Libertarian Leanings

Fitzgerald

Having thought about it over the weekend, I conclude that Fitzgerald's decision to pursue charges for lying, obstruction, and perjury in the investigation of a non-crime will have the effect of validating the position of those who accuse the Administration of lying to justify the invasion of Iraq.  Now the news media will simply repeat those claims, and without rebuttal from the Administration they could become the truth by default.  A high profile trial for the crime of disclosing classified information would have to delve into the facts surrounding Ambassador Joe's bogus trip.  A trial about lying to the grand jury will be a "he said, she said" affair which will probably bring none of that into the light.

I had thought that Fitzgerald may have followed the course that he did because he had no choice, but this Newsmax article claims there may be some partisanship involved.

...reporters seldom note that Fitzgerald's biggest case prior to Leakgate is his ongoing corruption probe into former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who happens to be on trial right now.

Fitzgerald indicted Ryan on corruption charges in December 2003, the same month he was tapped to probe Leakgate, in an investigation that saw more than 60 indictments of Ryan administration figures and political appointees.

For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr. Libby.

In Chicago politics the guy can find only Republicans to indict?  I didn't know there were any Republicans in Chicago.

Meanwhile MacRanger thinks the Iraq/Niger connection will not drop out of sight -- at least not if he can help it.

While everyone concentrated on Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger in 2002, the real question is just what did Joe Wilson go to Niger in 1999 for?

The Senate Report report mentions this trip. Why did Ms. Plame recommend him for this particular trip? More importantly, what was the CIA’s interest in Niger in 1999.

To answer he question we have to see what took place “under the palms” in 1999 and even before...

The Game has only begun.

Samuel Alito

According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription), Bush plans to appoint Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to preview Mr. Bush's remarks, said Judge Alito was virtually certain to get the nod from the moment Ms. Miers backed out. The 55-year-old jurist was Mr. Bush's favorite choice of the judges in the last set of deliberations but he settled instead on someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," the officials said.

Meanwhile Democrats continue to insist that they are entitled to dictate who may sit on the Supreme Court.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned President Bush on Sunday not to pick one of the candidates said to be on the president's short list, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.

So it looks like we'll have that fight after all.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.

Libby indicted

So much for my bold predictions.  Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has brought charges of obstruction of justice, lying to the grand jury, and perjury.  This is a Martha Stewart replay.  Libby couldn't be indicted for the crime of revealing the identity of a covert agent.  If the Special Prosecutor could have indicted him for that crime, he would have.  Libby testified for hours and turned over every document that was requested, and he's charged with obstruction of justice, lying, and perjury over what appears to be the investigation of a non crime. 

Here is the statement of his lawyer, Joseph A. Tate.

Mr. Libby and I are very dismayed that the Special Prosecutor has decided to pursue charges against Mr. Libby.  This case began because of concerns that someone intentionally and knowingly revealed the identity of a covert agent.  The Special Prosecutor has concluded that Mr. Libby did not violate this law.

Instead the Special Counsel has chosen to bring charges against Mr. Libby for making purported false statements to the grand jury.  Those same statements, he contends, make out a charge of impeding the administration of the grand jury investigation.  To say we are disappointed is an understatement.  Mr. Libby testified to the best of his honest recollections on all occasions.  Mr. Libby cooperated fully with this investigation.  Mr. Libby agreed to two extensive interviews with the FBI and to appear before the grand jury on two occasions.  In addition, he produced voluminous documents to the Special Counsel.  Not only did he waive his Fifth Amendment privilege but also executed the waiver to permit reporters to testify as to their conversations with him.  For that reason we are surprised at this turn of events.

We are quite distressed to learn the Special Counsel has sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollections and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements.  As lawyers we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after those events occurred.  This is especially true in the hectic rush of issues and events at a busy time for out government.  Accordingly, we will defend vigorously against these charges.

For five years through difficult times Mr. Libby has done his best to serve our country.  To his regret he can no longer do this under the current circumstances.  He is enormously grateful to the President and the Vice President for the opportunity he had to serve, and to his colleagues for the opportunity to serve along side them.  Mr. Libby will resign his position as Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor to the vice President and as an assistant to the President.

To be clear, Mr. Libby is innocent of these charges.  We ask that you not judge until the verdict is in.  Thank you.

Joseph A. Tate
October 28, 2005

Here is Libby's statement.

Earlier today I submitted my resignation to the President.  Obviously, today is a sad day for me and my family.

It has been a great privilege and honor to have the blessing of serving our country in public service in the State Department, the Defense Department, and most recently the Office of the Vice President.

I've spent much of my career working on behalf of the American people and for the safety of our citizens.  I have conducted my responsibilities honorably and truthfully, including with respect to this investigation.

It is with regret that I step aside from that service today.  I am confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated.

