New Wash Post story, page one - Scooter and Rove, deep doo doo

Wash Post:

Fitzgerald has spent considerable time since the summer of 2004 looking at possible conflicts between what White House senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury and investigators, and the accounts of reporters who talked with the two men, according to various sources in the case.

Lawyers involved in the case said there are now indications that Fitzgerald either did not initially know or suspect that Rove was Cooper's primary source for the reporter's information about Plame. That raises questions about how much Rove disclosed when first questioned in the inquiry or how closely he was initially queried about his contacts with reporters....

Also, when first questioned in the days after Plame's name appeared in the press, Rove left the impression with top White House aides that he had talked about her only with Novak, according to a source familiar with information provided to investigators.

Initially, Fitzgerald appeared focused on the theory that Libby had leaked Plame's identity, according to lawyers involved in the case. He had interviewed three other reporters about their conversations with Libby, but all three indicated he either did not discuss Plame or did not reveal her identity.

Read More......

Friday Orchid Blogging

Paph Pinocchio

I took this shot at a local orchid greenhouse, this is NOT one of my plants. Pretty though.

Enjoy!

PS I've created more products with my various photos, orchids and otherwise, here - take a gander if you like. Read More......

Good Wash Post piece today as well

From Froomkin:

And here, culled from those and other reports, are what would seem to be some of the harder-to-reconcile contradictions in the case, which started out as an investigation into who leaked a CIA agent's identity -- but which now could be turning into another testament to the Washington maxim that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

· White House chief political strategist Karl Rove reportedly told the grand jury that he first learned of Valerie Plame's identity from columnist Robert Novak -- but Novak's version of the story is that Rove already knew about her when the two spoke.

· Rove didn't mention his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to investigators at first and then said it was primarily about welfare reform. But Cooper has testified that the topic of welfare reform didn't came up.

· Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby apparently told prosecutors he first heard about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert, but Russert has testified that he neither offered nor received information about Plame in his conversation with Libby.

· And former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer apparently told prosecutors that he never saw a classified State Department memo that disclosed Plame's identity, but another former official reportedly saw him perusing it on Air Force One.

Some of you have asked for a timeline of this story - Froomkin provided a link to the NYT timeline here. Read More......

Good AP story on the RoveGate hearings today

Very good. Read More......

Excellent update about RoveGate over at Kos

They've done a great job of synthesizing the latest over the past 24 hours, what it means, hyperlinks to sources, etc. Check it out. And they're right. Things are getting very bed for the administration. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of arrogant liars. Read More......

Sci-Fi Friday Has Begun

Four consecutive hours of new Sci-Fi. I may never leave home again. Read More......

Bloomberg admits we don't have enough money to protect NYC adequately

He just said it on TV on ABC News. We just don't have the resources it would take to make mass transit safe from terrorists in the same way Israeli does. "You can't do everything, you just don't have the resources," Bloomberg said. You see, NYC is already spending an additional $2 million a week on heightened security on the NY subways. That comes to a bit over $100m a year.

Yeah, that's a lot of money.

Imagine if NYC decided to double its heightened security subway budget, that would be another $100m a year. Where in God's name would they find that make to make 7 million New Yorkers safe from being blown to bits during their morning commute?

Oh wait, here's a thought. If we hadn't declared war on Iraq based on a total outright lie, we'd already have an additional $300 billion. That would be, oh, enough money to double the subway security in 3,000 New York Citys.

But we don't have that money because our president lied to us and got us into a war of convenience that now is an endless pit of death and money. That's why we can't tell little Suzie that she won't be blown to bits on the train with mommy come Monday morning, because George Bush already spent her protection money on a big fat lie.

It's one thing to argue that we underfund education yet always find money for the military. It's quite another to tell us that our own government can't protect us against terrorists killing us here at home simply because they wasted our money on a lie.

But hey, we may not be safe at home, but at least we can sleep well at night knowing the citizens of Baghdad are now safer than they were three years ago.

Oh, right... Read More......

If John Roberts Were Running For President...

