« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
By DHinMI
OK, we don't have a poll function with typepad, so you will have to commnt to give us your answer.
The question: Choose the biggest Democratic bonehead(s) of the day
A. Howard Dean
B. The research staff at the Democratic National Committee
C. The press staff at the Democratic National Committee
D. The perennial favorite, all of the above
By DHinMI
I know it's been a long time since Scooter Libby was indicted, so maybe Chris Matthews can be forgiven for appearing to have been so willing to be a useful idiot. Or maybe he's just one of the most gullible people in Washington DC:
MSNBC reporter Chris Matthews today hammered the Democratic Party, claiming it was circulating a document that emphasizes the fact Samuel Alito, President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, failed as a prosecutor to win a case against Italian mafia figures, suggesting the issue was highlighted because Alito is an Italian-American.
"I'm sitting here holding in my hands a pretty disgusting document," Matthews told viewers of "MSNBC Live." "This is put out not for attribution, but it comes from the Democrats. They're circulating it; I can say that."
In what he describes as a Democrat "complaint sheet," Matthews says, "The first thing they nail about this Italian American is he failed to win a mob conviction in a trial … way back in '88.
"In other words, they nail him on not putting some Italian mobsters in jail from the [Lucchese] family. Why would they bring up this ethnically charged issue as the first item they raise against Judge Alito?"
The only reason I know about this claim is because I just turned on the television, and he was beginning Hardball with the same claim, that such a document was being circulated by "the Democrats."
I call bullshit.
I'll recant if proven wrong, but I just find such a claim utterly ridiculous. If true, if some Democratic operative or organization actually thought such a claim would be an effective first salvo against Alito, they should be brought up on charges of political malpractice and eternally banned from Democratic politics. But it's hard to believe anyone would believe such a charge would be both effective and without a huge backlash.
If such a document were really circulating widely and were viewed credibly as an authentic Democratic document, it's hard to believe that a Google web search and a Google news search would yield only one reference to the supposed document, but the rightwing WorldNetDaily. It's almost as if someone planted the document--maybe even forged it--and convinced a prominent and gullible member of the national press corps seeking a scoop to believe what was clearly disinformation planted by dark forces seeking to advance the agenda of the Bush administration.
Yeah, I know, that's just crazy talk.
But in the meantime, how 'bout it Chris? How 'bout telling us how you know that document is legitimate? How 'bout proving your source didn't play you? Or are you that convinced that a legitimate effort to tar Alito with insinuations about being soft on the mafia would go only to you, or would only be believed by you?
We'll be waiting.
by Kagro X
Hey, long time no see! Well, here we are again. It may be too early to tell whether we'll make it all the way back to the brink of nuclear destruction, but it couldn't hurt to revisit the scene of the crime and see how the landscape has changed.
Continue reading "Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part XVIII" »
by DemFromCT
Did you know that the American people, by a 55 - 42 unambiguous count, consider the Bush Presidency to be a failure?
Since the start of 2001 when George W. Bush became president, in general, would you say his presidency has been a success or failure?
Success Failure No opinion 2005 Oct 28-30 42 55 3 2005 Aug 28-30 ^ 47 51 2 ^ Asked of a half sample. 4. Now thinking ahead, do you think the remaining three years of George W. Bush’s presidency will be a success or failure?
Success Failure No opinion 2005 Oct 28-30 41 55 4
Huh. Who knew? Besides us, I mean? This is an open thread.
by emptywheel
A number of developments have just about convinced me that Ari is the Third Man, Pincus' source and Novak's unnamed (pre-Rove) source. There's Anonymous Liberal's supposition that the Gellman edit served to obscure Pincus' source (although he has backed off that slightly, saying only the Gellman quote was withdrawn because it created the appearance that Ari was Pincus' source). Then there's the line pointed out by antiaristo in my last point suggesting Rove's first source cooperated with Fitzgerald.
One lawyer involved in the case who declined to be identified because of the matter's confidentiality said Novak decided "early on" to cooperate with Fitzgerald's probe and ID his source—whom Fitzgerald never charged, apparently because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury.
We know Ari is cooperating (something I've been floating for months), because he serves as one of Fitzgerald's most important witnesses. He proves, as Fitzgerald explains,
It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.
This would correlate perfectly with the possibility that Ari is Pincus' source, since we know Pincus' source revealed his own involvement.
It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation.
