reconcile Chertoff's statement with British officials' statements. Given that the Glasgow airport really was attacked this weekend , I can't imagine British officials are particularly pleased by Chertoff's secrecy (Washington Post).

An unnamed official told ABC the recent warning is "reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001."  Perhaps I wasn't paying attention. What sort of warnings did we get?  Did the 9/11 attacks take our nation by surprise or not?

London Foiled-Bombing Arrests: Many Unanswered Questions

Five people were arrested in London re: the attempted car bombings (BNP 1 and BNP 2). Two of the suspects are medical doctors (Sky News).  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "We are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al Qaeda" (BBC) I'm not sure what he meant by "in general terms."

The London Times reported that police officials are publicly keeping their minds open but privately believe it was an "Islamist terrorist attack" (not necessarily an al Qaeda attack).  According to the Telegraph, the Queen's knighting of Salman Rushdie, whose novel many muslims considered blasphemous, may be related to the attempted bombing.

Some analysts said the foiled bombings appeared intended to coincide with Brown's first days in office (Washington Post). A London policy group executive said the attempted bombing "was a signal to the new government, a statement of intent and intimidation" (WaPo).

Last week, Brown's new deputy publicly called on the British government last week to apologize for mistakes in Iraq (Salon). The day before the bombs were disarmed, Brown appointed Iraq war critics to his cabinet (New York Times). Two weeks ago, British citizens were furious after learning that former Prime Minister Tony Blair had misled their nation into the Iraq war.

In short, it seems Britain's new government has been considering withdrawing troops from Iraq. Why would anyone pushing for troop withdrawal attempt to bomb the very people who might actually withdraw troops?  If only I could read minds

A Report on Presidency Bush from The Washington Post

posted by Damozel | This Washington Post article paints a disturbing and enigmatic and rather saddening picture of Bush at the lowest ebb of his popularity , "resolute" and "at ease" and yet struggling to understand how he can be so right and yet be so misunderstood; and generally keeping away from situations and people which would remind him of exactly how low in the public's estimation he currently stands. Evidently he's developing habits of (comparative)  introspection, while still retaining his "inexorable upbeat energy." (The Washington Post)   

Evidently, he's taken to setting up private bull sessions---with persons such as Michael Novak, Andrew Roberts, Alistair Horne, and Irwin Stelzer ---"engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration. For all the setbacks, he remains unflinching, rarely expressing doubt in his direction, yet trying to understand how he got off course." (The Washington Post) Really?  If he thinks he's gone "off course," does that mean he's starting to realize that the choice to invade Iraq was the wrong one?    Apparently not.  According to WaPo , he now has given up on persuasion but is simply counting on vindication by posterity.    (The Washington Post)  My mother, a/k/a "The Southern Lady," who voted for him twice and venerates his father, said, "I think he is being a stubborn jackass."

Pre-Weekend Chuckles

See the Jon Stewart's latest installment of the Daily Show series on the Vice President, You Don't know Dick.  Enjoy the weekend!

Next Page: Stephen Colbert on Republican Senator Richard Lugar's doubts about the Iraq War.

Bush Flips Off Congress re: Subpoenas

Yesterday, the White House was supposed to turn over documents relating to the fired U.S. Attorney scandal that were demanded in subpoenas from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Instead, President Bush gave Congress the finger.

Invoking executive privilege, Bush won't comply with the subpoenas because he fears he won't get candid advice from advisers if they fear having to testify before Congress about their advice.(The Hill) Other presidents have used similar arguments including Nixon, who didn't want to turn over those incriminating Watergate tapes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's commented:

Taxpayers Losing Money to Engorged Contractors

It seems government agencies have allowed private contractors to gorge on the taxpayers like tics on a dog.  No wonder our national debt is nearing $9 trillion. 

Yesterday, three Washington Post articles spotlighted problems with government contracting. One discusses prominent contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which got a $2 million, no-bid, Homeland Security Department contract in 2003; by December 2004, payments to Booz exceeded $30 million and ultimately climbed to $124 million (Washington Post).

Why so costly? Partly because Booz charges twice as much for contract employees ($42 - $383 per hour) than government employees typically earn. Partly because the government failed to hire enough employees to monitor the contractors.

Government officials possessing even minimal math skills know that private companies cost more, because they charge the taxpayers for workers' salaries and for profits thereon. They're also aware of voluminous data on contractor waste and fraud suits (read about defense and healthcare contractors).

Another Washington Post article cited a congressional report, stating ...

Bush Losing Republican Support for Iraq War

We've come a long way since the 9/11 attacks began compelling Americans, especially elected officials, to avoid even appearing to disagree with President Bush or risk being labeled un-American. Apparently, those days are numbered.

Yesterday, the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin discussed evidence that Bush and Cheney may have "lost control of the Washington agenda when it comes to their principal legacy: the war in Iraq."

Among the evidence was criticism from Republican Senator Richard Lugar (Ind.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In part, Lugar said during a Senate floor speech: