Friday, October 03, 2003
Welcome to the Jong-ilHoward Kurtz calls Washington a place "where every battle is a proxy for something larger." I like that. No doubt it applies to our terrible rush-hour traffic at the very least, a fray that I'll yet again join momentarily.
Kurtz also notes that it's been pretty hellish trying to keep up with ScandalMania 2003. Rush (football), Ah-nold, Bush, Rush (drugs), Novak, Hillary—oh, wait, the Clintons didn't do anything this week and were still mentioned in all the conservative journals. Anyhow. Scandal-mongering is pretty exhaustive, so if you need a break from the monotonous stream of exciting gossip, numb your mind with a few entries from Kim Jong-il's online diary. You don't have to wait for the Justice Department to get your instant messenger transcripts.
The real fight in DC is between me an El Salvadorians. They can't make breakfast tacos to save their lives. Seriously, they aren't even Mexican.
posted by kriston at 5:22 PM........
Progress?Maybe I'm being too soft on the Justice Department—Lord knows I'm no friend to Ashcroft—but by all appearances the CIA seems to have lit some fires under White House attorneys' asses. The WaPo reports that White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales has asked the entire White House staff to turn in any documents/files/records related to Wilson, Plame, or the media regarding the incident and successive scandal.
While I would likely feel more comfortable with some non-partisan independent counsel, I wouldn't feel more comfortable with an independent counsel appointed by Ashcroft—which is exactly how the independent counsel would come into being. I'll say again that I'd feel most confident if the Senate Judiciary Committee somehow had a hand in overseeing this investigation, but I don't know exactly how far their providence extends. That being said, news that the investigation has the entire White House turning in relevant materials seems to be a progressive approach. I'm willing to give this investigation the benefit of the doubt, grudgingly, because I don't see an alternative and until they fuck it up.
It will take like a slight breeze for me to change my mind but as of right now I'm watching and waiting.
posted by kriston at 5:02 PM........
The Crumbling Rear-guardA point about the Valerie Plame incident by TAPPED writer Matthew Yglesias inspired me:
Conservatives really ought to stop covering for the administration on this story. It's perfectly possible to admit that something bad has happened here without becoming an enthusiast for refundable tax credits, affirmative action, the United Nations, universal health care, public education or whatever else it is that they don't like about the left. Currently, only the ethics and credibility of a few people working in the White House are at stake and there's no reason for the entire movement to cover itself in the sins of its fellow-travelers. Here's some advice to conservatives: Just say, "Look, this is bad, but on balance I still think Bush is better than the other guys."The thing is, Bush's conservative defenders prefer waging this kind of argument about uncertain crimes and conspiracies over responding directly about our deteriorated policy. Implacable suspicions about White House impropriety can be shunted with flimsy reasoning, such as notion that the administration leaked only to assert a nepotistic link between Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Wilson, disregarding the fact that the name leaked was Plame, her CIA agent identity/maiden name. (By now you've heard this trick and all the others.) So long as facts are scare about the Plame incident, Bush and defenders may call gray, gray; but the Bush policy of calling black, white, and up, down, is becoming less tenable as the public rejects the situations in Iraq.
How can a scandal this terrible be welcome? David Rosenbaum notes in the NYT that these information scandals usually go down as unresolvable. Otherwise, I seriously doubt that so many conservative publications would be so willing to print such baseless, risky defenses, especially when a larger story or their reputations could be at stake. So Yglesias is right that an admission of impropriety doesn't nullify the Republican Party, but wrong that the extant debates—domestic or foreign—are preferable match-ups.
Occasionally you find that rare jewel of an editorial institution that won't invest even the bare minimum of reason into its argument. The Wall Street Journal opinion page is just such a beast, which resolves that even if the Plame scandal bears out the way it appears, the Bush administration still comes out on top in the larger battle between the CIA and the White House, and is indeed vindicated by the reality of WMD proliferation and state-harbored terrorism that caused us to go to war with Iraq. Incredible.
WSJ link courtesy Josh Marshall
posted by kriston at 1:08 PM........
Beyond the PaleThe 'sphere is buzzing with the serial N8354N, the tail number of the plane that crashed in 2002, killing Democratic Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan, his son, Randy, and campaign aide Chris Sifford, because it's also the name of a distasteful weblog run by an aide to Senator Kit Bond (R-MO).
I heard this story first yesterday or so, and thought little of it (other than it's disgusting). Living in DC, you get the chance to meet some staffers, and a lot of them are miserable shitheads. It's no surprise that shitheads act shitty from time to time. Still, I found the story more remarkable when I read via TAPPED that the aide in question was Bond's chief spokesman, Ernie Blazar. That's a person with a bit more authority than your average Cap-Hill desk-monkey.
What's next, a Republican who admires Hitler?
posted by kriston at 12:24 PM........
Harper's and HistoryI stopped reading Harper's around March or so, right about when they were doing a dreadful two-part series called "No More Unto the Breach: Why War is Futile," by Jonathan Schell. Lewis Lapham was getting a bit, well, shrill in his columnizing, and publishing hack writers like Schell didn't help. But Norbizness has a couple of posts pointing to a fun Harper's compilation of pre-war Bush administration quotes. Here are three separate quotes that you'd think were Yogi Berra's:
Iraq possessed ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations. We also discovered through intelligence that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We were concerned that Iraq was exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.I guess for stylistic reasons the quotes were unattributed in the article, but the first and last are from President Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz gets credit for the other.
Why is this important? No one cares how I feel about Lewis Lapham, but for the other matter, even now, after the thesis that Iraq had WMD or WMD capability has been debunked almost categorically, Bush is still defending his premise for war.
As it stands I believe that our decision to attack Iraq is less defendable than any other US war, except perhaps the Spanish-American War. The Vietnam War was at least based on a theory that was widely relevant to the world; the neocon theory is not so sound as Cold War containment strategies. Had it been as quick and successful as the direct military procedures in Iraq, the Vietnam War probably would not be known as a mistake today.
The US-Mexican War was waged under the pretext of freedom for Texans to enter the Union (a pretext that was urged on by a host of bad decisions on Mexico's behalf). This war better resembles the Spanish-American War than it does the first Gulf War, and I only allow that the Spanish-American War might be less defendable because I don't know how valid the theory is that the Spanish had nothing to do with the destruction of the Battleship Maine, or that the debate can ever be settled. (Incidentally, the Spanish-American War would've happend anyway—it was necessitated by imperial interests and was practically a done deal when President McKinley received the Dupuy de Lôme letter.) Thoughts?
One thought might be that Kriston has too much time on his hands today.
posted by kriston at 12:03 PM........
What We Need is a Firing SquadI've been posting on comment boards around the block an idea that Kevin Drum just verbalized:
So here's my suggestion: one of the reporters involved needs to stand up and do the right thing. One of you needs to tell us who the leakers are.Because there are so many journalists who know the identity of the leakers, were any one of them to go to an outside journalist and reveal the sources, all of them are protected from the possible ramifications of burning a source. It's a firing squad: Only one of the guns is loaded, so that no one knows who fired the kill-shot. Moreover, I think none of the journalists should worry about burning this source, since a revelation would lead at least to
Not only does this course seem not imprudent for the journalists, it may be the only way to identify the leakers' identities. These sorts of leaks are historically difficult to 'plug' through FBI investigations, the WaPo reports, for reasons ranging from First Amendment rights to the White House's antiquated telephone system; considering that the Justice Department is also expanding the investigation into the State and Defense departments, you have a potentially large universe of people with the necessary CIA knowledge.
The Justice Department seems to be addressing those questions, though, by immediately instigating interviews with administration officials, the idea being that it may "increase pressure on a leaker to step forward promptly or risk charges of lying to investigators." That, of course, would have been an excellent strategy if it had been pursued back in July.
One thing you can depend on—Bush will not take this seriously:
As pressure built on his aides, Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists, which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists.Serious on personal job security, maybe, but national security—my ass.
As if Bush's credibility weren't already swiss cheese.
posted by kriston at 8:31 AM........
How Do You Cram All That Graham?Calpundit incorrectly notes that Bob Graham is dropping out of the presidential race, based on this FOX News article. I don't doubt that he's considering it or that a decision is on the horizon, and his communications director, former Gore 2000 advisor Jamal Simmons, has quit. But the WaPo quotes a number of staffers who say that he's looking to revitalize his campaign.
If I were Graham and I wanted to make a last-minute surge (obviously with eyes toward his next Senatorial bid—you don't want to come out of the race looking like a loser), I'd really play the Senate Intelligence Committee number like it was the only card I had left. David Kay + Valerie Plame = A good nook for Bob Graham.
Plus, if you're looking for the VP nod, you definitely want a forceful exit.
posted by kriston at 8:00 AM........
Thursday, October 02, 2003
On the FritzI think I lost a post to some Blogger weirdness. Maybe that's what I get for giving a drug addict the reins.
I guess this whole story is a perfect opportunity for indulging in a little Schadenfreude, but I think it's somewhat tragic that Rush's alleged drug addiction likely contributed to his loss of hearing.
Gambling? Check. Drugs? Check. We just need Jerry Falwell in a sex scandal and we hit the trifecta.
posted by kriston at 2:39 PM........
G.p Exclusive: Rush LimbaughThis is quite an exciting day over here at the station! We have a special guest: He conquered the daunting challenge of AM radio and was "too hot!" for TV. Now he's here to shake up your dail-up. That's right, the Big Fat Idiot himself, my pal Rush Limbaugh will be guest-blogging at G.p today, so enjoy the ride, and I'll be back again tomorrow. - Kriston
We should get started, listeners, becuase it's been a controversial week and there's a lot of trash to take out. Now I'm not going to ignore the issues like the liberal media wants me to, so let's talk about what I said about QB Donovan McNabb. My comments were not so much racist as absolutely correct. We ought to be looking closely into sports—an arena in which it's awfully easy to fudge standards of merit—and wonder about the sudden preponderance of black athletes. To make sense of this quarterback controversy, you have to first recognize that black people have not had much of a presence in sports, or an impact on the games. Yet, those liberals argue. Oh, there's a lot of desirousness surrounding black QBs, and I'll take one step further than I did on ESPN—it's not just limited to the media.
I've noticed, for example, that the Atlanta Falcons—their fans, their organization—are awfully desirous that their black quarterback, Michael Vick, heal and return to the pocket. How do you explain that? These Atlanta liberals have built their entire organization around their quarterback, clearly because he's black, when they should be searching for an athletic QB who could break the mold of the position no matter his color (white). You don't hear the NY Jets whining about Chad Pennington's injury? Are they beggin for handouts? It's a liberal double standard. I'm not making this stuff up.
Look at Aaron Brooks, he's not overperforming for the New Orleans Saints. Go down to New Orleans, listen to those liberal fans rage every time a white defensive lineman sacks Brooks. Yet when the Saints have a bad season, no one's looking at Brooks—they tell you that Coach Haslett runs into the same problem every season. Well, he does: Democrats. It's like Mardi Gras flooziness has infected the city of New Orleans, and they can't see past their beads, and their boobies, and those little grenade drinks that they sell on the street.
Do you think these black quarterbacks would even be on the field if it weren't for liberal affirmative programs like their offensive lines? No, of course, not—Folks, listen. I'm only telling you what the liberal media won't. What did Randall Cunningham ever do for the game, really?
And don't get me started on Barry Bonds... * RL
posted by kriston at 9:59 AM........
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
That Popping Sound Is Grover Norquist's Head Exploding, In Case You Were WonderingIf you thought conservatives hated the UN, you ain't seen nothing yet. Meet Wesley K. Clark's Department of International Assistance:
"Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare," Clark writes.In a way that I'm certain conservatives won't be recognizing, Clark addresses the critique of the UN with a nearly Republican solution. How does their tune go? "Anything the international community can do, the US can do better," isn't it?
FIRST SIGNS OF WINTER FROTH: Tacitus is foaming-irritated by the suggestion, but to be fair, he was also rabid over the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. No matter—I take my cheap shots where I find 'em.
posted by kriston at 3:35 PM........