Novak's source cooperated, Pincus' source cooperated. If it's Ari, that explains why both would talk.
by DemFromCT
Acting from political weakness,
President Bush is nominating Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, according to news reports, choosing a long-time federal judge embraced by judicial conservatives to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Bush plans to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, the Associated Press reported, quoting White House officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The choice likely will mend a rift in the Republican Party caused by his failed nomination of Harriet Miers.
The choice likely will widen a rift between Bush and the rest of the country. Alito's competence won't be an issue, but his judicial philosophy will. Down in the polls, desperate to both rally his base and change the subject, Alito will do both. He will also be the subject of intense opposition from the Democrats.
Brush up on Kagro X's Nuclear Option series. You're going to need it before we're done. But the idea that Bush is somehow the President of the Conservative States only is becoming more of a dead end every day. He severely risks the alienation of moderates over this as the issues of Alito's philosophy and writings become better known. I'll leave that analysis to others better qualified than me; what I want to emphasize is the notion that the US is a conservative country is just wrong. It's a moderate contry, and has been for years.
We are roughly divided in three, with moderates being the swing vote just as O'Connor was on the Supreme Court. At times conservatives convince the moderates to vote with them and the Republicans win. At times they don, and the Democrats win. Conservatives outnumber liberals, but that doesn't matter. Conservatives rarely at the national level have enough votes to win. That's why their agenda, be it Intelligent Design, or compassionate conservativism, always has to be a stealth campaign. Laying out their agenda usually makes them lose.
This time, there's nothing stealthy about ScAlito. It will be more tumult and turmoil over the next few weeks... but understand that it's because of Bush's weakness, not strength, that we're going to have to go through this. And (depite the triumphalism of the wingnuts on the Right) none of it proves that Bush has learned a damned thing about governing.
by RonK, Seattle
While we wait impatiently for the next day of Fitzmas,
here's a little Hallowe'en treat ...
themed on the White House (of) Horrors .
To the tune of your favorite things-go-bump-in-the-night music:
Questions hang in the public square.
The piper pipes a morbid air.
He will be paid, and foul is fair,
And the story won't stay buried.
by emptywheel
In my previous post, I pointed you to a little tidbit at Josh Marshall's. The Barton Gellman article I mentioned this morning has been edited to remove the following italicized bit:
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.
Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
Apparently, someone doesn't want us to know that Dick Cheney was actively involved in pushing journalists toward that morning's press gaggle.
The Attack
So let's look at that morning's press gaggle. As coincidence (!) would have it, this is the press gaggle transcript the Bush Administration had removed from its server, forcing Fitzgerald to go to the trouble of subpoenaing it. And what attack did Ari launch that morning against Joe Wilson? I'm not entirely certain the existing gaggle is the complete transcript, but assuming it is, here's the passage I think Dick wanted reporters to focus on:
by emptywheel
Via Josh Marshall and Barton Gellman, we can now say with confidence that Dick Cheney participated in Libby's July 12 conversation strategizing what to do about Wilson. The indictment reads:
LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed iwth other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matt Cooper. (Paragraph 22)
Josh's reader points us to this passage in an October 1 NYT article:
Mr. Libby said he told Mr. Cheney that reporters had been pressing the vice president's office for more details about who sent Mr. Wilson to Africa. The two men spoke when Mr. Cheney was on a trip to Norfolk, Va., for the commissioning of the carrier Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Libby said Mr. Cheney directed him to refer reporters to Mr. Tenet's statement, which said that the C.I.A. had been behind Mr. Wilson's selection for the trip.
And Gellman points out:
Defending the war became the animating priority aboard Air Force Two that day. According to his indictment on Friday, Libby "discussed with other officials aboard the plane" how he should respond to "pending media inquiries" about the critic, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Apart from Libby, only press aide Catherine Martin is known to have accompanied Cheney on that flight.
Tricky Fitzgerald!! He's been hiding Dick right in the middle of his Libby indictment.
That made me wonder where else he might have hidden Dick in this indictment, and what those hidden tidbits might tell us about an indictment against our upstanding "Go Fuck Yourself" Vice President, if Fitzgerald chose to pursue that route.
by Kagro X
How much would you pay for whatever political advice you could get... without getting dressed in the morning?
But wait! Don't answer yet!
What if I told you you could get professional quality punditry along with that political advice... all for the incredible introductory price of just five cents?
Maybe you'd think I was crazy, or that you'd misread our offer. But you'd be wrong! You definitely didn't misread it, and, well... let's just agree that you didn't misread it.
What's on your mind that we can help you with, without actually looking anything up or providing "evidence?"