I. Lewis Libby
October 28, 2005

My final word on it

According to very latest conventional wisdom, Karl Rove will not be charged with any crimes in the Valerie Plame affair, although Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald wants to think it over a while longer.  Scooter Libby, on the other hand, is likely to be indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice.  With today the expiration date for the grand jury, Fitzgerald will ask for an extension.  That's the conventional wisdom.

Since this may be the final day of the grand jury session, I'm going to make my prediction one last time.  I'm still strong on the Wilsons.  I think there may be other CIA people involved, perhaps former CIA people.  Finally, I think there is press involvement. 

I came across a copy of Newsweek from early October as I sat in a waiting room.  In an article about the affair, a complaint from CIA sources was that Dick Cheney was frequently coming around talking directly to the analysts about their conclusions, and it was thought he was trying to pressure them into agreeing with his view of the threat presented by Iraq.  None said he did.

But while reading that passage I was struck that apparently the Administration suspected the CIA was filtering the information they passed along to the top for political purposes.  Isn't that exactly the complaint we bloggers have about the mainstream press?  The press have guided policy.  They've chosen our candidates for us, by telling us what's news and what's not, to the point where they've grossly misrepresented events, as with reporting on Katrina, and made up events, as in the case of Dan Rather.  Cheney was spoke directly to the analysts looking for unfiltered information, in an effort to resist CIA attempts to guide policy by molding the intelligence.  This case began with the leaking of CIA information -- Ambassador Joe's trip -- for political purposes.

I will be sorely disappointed with this Special Prosecutor if all he's been up to is looking for ways to indict somebody in the White House, and ignoring what from my view appears to be a conspiracy by rogue elements in the press and CIA to misuse classified information for the purpose of affecting policy decisions at the top.  I like the Wilsons, some VIPS, and members of the fourth estate to go down for this. 

If Scooter Libby is indicted for anything related to this affair, I hope he fights it all the way.  And that will be my last word on it.  For twenty minutes, at least.

Post has proof

The Washington Post has once again broken the big story.  Today's front page carries this hard hitting article on the grand jury investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame.  Therein lies this incontrovertible evidence of White House guilt.

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll reminded the White House of the damage the CIA leak case has already inflicted: Eight in ten people surveyed said that aides had either broken the law or acted unethically.   [My emphasis - but then you probably guessed that]

Hard charging investigative reporting has once again paid huge dividends.  We can now rest easy in our assurance that guilty parties in the White House will be brought to justice.  Well OK, we can rest easy for today.

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

Then what?

Check mate

The Mesopotamian has offers an optimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq.  In spite of Sunni resistance and their rejection of the constitution he believes "the progress towards democracy is unstoppable and inexorable and total victory is in sight."

The Sunnis have only two alternatives politically: One is to participate strongly in the coming elections and therefore to start being seriously involved in the political process, an option that should be highly encouraged and there are indications that many of the Sunnis are leaning that way. Another course is to continue in an attitude of apathy, sulkiness and submission to the intimidation of the terrorist and extremist elements, and the propaganda of the hate mongers of the MSM lead by pople like Al Jazeera; in which case their representation in the coming parliament will be as poor as it is at the moment which is not in their interest. In other words the progress of the political process has placed the disgruntled Sunnis in a check mate situation.

There's a certain irony.  The Sunnis, who have resisted anything that smacks of democracy, may turn out to be largely responsible for its success in Iraq.  They're running out of chances, and the ballot box is their last best hope.  Their fight to secure their own rights through the democratic process may prove to be what ultimately guarantees the rights of the Iraqi individual against the tyranny of the majority.  And that will guarantee the success of democracy in Iraq.

Sunni direction II

Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model, posting his thoughts and observations on the Iraqi constitutional referendum, is not thrilled with the document itself.  He's not alone, of course.  There are the Sunnis who came very close to voting it down.  But I get the sense that nobody is really happy with the constitution and they're all preparing for the amendment process.

...today spokesmen of three Sunni parties announced that they intend to enter the December elections as one body. The three parties are the Islamic Party, the Ahl Al-Iraq Council and the National Dialogue Council. This came only two weeks after the Islamic Party made a deal with the Kurdish and Sheat parties to back the constitution. This deal was strongly criticized by the other two Sunni parties mentioned above and this indicates that they want to put their differences behind their backs for a while and watch for the coming elections. Watching this, one can predict that the new parliament will have at least 4 major blocs instead of 3 and this will certainly reduce the possibility of having the decision making power monopolized by one bloc, which is good in general.

I have explained before that I’m personally not so excited about the document itself and therefore I view the approval as a step that allows us to introduce amendments. Anyway, it was a positive step that brought a sense of relief to the majority of our people.

If you listen to the news on WBZ radio, what you'll hear about are the number of U.S. troops who have been killed since the war began.  But democracy is breaking out in Iraq and people are missing the story. 