John Roberts: Hi, I'd like to be President of the United States.

American people: Wonderful! You seem like an intelligent and nice guy. What's your foreign policy?

Roberts: Well, gee, I don't think that's appropriate to talk about before I become President.

America: Oh. Well, what's your domestic policy?

Roberts: Again, I think you should just trust me. I'll do the right thing.

America: Uh, well, how will you continue the war on terror? Do you think our ports and and coastlines and borders are safe enough?

Roberts: That's exactly the sort of issue I'll be tackling as President, so that's exactly the sort of issue I can't comment on. I can't predict the future you know, so don't ask me what I might do somewhere down the road.

America: Well, do you think Bush has done a good job handling the post-war occupation of Iraq?

Roberts: I have no opinion on that. Just vote for me, can't you?

America: What about abortion?

Roberts: WOAHHHH!!!!! Now you're getting OBSTRUCTIONIST! I'm not gonna stand for that sort of questioning.

(Roberts storms out and, strangely, gets voted President anyway.) Read More......

Senate Democrats blow off Karen Hughes hearing today - ignore chance to ask about Rove

I have no idea why, but NO Senate Democrats showed up today to Karen Hughes' confirmation hearing to become an undersecretary at the State Department. This would be the same Karen Hughes who popped up in the New York Times this morning as possibly being involved in the RoveGate scandal. There had better be a good reason that NO ONE showed up to ask her about Rove. Feel free to assume the worst until we here a real good story from the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to why they weren't there:

Biden
Sarbanes
Dodd
Kerry
Feingold
Boxer
Nelson
Obama

Feel free to call these offices and ask why their bosses weren't there. CNN is reporting that Biden said he talked to her yesterday. Uh huh. And that has nothing to do with putting her on the spot publicly to explain herself and this administration. Read More......

Bush: Roberts Is A Strict Constructionist

Bush is going around the country insisting John Roberts is a strict constructionist -- if so, that makes Roberts WAY out of the mainstream of judicial beliefs. That makes him someone who refuses to respect previous Court rulings, precedent or settled law in favor of fringe philosophical beliefs that insist we haven't learned anything in the last 230 years -- ie. a judicial activist, the very sort of person most Americans don't want.

How does Bush know this? It isn't in Roberts' limited record. Did Bush ask Roberts? Did Roberts tell Bush? Did Roberts indicate so through third parties or some other way? Is he or is he not a strict constructionist? If so, how will that impact his voting on Roe v Wade? Isn't it impossible for a strict constructionist to uphold that ruling? If Bush doesn't know this for a fact, why is he lying to the American people? These questions cannot be sidestepped or dismissed as intrusive. They go to the heart of what sort of justice Roberts would be.

Sen. Durbin, for one, is unimipressed.

Mr. Durbin's initial response to the nominee on Tuesday was not even lukewarm.

"The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor," the senator said on Tuesday, alluding to the justice Judge Roberts would replace. "Instead, by putting forward John Roberts's name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process...."

The senator has said he voted against Judge Roberts two years ago because the nominee was not sufficiently responsive to questions. Today, Mr. Durbin told The Associated Press, "If he is open and honest, I think it will go a long way."

In other words, no free passes anymore for nominees who want to pretend they have no opinion on landmark Supreme Court rulings. Speak up or head for the door.

So lots of questions for Scotty tomorrow -- after we're done pounding him on Rove. And everyone remember -- you can't be a strict constructionist and uphold Roe v Wade. You can't be a strict constructionist and believe in privacy rights. (So what if the govt wants to comb through your bank records. If you want privacy, you'll have to pass a Constitutional amendment.) You can't be a strict constructionist and overturn sodomy laws -- so if states want to throw 20 million people into jail just for being gay, that's ok. If you don't like it, you'll have to pass laws state by state or through a Constitutional amendment.

So if that's Roberts -- someone who believe the right to choose MUST be overturned, that the states can throw millions of people into jail because they're gay, that the fed govt has no right to make certain our air is pure and our water clean -- is that the sort of Supreme Court justice the American people want? Remember, this is BUSH saying that's the sort of justice Roberts would be. And he should know better than anyone else. Read More......