An Inside JobI'm not exactly sure how to respond to Democratic calls for a semi-independent investigation. It is first of all basically a vote of no confidence in the Justice Department, and for all its misdirection under the steering of John Ashcroft, it is basically the prosecutorial body most fit for handling an investigation of this kind. More to the point, since the independent counsel would be appointed by Ashcroft, well, the counsel would be appointed by Ashcroft, so you haven't really succeeded in getting anything but a semi-independent body. (If that. I'd be frankly more concerned about the staff that comes with whomever Ashcroft appointed than the JD staff currently under Ashcroft, many of whom are career prosecutors, etc., and not appointees.)
Were I these Democrats, I think I'd be leveraging for total oversight of the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA). It's not a Democratic majority committee, but 1 no committee is, and 2 it makes good sense for a legislative body to be the final stop in an investigation of the executive branch. Furthermore, many of the Senators on the committee are former prosecutors with just the appropriate experience; Orrin Hatch is cancelled out by Ted Kennedy; Schumer is the most vocal Democrat regarding investigation propriety in the first place; and Biden, Feingold, Leahy, and Edwards aren't going to let JD bullshit slip by unnoticed.
You'd think, of course, that it's in the Republican Party's (and the White House's) best interest to not characterize the Democratic suggestion as a gotcha! swipe, and that it's really not the best time for Republicans to be accusing Democrats of ideological partisanship to no ends, but then maybe you've never met Tom DeLay:
Republican congressional leaders dismissed Democratic calls for a semi-independent investigation as political maneuvering. "Surprise, surprise, they are calling for a special counsel. My goodness," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), according to the Associated Press. "It must be in their political handbook, their campaign handbook."The Boogerman from Sugarland, folks—just be glad he's not involved in sorting this out.
Might definitely be a chance for Edwards to score some points, what with his background, if he's still invested in that whole nomination thing.
posted by kriston at 3:01 PM........
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Start Your Own Tacitus!I don't know if I've seen anyone explicitly detail the nuts and bolts of his blogging routine, but Tacitus has done exactly that, so if you've always wanted to be a Tacitus but weren't quite sure where to start, there you have it. It shouldn't take a Masked Magician to figure out that he reads a lot and writes about the most interesting stuff, but maybe we ought to shine a little light on the process every now and then. So, in the interests of science, a brief glimpse into the minutes of my day:
Man, it's truly turning into some kind of year, huh?
posted by kriston at 3:36 PM........
Clark's BlogCan be found here, though it's nowhere near as interesting as Dean's. Also, check out Talking Points Memo for Josh Marshall's interview with Wesley Clark, which should hit the shelves on Wednesday.
Wesley Clark sucks at the Internet.
posted by kriston at 1:11 PM........
Check out...Kevin Drum on how conservative apology for the Plame incident doesn't add up. There's a lot of parsing of Novak's language and criticism of Wilson; in my mind, it begins and ends with WH spokesman Scott McClellan, who said that President Bush considers that "leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter."
But is it serious enough for an internal investigation?
posted by kriston at 7:37 AM........
Monday, September 29, 2003
Silent SullyI've noticed that when the shit hits the fan for the Bush administration, Andrew Sullivan steps out of the scene for a while. No comment as of yet about the CIA investigation, but you'll have to excuse him; his site is now dedicated to Clark defamation 24-7. Listen to this:
If you're not a little alarmed about the prospect of a president Clark after reading this, then I don't know what to say. What on earth is he talking about? How can he say so much and so little at the same time? The Wall Street Journal says he sounds like a Republican. I'd say that's a bit insulting to Republicans. There are a lot of passages in there that make him sound stoned.I'd rather ignore most Democrat-bashing but this frankly pisses me off. He may be working out his sea-legs, but Wesley Clark is Lord Alfred Tennyson compared to President Bush. Clark could quote the "Jabberwocky" as his economic platform and still be leagues of erudition beyond Bush. We're talking SpongeBob SquarePants-level lucidity, and Sullivan's griping about Clark?
The strategerie never ends.
posted by kriston at 2:29 PM........
