Conservatives who complain that Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Scooter Libby is unfair, that what happened was little more than rough politics and that this should be left be to the realm of the public arena, know they don't have to worry about "being careful about what you wish for."
For while the public might get a chance a to evaluate all of the evidence in this case and then in the future make a decision on who they want to be their leaders, unfortunately for America this information release has come one year too late.
Fitzgerald's almost two year quest to investigate who exposed and wasted a CIA resource started in plenty of time to investigate and inform the public prior to the 2004 elections. The GOP knew this would be bad for their chances and so they had to drag out the investigation past November 2004, and they succeeded.
If the information that the White House went after someone who disproved their reasons for going to war in Iraq had been released in 2004 then John Kerry would be president today. Instead they ran the clock and Bush narrowly won the 2004 election. All it would have taken was for approximately 60,000 of the 2.85 million (about 2%) Ohioans who voted for Bush to vote for Kerry.
For anyone who doubts this scenario one only has to look at a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that today by a 55-39 vote people would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running.
Instead the public only got a half a story to base their vote and the result was a tiny victory. Perhaps rather than indictments last year the White House could have just told the truth. Right.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Kay Bailey Hypocrite
Hearing the comments by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas trying to downplay potential upcoming indictments against White House officials in the Valerie Plame outing case brings out the hypocritical nature of conservatives and it was so hypocritical that even the press had to cover it.
"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment . . . that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars," Hutchinson said in 2005.
Gee, does that mean Hutchison disagreed with Ken Starr when he was doing something just to show his years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.
"I do think . . . that something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray,"Hutchison said in 1999.
Her comments were so bad that she had to clarify them, having her spokesman say "She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime."
That a conservative is a hypocrite should not be surprising. In 2000, afraid that Al Gore might win the electoral college while getting less votes than Bush, some in the GOP prepared talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness -- a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged."
The goal would be to challenge the Electoral College and Gore's election. Instead Gore won the popular vote and was ahead in the electoral college until the Bush brothers worked out Florida and all of a sudden it was fine to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.
So basically there are two sets of rules. One for Democrats (play fair) and one for Republicans (anything goes) and don't you dare suggest that Republicans play by the Democrats rules.
"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment . . . that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars," Hutchinson said in 2005.
Gee, does that mean Hutchison disagreed with Ken Starr when he was doing something just to show his years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.
"I do think . . . that something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray,"Hutchison said in 1999.
Her comments were so bad that she had to clarify them, having her spokesman say "She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime."
That a conservative is a hypocrite should not be surprising. In 2000, afraid that Al Gore might win the electoral college while getting less votes than Bush, some in the GOP prepared talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness -- a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged."
The goal would be to challenge the Electoral College and Gore's election. Instead Gore won the popular vote and was ahead in the electoral college until the Bush brothers worked out Florida and all of a sudden it was fine to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.
So basically there are two sets of rules. One for Democrats (play fair) and one for Republicans (anything goes) and don't you dare suggest that Republicans play by the Democrats rules.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Media Blinders
One of the points "fake" journalist Stephen Colbert told the Washington Post recently about the passiveness of the press is that "there's a sense that if they engaged in what we do at 'The Daily Show,' they'd be accused of being too aggressive."
Carole Coleman would probably agree with that. In an article in the Sunday Times Review, Coleman (the Irish Journalist from RTE who had the gumption to ask Bush tough questions during an interview in 2004 resulting in the White House complaining to the Irish Embassy) relives the interview and the reaction she received from the White House.
Coleman was criticized for actually asking tough questions, as opposed to the "On Bended Knee" approach used too often in America. However Coleman said filmmaker Michael Moore was among those who noted her work.
"In the end, doesn't it always take the Irish to speak up?" he said. "She's my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?"
Possibly only on the Daily Show but unfortunately they are dismissed too easily by the establishment press. When Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. was asked why more reporters aren't aggressive like Colbert, Downie dismissively, and cluelessly responded "The Daily Show is entertainment and satire, not news, and Colbert's comments are part of the entertainment."
However the Post's own Media Critic admitted that the Daily Show does makes news and that the methods they use, well, the non-fake journalists ought to be doing the same thing.
But too many haven't and it's the reason it has taken nearly five years for the public to figure out Bush and are now watching the White House implode. Perhaps if there were more reporters like Carole Coleman and Stephen Colbert the American people would have wised up long ago.
Carole Coleman would probably agree with that. In an article in the Sunday Times Review, Coleman (the Irish Journalist from RTE who had the gumption to ask Bush tough questions during an interview in 2004 resulting in the White House complaining to the Irish Embassy) relives the interview and the reaction she received from the White House.
Coleman was criticized for actually asking tough questions, as opposed to the "On Bended Knee" approach used too often in America. However Coleman said filmmaker Michael Moore was among those who noted her work.
"In the end, doesn't it always take the Irish to speak up?" he said. "She's my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?"