"Harry Potter" -- The Americablog Review

"HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE"
By J.K. Rowling
**** (out of 4)

By Michael Giltz

NO SPOILERS!!

Okay, I won't discuss the novel at length, to avoid spoiling it for fans who haven't finished it yet. Suffice to say, I think it's a big improvement on the last two (which felt a bit self-indulgent). Briefly, the first book was an unexpected delight. The second and third were good, but felt like Rowling was slipping into formula. The fourth and fifth ended that formula, but you got the impression an editor didn't come within a mile of those doorstoppers -- if Rowling thought of it, she put it in.

"Half-Blood Prince" is much more focused and streamlined. Plus, Harry isn't so teen angsty anymore, so he doesn't speak IN CAPITAL LETTERS any more, which is quite a relief. It's restored my faith in the series and made me painfully eager for the final book.

But why are we discussing this at Americablog? As a number of people have pointed out, it's very much a post 9-11 (and sadly, post 7-7) book, with the government clamping down on rights, people suspicious of one another and fear everywhere.

There's a rather clueless prime minister seen in the very first chapter who is informed by the real powers behind the country about what is going on. It's easy to see him as a mild dig at Bush.

But one element -- that doesn't spoil the plot at all -- involves people thrown into jail by the wizards in power. As Dumbledore and Harry discuss it, some of those people are completely innocent AND THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS IT. But they leave those people to rot in jail because they're desperate to be seen as doing SOMETHING to fight the terrorists...pardon me, I mean the Death Eaters. Harry knows this is wrong and says so.

So think about that. Millions of kids around the world have been reading and respecting Harry Potter. They probably can't imagine anyone in the real world would ever do something like leaving people they KNOW are innocent to rot in jail. And when these young people realize it's actually being done this very moment by their own government, they'll say, quite simply, "That's not right!"

No wonder the far right radicals try to ban "Harry Potter" from school libraries. No wonder Pope Benedict thinks it's dangerous for children to be "seduced" into questioning authority and thinking on their own when making moral decisions, rather than just blindly accepting what they're told.

Thank you, J.K. Rowling. Read More......

Reading Tea Leaves On Supreme Court Nominee

The NYT looks at the brief judicial career of Judge Roberts. The verdict? He ain't no Sandra Day O'Connor.

In some ways, said Richard H. Pildes, a law professor at New York University, Judge Roberts's approach most resembles that of Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Like Scalia," Professor Pildes said, "he appears to be committed to a strong priority to the texts of statutes. And that might extend to the texts of the Constitution."

One theme that emerges from Judge Roberts's decisions is wide deference to executive power, at least where Congress has authorized it.

But this comment from Sen. Specter in an article about the need for Roberts to be forthcoming is what struck me.

As he makes the rounds of senators who will decide his fate, Judge John G. Roberts has been noncommittal about the kinds of questions he will answer during his confirmation hearings, but has said that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will place a high emphasis on "modesty" and "stability."

"I considered his comments on modesty and stability to be highly significant," Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday, recounting a one-hour session Wednesday that ranged across the legal landscape, including whether Supreme Court hearings should be televised and how much leeway the courts should take in interpreting acts of Congress.

Isn't this a little ridiculous? We're deciding whether to give someone a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and senators are trying to decipher gnomic utterances of the nominee? Is it too much to hope that a nominee could be honest and straightforward about his judicial philosophy, speak cogently about landmark Supreme Court decisions and the sort of judge he'd like to be? Why should we be analyzing his every utterance like Kreminologists who studied photos to see who was in and out in Moscow? It's absurd, frankly. Read More......

Open thread

Anyway, after my rant, now what else is going on today? Any Rove news I'm missing, other stuff? Read More......

Online Etiquette 2.0

This is one in a series of posts about how to best use the Internet in a way that gets your message heard and doesn't piss off the person you're trying to influence. I usually tick some people off by writing this, but that's okay, because they tick me off when they spam me. If people want to be effective advocates - be it on this site or by writing to other bloggers, journalists, etc., my advice should help. So here goes.