WHO Dunnit?I noted that in today's WaPo Plame update, the "senior administration official" is now an "administration official" and "top White House officials" are "White House officials." I really don't know the difference between a SAO and an AO/TWHO and a WHO, but both Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias have notes on the subject. For those placing bests, though the vaguer terms may increase the pool of potential candidates, that pool is still quite small—or at least I hope it takes a certain degree of seniority to crack CIA agents' files. Also, if anyone out there trusts Bush administration officials on any subject more pressing than DC's weather, Karl Rove and Condoleeza Rice say they weren't involved.
Something tells me we won't be seeing their phone logs any time soon. If only a Democrat had tried to tell a joke about Valerie!
posted by kriston at 12:13 PM........
Lying Liars Exposed! Reading All About ItCatching up on some weekend reading that I missed, there's a couple of WaPo articles of note concerning our creepy VP, Dick Cheney. Both stories root from Cheney's much-discussed Sept. 14 Meet the Press interview, in which he scandalously described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
In the first article, Paul Waldman clues us in on how the media is responding to the preponderance of "presidential embroidery," as the euphemism goes:
The immediate consequence of the backlash over Cheney's statements was that reporters put the question directly to Bush, and the president decided to go on the record himself. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," the president said on Sept. 17. Bush's statement, while obvious, made news -- although not as big news as you would think. According to the trade publication Editor & Publisher, of the 12 largest-circulation daily papers, three ran a story about Bush's admission on the front page and seven ran stories inside (the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal didn't mention Bush's statement at all).Enthymematic argumentation makes it awfully hard for the press to call a spade a spade, and in fact reporters become complicit mouthpieces in the administration's "deliberate misstatements," as yet another euphemism goes.
So the second article, co-reported by Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, is the right step for the media. The front-page article documents Dick Cheney's assertions to date that Saddam Hussein contributed to 9/11; the substantially new news the article offers is that Cheney has not to date, even in light of President Bush's retraction, rescinded the statement. They ought to publish a similar story every day until Cheney takes it back, or at least until the polls show that the majority of Americans aren't working under a false presumption.
I don't really care if this conscience that the media is exhibiting only results from their smelling the blood in the water—let's just hope it becomes a national trend and stays that way through 2004.
The media might as well be a candidate in the election, for the role they'll play.
posted by kriston at 9:08 AM........
Neocon HegemonyThank Kevin Drum for noting this Newsweek article on the Bush administration's post-war planning meltdown. It's obvious enough that the liberation fantasies that swept White House strategy sessions were incorrect, but I don't know if we fully appreciate the role of ideology in the breakdown:
LAST FEBRUARY, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner was trying to put together a team of experts to rebuild Iraq after the war was over, and his list included 20 State Department officials. The day before he was supposed to leave for the region, Garner got a call from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who ordered him to cut 16 of the 20 State officials from his roster. It seems that the State Department people were deemed to be Arabist apologists, or squishy about the United Nations, or in some way politically incorrect to the right-wing ideologues at the White House or the neocons in the office of the Secretary of Defense. The vetting process “got so bad that even doctors sent to restore medical services had to be anti-abortion,” recalled one of Garner’s team.Hey guys, remember when we weren't the Soviet Union?
Those long-gone halcyon days of, you know, spring?
posted by kriston at 8:24 AM........
September Taking Its TollAnd we take another blow: Elia Kazan is dead at the age of 94. What I can tell you about him, I know mostly from other people: John Trimble, a professor of mine, tells that Kazan's memoirs are his favorite; I just read an essay by Donald Barthelme on Kazan and the Actor's Studio last night; Sue is currently reading his memoirs and reads me mesmerizing snippets. His biography reads like a resume detailing the grandest achievements of an entire generation—he discovered Marlon Brando, co-invented the method style, was the favorite director of Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, snitched to the House Un-American Activities Committee, took all the awards and made time with Marilyn Monroe. In honor, I'd of course suggest renting Street Car, but I've seen that recently, so I'll take On the Waterfront. Eight Oscars can't be wrong.