Possibly only on the Daily Show but unfortunately they are dismissed too easily by the establishment press. When Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. was asked why more reporters aren't aggressive like Colbert, Downie dismissively, and cluelessly responded "The Daily Show is entertainment and satire, not news, and Colbert's comments are part of the entertainment."
However the Post's own Media Critic admitted that the Daily Show does makes news and that the methods they use, well, the non-fake journalists ought to be doing the same thing.
But too many haven't and it's the reason it has taken nearly five years for the public to figure out Bush and are now watching the White House implode. Perhaps if there were more reporters like Carole Coleman and Stephen Colbert the American people would have wised up long ago.
Monday, October 10, 2005
What Liberal Media?
If anyone still believes in the myth of the liberal media, one only has to look at two recent stories to show the limits of the mainstream media and how they are anything but liberal.
On October 6 Salon reported that George Bush's 2004 election may have been made possible by a Toledo Blade chief political columnist sitting on a story. The columnist reportedly knew that the chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign for Lucas County's had potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.
Salon reported that according to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist was told of the potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004. The reporter, who later went to work for a Republican congressional candidate, said he told his editors about the story.
The publisher and editor in chief of the Blade said that had the story blown up before the 2004 election "that most Republicans I know agree that Kerry would have won Ohio and won the presidency."
On October 10 Washington Post Media Critic Howard Kurtz noted in a story on Stephen Colbert of the "fake news show" the Daily Show on Comedy Central that Colbert said "The most common thing that real reporters say to me is, 'I wish I could say what you say.' I don't understand is, why can't they say what I say, even in their own way."
As an example, Colbert reviews how the Daily Show was the media that showed that Vice President Cheney's denial that he said it was "pretty well confirmed" that terrorist Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi official in Prague was false, showing both Cheney's denial and his original statement. Colbert was left wondering why it was left to the Daily Show to show it.
"That's not advocacy journalism. That's objectivity in its most raw form," Colbert said, adding the reason many reporters won't do that type of reporting is "that there's a sense that if they engaged in what we do at 'The Daily Show,' they'd be accused of being too aggressive."
Kurtz is a prime example of those accusers. In June Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said following a weak effort by Tim Russert on Meet the Press in questioning RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman that "Russert is fast becoming journalism's answer to the 'E-ZPass,' those electronic tags that allow drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop. Kurtz snidely commented "How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!
So in both cases it looks like some, possibly many, in the media aren't doing its job. So if the media can't even go so far as to report the truth, how can it be liberal?
On October 6 Salon reported that George Bush's 2004 election may have been made possible by a Toledo Blade chief political columnist sitting on a story. The columnist reportedly knew that the chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign for Lucas County's had potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.
Salon reported that according to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist was told of the potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004. The reporter, who later went to work for a Republican congressional candidate, said he told his editors about the story.
The publisher and editor in chief of the Blade said that had the story blown up before the 2004 election "that most Republicans I know agree that Kerry would have won Ohio and won the presidency."
On October 10 Washington Post Media Critic Howard Kurtz noted in a story on Stephen Colbert of the "fake news show" the Daily Show on Comedy Central that Colbert said "The most common thing that real reporters say to me is, 'I wish I could say what you say.' I don't understand is, why can't they say what I say, even in their own way."
As an example, Colbert reviews how the Daily Show was the media that showed that Vice President Cheney's denial that he said it was "pretty well confirmed" that terrorist Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi official in Prague was false, showing both Cheney's denial and his original statement. Colbert was left wondering why it was left to the Daily Show to show it.
"That's not advocacy journalism. That's objectivity in its most raw form," Colbert said, adding the reason many reporters won't do that type of reporting is "that there's a sense that if they engaged in what we do at 'The Daily Show,' they'd be accused of being too aggressive."
Kurtz is a prime example of those accusers. In June Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said following a weak effort by Tim Russert on Meet the Press in questioning RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman that "Russert is fast becoming journalism's answer to the 'E-ZPass,' those electronic tags that allow drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop. Kurtz snidely commented "How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!
So in both cases it looks like some, possibly many, in the media aren't doing its job. So if the media can't even go so far as to report the truth, how can it be liberal?
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Bush Believes in Cronyism, Not Conservatism
The appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has annoyed conservatives because George W. Bush didn't appoint one of "them" to the Court and now they are wondering about the conservative credentials of the "president."
According to David Broder of the Washington Post, Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president's envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.
Trent Lott, R-Miss., formerly the Senate Majority leader told CBS "it's not enough for the president to say "trust me," when it comes to the Supreme Court. I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up."
What conservatives never understood was that Bush only appeared to be one of them in order to win elections. Rather than believing in conservatism Bush believes in cronyism. One only has to look at his personal history to understand that.
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, has suggested that Bush to withdraw her nomination, saying that if Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
But just as true is that if George W. Bush was not the son of a president and crony of high ranking Republicans, it is unconceivable that he ever would have gotten into the Texas Air National Guard, been invited to be in a group to own a major league baseball team, successfully run for Governor of Texas, and most of all would not have the crony connections that helped "win" the 2000 election.