And a quick caveat. About 2/3 of the emails I get are amazing. They're incredibly useful, they include great scoops, great ideas, and more. I love it. And most of the info I post here, at least a lot of it, comes from tips you guys have sent in. The other 1/3 of the emails I get, however, are crap. And those of you who DON'T send me crap, know it already - because you've either seen me post your stuff or send you a nice email back, etc. And when you get hundreds of emails a day, and that number keeps increasing every day, and the percentage of crap emails keeping increasing every day, then that impacts my effectiveness, but more importantly, it impacts the effectiveness of everyone trying to email journalists, bloggers, and more. So, here's my advice (or screed) for those people.

1. I've said this before, write a GOOD subject line.

Preferably something descriptive. For example, someone recently emailed me about changing the way I set up archives on the blog. A good email. The subject line was "archives" - I thought it was spam. Perhaps a better one might have been "suggestion about blog archives." The idea is to be detailed in 4 or 5 words, it helps a LOT to get your email noticed when the guy receiving it gets hundreds of emails a day. Oh, and when you reply to an email, consider changing the subject line rather than having a series of "re:" back and forth.

2. Don't put me, or anyone else, on an email list without our permission, or you will be shot.

It's rude, plain and simple. You put me on a list, I will ban your address and hate you. If you're trying to get sympathy for your cause, or get me to listen to your advice, don't make me hate you. This guy for example, ELMENDORFX@aol.com, has been spamming me for weeks with crap. When I asked him to stop, repeatedly, he got all pissy with me, banned my email address from his aol account, and is continuing to spam me - but because he banned my address I can't ask him to stop again. That's a really good way to get me to not listen to you and to get your own email account shut down (and if anyone works at AOL, please get this guy).

3. Sending me emails about articles you want me to post and not sending me the URL of the article.

Now, I know some people don't totally understand what a URL is or how to email one, and that's cool. But lots of big non-profits, for example, send out mass emails of their press releases, sometimes very interesting press releases (like the other night, there were lots of press releases about reaction to the Roberts nomination), but they don't put a link to the release or statement in the email itself. How do I link to something when I don't have the link? Same goes for articles, how do I know an article is real, or link to it, if you don't send me the link? Again, remember that the guy on the receiving end is getting hundreds of emails a day, there simply is no time to go hunting for the URL of each email that didn't include it. Do you want to have influence or not? You won't believe how many big organizations just don't think of including the URL of some thing they want me to post.

4. Look at my blog, or whoever's blog you're emailing, and see if the article is already on the blog before writing to tell me to post it :-)

Often, it's already there. I don't have this problem too often, but other sites I work on do. People email all the time an article that's already on the site.

5. Conspiracy theories. I don't buy em. Don't send em.

Tony Blair didn't blow up the Tube. A missile did no crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. And Jeff Gannon isn't some kidnapped kid from Iowa or wherever who was forced into a child sex ring. Enough already.

6. Asking me to link to your blog. I don't have a blog roll. I don't want to have a kitchen-sink list of thousands of blogs because then the list is meaningless. I link to sites that I actually like. That means I won't link to your site until it becomes one of my favs. And that takes time, as I don't get to read a lot of other blogs, just too busy. Sorry, but I just don't find the never-ending list of blog links very useful.

7. Having said all of that, I do like to get emails recommending good content for the blogs - articles you've seen, good blog entries on other blogs - and in fact, it's the primary way I get info for this blog. It's just that as the email traffic increases in my in box, and it has, the quality of what I get has gone down a lot recently. And that doesn't help me, or you.

8. Sending people stuff that you know is crap.

Now, I don't mean to be harsh, but I just got an email, and you know who are, about some African king of Buganda, or something, visiting some grade school or something in Boston. Now, why in God's name would the readers of AMERICAblog care about that? If this were just one email, I'd delete it and that would be that. But I get this kind of stuff all the time. And I work on other news Web sites that get even worse bs than this.

