Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Special: Scooter Libby GUILTY
After ten days of deliberation, jurors returned guilty verdicts on four of five counts of obstruction and perjury in the CIA leak case which centered on the exposing of then-undercover agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not brought indictments in the case against anyone, though Libby was tried separately for various lies to prosecutors, the FBI and the grand jury enpaneled for the original investigation in the fall of 2003.
Libby is free on appeal but could face fines up to $250,000 on each guilty count and 10 years in prison for obstruction and up to 5 years for each of the other three counts. It is doubtful that Libby's attorneys will find sufficient grounds for appeal. Though the trial was highly publicized, there was little for the defense to argue as Libby's accounts were roundly disavowed by government witnesses which included various members of the Washington media and the administration.
With the verdict now in his pocket, Fitzgerald is free to reactivate his investigation with fresh subpoenas and a new grand jury. Fitzgerald said outside the courthouse on Tuesday that he does not expect to reopen the investigation "unless new information" comes to light. Information that emerged from the trial had pointed the finger directly at the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, to the point that Fitzgerald said there was a "cloud" over the VP's office in his closing statement.
Trial transcripts will now be widely disseminated and Congress could take matters into its hands, demanding further hearings on the matter. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that not only Cheney, but presidential advisor Karl Rove and president Bush himself were aware of Plame's identity, ostensibly tried to smear her husband Joseph Wilson and either originated the leak and/or may have conducted a cover-up to keep facts from Fitzgerald.
Congressional investigations should follow, but whether the current Democratic Congress has the will to pursue the matter is a matter of considerable conjecture. When Nancy Pelosi said before the elections of November 2006 that "impeachment is off the table" should Democrats win a majority - which they did - it signaled to many that the party would not pursue an attack strategy against the current administration.
Since then, the president has defied Congress and the will of the people in sending more troops to Iraq and only former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has admitted to revealing Plame's identity to reporters. There remains nobody formally charged with "outing" Valerie Plame, an act some on the liberal side of the debate equate with treason.
A congressional response will be quick, possibly today. Some loudmouth grandstander like Joe Biden could grab the baton and run with it. We'll see.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not brought indictments in the case against anyone, though Libby was tried separately for various lies to prosecutors, the FBI and the grand jury enpaneled for the original investigation in the fall of 2003.
Libby is free on appeal but could face fines up to $250,000 on each guilty count and 10 years in prison for obstruction and up to 5 years for each of the other three counts. It is doubtful that Libby's attorneys will find sufficient grounds for appeal. Though the trial was highly publicized, there was little for the defense to argue as Libby's accounts were roundly disavowed by government witnesses which included various members of the Washington media and the administration.
With the verdict now in his pocket, Fitzgerald is free to reactivate his investigation with fresh subpoenas and a new grand jury. Fitzgerald said outside the courthouse on Tuesday that he does not expect to reopen the investigation "unless new information" comes to light. Information that emerged from the trial had pointed the finger directly at the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, to the point that Fitzgerald said there was a "cloud" over the VP's office in his closing statement.
Trial transcripts will now be widely disseminated and Congress could take matters into its hands, demanding further hearings on the matter. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that not only Cheney, but presidential advisor Karl Rove and president Bush himself were aware of Plame's identity, ostensibly tried to smear her husband Joseph Wilson and either originated the leak and/or may have conducted a cover-up to keep facts from Fitzgerald.
Congressional investigations should follow, but whether the current Democratic Congress has the will to pursue the matter is a matter of considerable conjecture. When Nancy Pelosi said before the elections of November 2006 that "impeachment is off the table" should Democrats win a majority - which they did - it signaled to many that the party would not pursue an attack strategy against the current administration.
Since then, the president has defied Congress and the will of the people in sending more troops to Iraq and only former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has admitted to revealing Plame's identity to reporters. There remains nobody formally charged with "outing" Valerie Plame, an act some on the liberal side of the debate equate with treason.
A congressional response will be quick, possibly today. Some loudmouth grandstander like Joe Biden could grab the baton and run with it. We'll see.
Labels: Bush, Cheney, impeachment, Karl Rove
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush to America: SCREW YOU!
The president ignores voters, world opinion and expands the war. Impeachment is clearly now a viable option.
We all saw the president on the tube last night. Well, those of us who give a damn saw him and heard his speech. For those misinformed and disinterested few, here's a rough rundown of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq:
Bush simply does not get it. 80% of the American public now favors a reduction of the number of troops in Iraq and either a phased or immediate pull-out. The president has purposely misread or ignored the historic vote of November 7, 2006 which put Democrats in power in the legislative branch.