CORRECTION: Kazan didn't invent the method style, Stanislavsky did. Lee the Baptist (Lee Strasberg) brought His Gospel to America; Kazan played the role of Peter and built the modern Church of Method. A-men.
Cash, Said, Kazan—we need a moratorium on death I think.
posted by kriston at 7:49 AM........
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Austin, Meet the GeneralI'm somehow on yet another listserve that sends me emails from Clark's cousin, a musician on Lemonade Records, and she tells me that Clark will be in Austin on Monday at around 2-ish in Wooldridge Square. Tell him G.p sent ya.
And bring your checkbook.
posted by kriston at 1:14 PM........
Priest and PlameI can't seem to avoid Dana Priest today. Josh Marshall speculates that the SAO (senior administration official) who leaked the truth about the Valerie Plame incident on Friday was George Tenet, and Priest's byline is an exhibit in his evidence:
Now, there is one person who would quite fairly be termed a senior administration official (SAO) and who almost certainly had to deal with this issue and know these details: CIA Director George Tenet.As Marshall insists, this is just informed speculation, but if these signs aren't leading closer to the identity of the White House villains then they're at least directing me toward Priest's book.
MORE: This really doesn't need to be a years-long investigation, you know. The JD could just subpoena Novak and the other reporters involved, and I could have the update rolling by Tuesday or so. Novak clearly wants to talk—he was the only guy willing to run the story in the first place, and I'm sure he doesn't feel great about having to out a CIA agent. And surely the White House will be fielding some questions about whether or not so-and-so was involved, and what are they going to do, lie? Say they don't know? Heads should be rolling by 8:02 am tomorrow.
WaPo for life.
posted by kriston at 12:19 PM........
Speaking of Dana PriestMore investigations into the many lies of the lying liars. Priest details the conclusions of the House committee charged with investigating the evidence given to the White House by the CIA preceding the war in Iraq. Like swiss cheese:
Top members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four months combing through 19 volumes of classified material used by the Bush administration to make its case for the war on Iraq, found "significant deficiencies" in the community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq, and said it had to rely on "past assessments" dating to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and on "some new 'piecemeal' intelligence," both of which "were not challenged as a routine matter."You can attribute some of the gaps in intelligence to intelligence community deficiencies, but Bush put the cart before the horse by pressuring the CIA into corraborating the White House's cries for war. There wasn't a case to be made (besides maybe the liberal hawk's humanitarian take, but do we feel positive that even that outcome was achieved? That it's still in the cards?) for going to war against Iraq. But Bush put together a slopshod dossier and the truth is finally coming to light.
...again. I feel like probably twice a week since the war ended I've written this post.
posted by kriston at 12:07 PM........
...I'm speechless. Dumbstruck. "Holy fucking shit" is all I can come up with in response to the revelations over the Valerie Plame incident. I left for Charlottesville Friday afternoon and just returned, and I'd heard none of this until just now:
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.I never thought this would all come to light. Clearly the ramifications of this story are going to be enormous. While the Bush administration won't be assigning a special prosecutor a la Ken Starr to the story any time soon, the CIA is no friend to the White House, so if the Justice Department doesn't take this investigation seriously then I imagine the leaks will turn into watersheds. Were I Bush, I would immediately assign a prosecutor to the case: Find the criminals, be they Condi Rice and Dick Cheney themselves, terminate their jobs and press federal charges.
But we know Bush won't do that, don't we? We know that Bush doesn't really support the troops, or the law, or any truly American ideal. No, it's clear to me that if Bush meant what he said he would have already prosecuted these leaks—he obviously knew all along that the allegations were true, that it was an intentional smear and a violation of our national security interests. The foxes rule the henhouse, but it's not going to last. Bush may try to stonewall but these traitors are going to found. And these traitors, significant enough in the administration to have CIA identity clearance, are going to be no more than a degree or two removed from either Rice, Cheney, or Bush himself.
How deep does this betrayal run? You may find that before the end of the year, mouths will be a-buzz with words that start with "I" and end with "mpeachment."
I bet you Mike Allen and Dana Priest know the names by now.
posted by kriston at 11:50 AM........