Please, please, please. We're getting hundreds - and I mean hundreds upon hundreds - of emails a day. It's hard enough to read them all, and I try to read them all, and generally read each one, because I think it's rude not to. And more importantly, you guys send good stuff. But when more and more of the incoming emails are just crap that you know has nothing to do with AMERICAblog or the kind of stories we post, then please don't send it. All you do is piss me off, or piss off the reporter or blog or other news site that you're writing to. I mean, what's the point of that?

9. Emailing bunches of people at the same time, over and over again.

What I mean here is, not thinking of what AMERICAblog readers might be interested in, but simply emailing whatever you have to a set list of people including me, FOX News, ABC, Jeff Gannon, and President Bush. I got news for you - most of the people on that list don't read a thing you send. And for the rest of us, if Jeff Gannon and George Bush are both cc'd on something you send me, that's a pretty good signal to me that you haven't even given it any thought as to whether the email in question is even appropriate for this blog. Don't do it.

Again, sorry to be bitchy, but some people need to learn how to use the Internet better so that they, and we, can all be more effective. I'm writing this because I KNOW the other bloggers are having the same problem I'm having, so I consider this a service for them all.

And if you get pissed off cuz I wrote this, so be it. I'm pissed off about getting emails about the King of Buganda. Read More......

Dem hearing on Rove is interesting

Perhaps the most interesting comment has been from a former CIA officer who was in, I believe, the same class as Valerie Plame. He didn't even initially realize Novak's article and the ensuing scandal was about Valerie Plame because he only knew her as Valerie P. As a rule, they were told, even inside the CIA, to NEVER use their last names, only use the first initial. So even HE never knew her name and he WORKED with her INSIDE THE CIA.

Now tell me that leaking the name of a CIA agent is, as President Bush obviously believes, no big deal unless it's brings a criminal indictment.

George Bush now knows the facts and doesn't give a damn. He should be impeached for jeopardizing our national security during war time, and any Senator or Congressman who defends this leak should be jailed for treason. We're at war. The Republicans want to talk about which party is more patriotic? Fine, let's talk about it. Patriots don't harbor traitors in war time.

Why does George Bush and the Republican party hate America? Read More......

CSpan will cover RoveGate hearings, today 10AM Eastern

TODAY: Hearing on Intelligence Breach Consequences
Friday, June 22, 2005 -- Rep. Waxman and Senator Byron Dorgan will co-chair a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing at which former intelligence officials will testify about the damage to national security caused by the White House outing of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson.

The hearing will be shown live at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN3 and can be watched online at http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp Read More......

Bush Leaves Our Ports and Coastlines Unguarded...Then Uses Them For Photo Ops

Bush has got a lot of nerve. He's DELAYING the upgrade of the Coast Guard until 2030, even though we've gone to war on his watch and the Coast Guard is now responsible for safeguarding our ports. Bush has also failed to take the reasonable, common sense steps needed to make our ports, coastlines and mass transit systems safer -- steps that don't involve fancy new technology or dramatic restructuring, just the ability to set priorities and focus on making our country more secure.

And then Bush uses a Baltimore port as a photo op. Bush should be APOLOGIZING for his reckless refusal to improve safety at our ports and coastlines, starting with the abominably underfunded Coast Guard.

Instead, Bush callously used the port setting to push for unquestioned and permanent renewal of the Patriot Act -- an act which was pushed through Congress in the jittery days after 9-11 and went unread by most Congresspeople, but is apparently the only piece of massive legislation in US history that achieved perfection and couldn't possibly be improved or sharpened after almost 4 years of real-world experience.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski lets Bush have it:

Shortly after Bush's speech, Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski issued a statement saying the president has not put enough money into port security and that at least $8 billion is needed to effectively safeguard the nation's ports. Bush said he has budgeted $2.3 billion for port security this year.

"We don't need port photo ops from the president. We need dollars," said Mikulski, emphasizing that the site of Bush's speech bore no direct relation to the Patriot Act.

Read More......