Looking at his appointments and his interests one is left believing that Bush is a Cronyista and not a Conservative and to believe otherwise is to be foolish.
According to David Broder of the Washington Post, Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president's envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.
Trent Lott, R-Miss., formerly the Senate Majority leader told CBS "it's not enough for the president to say "trust me," when it comes to the Supreme Court. I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up."
What conservatives never understood was that Bush only appeared to be one of them in order to win elections. Rather than believing in conservatism Bush believes in cronyism. One only has to look at his personal history to understand that.
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, has suggested that Bush to withdraw her nomination, saying that if Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
But just as true is that if George W. Bush was not the son of a president and crony of high ranking Republicans, it is unconceivable that he ever would have gotten into the Texas Air National Guard, been invited to be in a group to own a major league baseball team, successfully run for Governor of Texas, and most of all would not have the crony connections that helped "win" the 2000 election.
Looking at his appointments and his interests one is left believing that Bush is a Cronyista and not a Conservative and to believe otherwise is to be foolish.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Extremist Nation
Listening to the reaction of the right regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court and how that she basically isn't Attila the Hun (i.e. constitutionalist) and how wrong that is just magnifies the extremist nature of conservatives.
This has forced the White House to work hard to sell the nomination not to Democrats, but to Republicans as many on the Right have questioned the nomination.
"Surely this is a pick from weakness," Bill Kristol wailed in the Weekly Standard. "Is the administration more broadly so weak?"
George Will said First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be...The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
Based on his earlier choices for his "Heck of A Job" groupies, trusting Bush is a poor option. One could hope that Bush has figured out that he no longer needs the extremists to get reelected and that it's time to work on his legacy and right now that legacy (stolen election, massive debt, ill advised war in Iraq, poor response to Hurricane Katrina) is moving toward being among the worst presidents in history.
With three years to make up for five bad ones, Bush may be trying to restore his legacy and put the needs of Americans above the needs of his contributors. However, based on past actions one has to wonder if Miers is an extremist also and Bush is tricking the country into thinking that she is a moderate.
One can dream that Bush has put the interests of the nation first but the idea that Bush made a bad appointment or is screwing the country would be nothing new. The only difference is that this may disappoint most of the country.
This has forced the White House to work hard to sell the nomination not to Democrats, but to Republicans as many on the Right have questioned the nomination.
"Surely this is a pick from weakness," Bill Kristol wailed in the Weekly Standard. "Is the administration more broadly so weak?"
George Will said First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be...The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
Based on his earlier choices for his "Heck of A Job" groupies, trusting Bush is a poor option. One could hope that Bush has figured out that he no longer needs the extremists to get reelected and that it's time to work on his legacy and right now that legacy (stolen election, massive debt, ill advised war in Iraq, poor response to Hurricane Katrina) is moving toward being among the worst presidents in history.
With three years to make up for five bad ones, Bush may be trying to restore his legacy and put the needs of Americans above the needs of his contributors. However, based on past actions one has to wonder if Miers is an extremist also and Bush is tricking the country into thinking that she is a moderate.
One can dream that Bush has put the interests of the nation first but the idea that Bush made a bad appointment or is screwing the country would be nothing new. The only difference is that this may disappoint most of the country.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Miller's Sentence Should Have Been for WMD Stories
After reading the reasons New York Times reporter Judith Miller gave in deciding to get out of jail, one has to wonder if instead of spending time in jail because she refused to testify about her role in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, Miller actually was doing time for her faulty stories on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
The Washington Post reported that Miller said she "served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the importance of upholding the confidential relationship journalists have with their sources."
Yet Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gave her permission to talk and Libby's lawyer apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.
In addition, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan had told Miller that "she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she alleges she is protecting had already released her from her promise of confidentiality."
Perhaps as the Post's Dan Froomkin offered as one explanation, that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.
Even her colleagues at the Times had to ask Was this a charade on her part for martyrdom, or a real principle?
Arriana Huffington in a Huffington Post column suggested that Miller was the source who gave the information to the White House in retribution for the New York Times running Joe Wilson's column that helped expose her faulty, administration friendly, reporting on WMD.
So why did Miller go to jail? Perhaps in a moment of enlightenment Miller decided she needed to as penance for her stories and damage to America.
The Washington Post reported that Miller said she "served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the importance of upholding the confidential relationship journalists have with their sources."
Yet Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gave her permission to talk and Libby's lawyer apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.
In addition, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan had told Miller that "she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she alleges she is protecting had already released her from her promise of confidentiality."
Perhaps as the Post's Dan Froomkin offered as one explanation, that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.
Even her colleagues at the Times had to ask Was this a charade on her part for martyrdom, or a real principle?
Arriana Huffington in a Huffington Post column suggested that Miller was the source who gave the information to the White House in retribution for the New York Times running Joe Wilson's column that helped expose her faulty, administration friendly, reporting on WMD.
So why did Miller go to jail? Perhaps in a moment of enlightenment Miller decided she needed to as penance for her stories and damage to America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)