In calling for an immediate escalation of the war, the president wants us to believe that he can see the future. The following excepts from his speech offer an opportunity to see what the president believes and just about how far detached from reality he is.
Well, here we see that the president's future vision is a little blurry. In fact, it was dead wrong, begging the question, why should we believe his prognostications now? Like...
Why should we believe him now? This is the same president who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there weren't. He told us that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear arsenal to use against us when he wasn't. He assured us that Republicans would retain power in the Congress prior to the last election. He was wrong.
Mr. Bush does not have a crystal ball; at least not one which works. Mr. Bush's vision of the future is clouded by a failed ideology, an intractable, unyielding personality and a desire to shape history in a deeply bewildered invention of his own imagination.
Bush's faulty thought processes have brought us nothing but anguish and defeat. His presidency is a mockery and a slap in the face of a once-distinguished office. He is derided by foreign leaders, uncompromising in the face of overwhelming public and private opinion, and has routinely compromised the office, the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Mr. Bush will not back down from any fight, no matter the odds, and he has proved to be more than willing to spill any amount of American blood and treasure to ensure that his misguided vision of the future is fulfilled. No cost is too high for this charlatan. No war too expensive nor too tragic; no single life to sacred to not be spared in his quest for satisfaction.
Bush has gone too far, not only this time, but in the past as well. The American public is well beyond giving him a second, third or fourth chance and it is up to the newly-convened Congress to repudiate and correct the president's mistakes.
That begins with denial of funding for any further escalation of this war and it ends with a comprehensive plan to end our engagement in Iraq. If the president does not understand that we must end our involvement in Iraq - and he clearly does not - then he must be impeached, not for being stubborn, unruly or oppositional, but for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as he swore to do in taking his oath of office.
We all saw the president on the tube last night. Well, those of us who give a damn saw him and heard his speech. For those misinformed and disinterested few, here's a rough rundown of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq:
- Send 20,000 more troops into and around Baghdad
- Send another carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf
- Threaten the Maliki government
- Ostracize and isolate Iran and Syria
- Ignore the wishes of the American people
- Start a major fight with Congress
Bush simply does not get it. 80% of the American public now favors a reduction of the number of troops in Iraq and either a phased or immediate pull-out. The president has purposely misread or ignored the historic vote of November 7, 2006 which put Democrats in power in the legislative branch.
In calling for an immediate escalation of the war, the president wants us to believe that he can see the future. The following excepts from his speech offer an opportunity to see what the president believes and just about how far detached from reality he is.
We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.
Well, here we see that the president's future vision is a little blurry. In fact, it was dead wrong, begging the question, why should we believe his prognostications now? Like...
Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
...the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival.
The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.
...we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
Why should we believe him now? This is the same president who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there weren't. He told us that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear arsenal to use against us when he wasn't. He assured us that Republicans would retain power in the Congress prior to the last election. He was wrong.
Mr. Bush does not have a crystal ball; at least not one which works. Mr. Bush's vision of the future is clouded by a failed ideology, an intractable, unyielding personality and a desire to shape history in a deeply bewildered invention of his own imagination.
Bush's faulty thought processes have brought us nothing but anguish and defeat. His presidency is a mockery and a slap in the face of a once-distinguished office. He is derided by foreign leaders, uncompromising in the face of overwhelming public and private opinion, and has routinely compromised the office, the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Mr. Bush will not back down from any fight, no matter the odds, and he has proved to be more than willing to spill any amount of American blood and treasure to ensure that his misguided vision of the future is fulfilled. No cost is too high for this charlatan. No war too expensive nor too tragic; no single life to sacred to not be spared in his quest for satisfaction.
Bush has gone too far, not only this time, but in the past as well. The American public is well beyond giving him a second, third or fourth chance and it is up to the newly-convened Congress to repudiate and correct the president's mistakes.
That begins with denial of funding for any further escalation of this war and it ends with a comprehensive plan to end our engagement in Iraq. If the president does not understand that we must end our involvement in Iraq - and he clearly does not - then he must be impeached, not for being stubborn, unruly or oppositional, but for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as he swore to do in taking his oath of office.
Labels: Bush, Iran, Iraq, Maliki, troops
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The President's Poor Choices
Sometimes you just have to sit back and smell the roses. And from where I'm sitting, the roses couldn't smell any sweeter for Democrats - and any more putrid for Republicans - in 2007.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Labels: Bush, congress, Iraq, politics