Former CIA officers criticize GOP talking points about Plame

Despite the GOP attacks against Valerie Plame being a desk jockey who was not working undercover, eleven former CIA offers have sent a letter to Congress disputing the continuing smear campaign by Republicans. Josh Marshall has the full letter.

There are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who work at a desk in the Washington, D.C., area every day who are undercover as Plame was when her identity was leaked, the 11 former officers said in a three-page statement.

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the 11 said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

Why does the GOP hate the CIA? Read More......

Open Thread

If Rove leaked the name of an undercover agent during World War II, how long before FDR had him thrown in the brig? Doubtful, that President would have let Rove keep his top level job at the White House. Rove would have been tried and punished already (and back then, it would have been a very, very, very tough punishment). No other president would be harboring a top staffer who undermined national security -- especially during a war.

Just a thought on this fine Friday morning...what else is going on? Read More......

More incidents in London today - one man shot and killed

This morning a man jumped over security gates at the Stockwell Underground station on the Northern Line in London and was quickly chased by undercover police. The man tripped as he jumped into an Underground carriage and police shot him five times, killing him. Eyewitnesses say the man appeared to be South Asian, wearing a baseball cap and a heavy padded coat (it is not cold today) though no backpack.

Elsewhere in London, police have blocked off an East London neighborhood and have surrounded a mosque with armed police. No other details are being provided at the moment. Read More......

The Musharraf dilemma

The recent UK lead criticisms of Pakistan and their madrassas seem to have elements of truth but the madrassas are not necessarily the problem. These religious schools have existed for centuries and the overwhelming majority of them pose no threat. The problem is that there are exceptions that are extremely radical and are training grounds for hatred and violence. While Musharraf has rightly said that the UK also shares some of the blame (such as racism/failure to integrate and foreign policy) the problem for Musharraf is that he has yet to take serious action against his own military intelligence services who are often involved in the training of militants. The real center of attention here should be on the Pakistan intelligence services who are tapping in to the radical undercurrent and providing training for violence.

These are the same people who worked closely with the Taliban in the past and who may very well also be protecting bin Laden. Musharraf clearly does not have enough power internally to take on this radical element and has been reported before, a clear majority of the population of Pakistan supports suicide bombings. Musharraf can continue telling the West what it wants to hear but for a critical player in this global campaign, how much can the West really push him to take action against a core group within his country that seems to enjoy such strong support? How much can the West also tolerate this continuing problem, but if he goes, the next in line could be considerably worse. Read More......

UN delivers very critical report on Zimbabwe's demolition program

The UN is not quite as fast as I was hoping to see but after a tour of Zimbabwe, they have delivered a harsh report on Mugabe's "Drive Out the Trash" campaign which has left hundreds of thousands of people homeless and without work in the middle of the winter. Nobody believes Mugabe when he says that the government is supplying funds to move the people back to the countryside because Zimbabwe has no money.

Mugabe has recently asked South Africa for money and is begging China to cough up money (and perhaps even more military equipment) though it is highly doubtful that any cash that arrives would be used for such a program. There is some talk that South Africa might tie loans to reform though looking at recent history I would be surprised if that happened. China has been making a strong effort across Africa and has recently sold Mugabe everything from transport trucks to military jets to helicopters so I won't be surprised if they continue supplying tools of repression, as they do in many countries. Read More......

The other big news: Secret State Dept memo was actual Top Secret, No Foreign - which is a big deal

The memo was apparently even more highly classified than has been let alone, according to a story reportedly appearing in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal (a WSJ editor apparently appeared on Countdown and said this tonight).

Think about this, folks. We've got the Washington Post, the New York Times, Bloomberg and, of all publications, the friggin' Wall Street Journal all competing to be THE news service that breaks the true story of what the White House did with regards to RoveGate. That's pretty amazing, and it spells big trouble for moose and squirrel at the White House.

The mainstream media gets it. They get this story. They get why it's important. And now, they want it - bad. And when you get four top news services (and probably more) all fighting tooth and nail to scoop each other on a major story, that's serious trouble for the guys on the receiving end of that story.

Bush is in serious trouble. Read More......