Still strong on the Wilsons

As we move toward the close of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, I'm still strong on the Wilsons as being targets of indictment.  The mainstream press are stuck on reporting that it's about the outing of Valerie Plame, and they do this because it's really the only rationale for Administration officials to be considered guilty of something.  If there's one thing has been about, it's been about finding some Administration official guilty of something -- anything.  The only thing that's ever had a prayer of working is the revenge angle, and it's a pretty weak one at that.

Tom Maguire thinks Libby is ripe for an indictment.  I disagree.  It's possible that Rove or Libby actually committed a crime.  I doubt it.  Thinking that either of them would, is to giving credence to far left view of the Administration as inherently evil.  I don't think Rove and Libby are evil and I certainly don't think they're that dumb.

It's quite possible that a Martha Stewart type of indictment will come down, but I don't think so.  If Fitzgerald comes in with anything that's not a serious crime, he'll wind up with a reputation as a partisan hack.  At the moment, he has a reputation as a hard nosed, ethical career prosecutor.  For him to play gotcha with Administration chiefs of staff would be an unfortunate career move on his part.  A charge of lying to the prosecutor as a last resort because nothing else will stick, wouldn't do much for his resume -- and then he would probably need a resume when it's all over and done.

Instead, I believe there are actual crimes.  There is the disclosure of classified information.  There are the forged documents that Ambassador Joe hyped.  If the Senate Committee on Intelligence is to be believed, the knowledge of forgeries was classified information.  Information about the forgeries was leaked to the press starting around May of 2003.  We know now that Joe leaked it.  We can guess where Joe got it.  At the very least Joe and Val look to me like great candidates for the docket.

I agree with AJ Strata and MacRanger, that we're looking at a covert rogue CIA operation to destabilize the White House.  The operation was a propaganda attack that began with Joe's trip to Niger, and continued with his leaks to the press, his Times article What I Didn't find in Africa, his charge that Rove would be Frog Marched out of the White House for revealing his wife's undercover status. 

Fitzgerald may treat all of this as just politics, but I hope not.  I think there will be a trial.  I think it will be a high profile trial that will also be an airing of the justifications for invading Iraq.  I think Joe and Val will need lawyers, as will some VIPS and maybe some reporters.

When all else fails -- poll

With the constitution now accepted in Iraq and creation of a permanent democratic government in the works, the media find themselves looking in other directions for stories of Bush Administration failure or mismanagement. 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time, a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was the "wrong thing to do", according to a poll published in The Wall Street Journal.

Fifty-three percent of those asked in the Harris Interactive survey felt that "taking military action against Iraq was the... wrong thing to do", against 34 percent who thought it was correct, the newspaper said.

AJ Strata expects those numbers to turn around in fairly short order.

Sunni direction

Strategy Page says al Qaeda is losing the support of the Sunnis.

Al Qaeda staged a spectacular attack on the Palestine hotel on October 25th. Three car bombs were used, plus gunmen on foot. The whole thing was caught on a network of security cameras. Two car bombs were used to blast a breach in the concrete security wall, then a bomb filled cement truck was to go through the breach, detonate next to the hotel, and create sufficient havoc for over a dozen gunmen to enter and take foreign journalists hostage, and thus create a major publicity event. The attack failed. The cement truck got stuck in the rubble at the breach, and Iraqi, civilian and American security troops quickly responded to the attack. An American sniper shot the driver of the cement truck, which led to the suicide bomber detonating the explosives while the cement truck was stuck in the breach. Some twenty people were killed in the attack, mainly al Qaeda and civilians who just happened to be in the area. Al Qaeda later took credit for the elaborate attack, and tried to salvage something from it. But the attack was a spectacular failure, and only adds to al Qaedas image woes. The terrorists are seen as an insensitive (all those dead Moslem civilians) and inept (all those failed attacks) bunch of fanatics (all those improbable plans for world domination.) Iraqi Sunni Arabs have been, in the last year, backing away in their support for al Qaeda. Part of it is practical, because al Qaeda is seen as a bunch of homicidal losers.

The Sunnis who turned out in large numbers vote down the constitution, will be heading back to the polls in December to make sure they have their say on any possible amendments. 

The Kurds and Shia Arabs agreed to allow further changes in the constitution once parliament is in session. The Sunni Arabs are most afraid of being cut off from the oil money (nearly all the oil is in areas controlled by Kurds and Shia Arabs, and the new constitution gives local authorities first dibs on oil revenue). In the past, the Sunni Arabs had kept most of the oil revenue for themselves, and they miss it. Also up for negotiation are how many Sunni Arabs will be punished for crimes committed during the three decades of Baath Party (a largely Sunni Arab organization run by Saddam Hussein) rule. Millions of Shia Arabs and Kurds want revenge for murders and other atrocities committed, by Sunni Arabs, against friends and family.

The Sunnis are starting to realize their best chance to retain some political power is through the democratic process.