Open thread, and a thought

So when Bush said today that "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," what he really said was that if someone in his administration is sent to jail he won't let them tele-commute to the West Wing.

Seriously, think about what he said today. It was absolutely meaningless, yet brilliant in its deceptiveness. If someone in my administration is sent to jail I won't keep them on the federal payroll. Well bully for you, big boy. I can see why they call you "commander in chief." No decision, however difficult, stumps you.

Tomorrow Bush might even tell us that if someone on his staff dies, they will no longer work in his administration. Read the rest of this post...

Editor & Publisher charges Judith Miller with "Reporter Malpractice"

Ok, that's funny. Read the rest of this post...

Gary "that girl was NOT my girlfriend" Bauer doesn't think RoveGate is a scandal

Because when I turn to people of faith to give me the moral and ethical point of view on something, I always choose the married guy who had to pull out of the race for the presidency because he spent a bit too many hours in a closed room with a - was it 19 year old? - intern. Read the rest of this post...

Vote for John as one of "The Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics"

While John is taping Dems TV, I will take the opportunity to post a link and ask you to vote for him. John is a finalist in Politics Online's "The Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics:

The results from the call for nominations are in and now we are asking you to select your favorite choice from the list of 20 finalists for the Top Ten Who Are Changing The World of Internet & Politics vote, sponsored by PoliticsOnline and the 6th annual E-Democracy Worldwide Forum.

This year marked the toughest year ever in choosing the 20 finalists. The integration of politics and the Internet has spread like wildfire around the globe, reflected in this year's diverse, international nominees.

The winners, those top 10 nominees who receive the most votes, will be announced at the 6th annual Worldwide Forum on Electronic Democracy -- September 28-29, in Issy-les-Moulineaux, (Paris, France).

I think he's one of the best. And while he wouldn't ask you to cast a vote for him, I will....

Thanks. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

If someone committed a crime they will no longer write on my blog, unless I change my mind. Read the rest of this post...

Ari saw the State Dept memo on Wilson, AND he's linked to Rove

From Bloomberg:

The memo, prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003, informed top administration officials that the wife of ex-diplomat and Bush critic Joseph Wilson was a CIA agent. Seven days later, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was publicly identified as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it is not clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.

The Novak call may loom large in the investigation because Fleischer was among a group of administration officials who left Washington later that day on a presidential trip to Africa. On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip....

Fleischer, who saw the July 7 memo, wasn't part of Bush's inner circle during his tenure as press secretary, while Rove was at the heart of it. Given those facts, it seems highly doubtful that Fleischer would have acted on the information in the memo without the knowledge or approval of Rove and other top-level White House officials.

(Hat tip to BillMon and Atrios) Read the rest of this post...

Mecca a target according to GOP Congressman

Nice job from GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. It's not like we're trying to find a middle ground or anything and flame-throwing remarks like this will no doubt be front page news in the Muslim world. The GOP has failed so miserably to reach out to the Muslim world and this will only make it worse.

At a minimum, an immediate public apology should be issued by this clown. This is not "just throwing out some ideas" as he says. This is ignorance. Read the rest of this post...

Ex-CIA Agent (and Republican) BLASTS Bush White House

Crooks and Liars has a good audio of a radio interview with Larry Johnson, a one-time CIA agent (under the first President Bush, mostly, I believe) who worked with Valerie Plame. He cuts through the lies, details the damage to our nation's security and is basically gobsmacked that any American -- much less any Republican like himself -- could defend Bush, Rove et al for outing a covert CIA agent. As Johnson points out, this is the first time in our HISTORY that a political operative at the White House has purposefully outed a covert CIA agent. Thanks to threader soccer mom for pointing this out to us. Read the rest of this post...

The Ingredients of a Civil War in Iraq

While the White House continues to get bogged down by the Rove scandal, Iraq is a brew with all the ingredients for a civil war: chronically high unemployment, sporadic electricity and water, a weak occupying force, and a general sense of insecurity. Faith in the government, if there ever was any, seems to be faltering in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. From Reuters:

Iraqis have begun barricading themselves in their homes and forming neighborhood militias in an effort to fend off relentless suicide attacks, residents in the capital said on Monday.

The measures come amid waning confidence in the Iraqi police and other security forces as they struggle to get on top of the two-year-old insurgency. In the latest attack, 98 people were killed by a suicide truck bomb south of Baghdad on Saturday.

A senior member of Iraq's parliament on Sunday called for popular militias to be created as an extra line of defense against the militants, and criticized the government for failing to stop the bombs.
...
While there was some backing for his proposal, there are concerns militias formed along sectarian lines could lead the country ever closer to civil war, with Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs already involved in tit-for-tat killings.

Despite that fear, local militias have already been formed in several Baghdad areas, and at least two Shi'ite political movements have their own powerful private armies.
...
They carry a piece of paper signed by the Iraqi army granting them permission to carry out the patrols. Rob's Note: Are these legitimate letters? Is this is now a policy of the new Iraqi Army? Perhaps an enterprising journalist might find out the answer to this.
...
"We are scared even inside our homes -- we expect attacks at any moment," said Hamid Hashim, a teacher in Aadhamiya who has padlocks on his doors. "Our children are never allowed out of the house, even if that may hurt them psychologically."

Shi'ite lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated and fear militants will succeed in their aim of provoking sectarian conflict if greater efforts are not made to quell the insurgency.

"The multinational forces have to take responsibility for the bloodshed," said Sheikh Jalal-el-din al-Sagheer, a member of the main Shi'ite bloc in parliament.

When a member of parliament is arguing for militias, perhaps even parliament has lost faith in their ability to govern the country? Read the rest of this post...

LA Times: Rove a Bulldog On Wilson

The LA Times offers a roundup of the latest on Rove, with this tidbit catching my eye:

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry....

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

And they had no idea Rove was involved? Right.

Oh, and the LA Times also caught how Bush has gone back on his word and now refuses to fire someone who leaks classified information during a time of war. Read the rest of this post...

Atrios has the new ABC poll and it ain't pretty for team Bush/Rove

It's acutally a nightmare scenario for the White House. Americans are paying attention to the Rove Scandal...and they're not happy. Big hat tip to Atrios:

Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.

Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

Only one quarter of Americans think the Bushies are cooperating. That's only half the people who voted for him.

And those numbers on Rove. Wow. Rove is now in the position of destroying the Bush presidency he worked so hard to build. And just as importantly, at least half the people who voted for Bush think Rove should be fired if he leaked. Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post: Bush just changed his story

Liar

President Bush today appeared to raise the threshold for firing any White House official who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, saying he would dismiss anyone who "committed a crime" in the case.

Read the rest of this post...

What you DIDN'T learn from today's New York Times

I just got the following from a friend. Quite a good and interesting analysis...

Today's New York Times resolved many questions, but left several important ones unanswered. Here are some possible answers:

Question: Why did Robert Novak use the name 'Valerie Plame' when the State Department memo said 'Valerie Wilson'?

Answer: Maybe because Novak's original source, the one who gave him the name, wanted him to write, 'Valerie Plame.'

Question: Why would they want him to do that?

Answer: Maybe because Valerie Plame was the name under which she was still working as a non-official cover (NOC) clandestine CIA officer; running that name through U.S. public records -- specifically FEC filings -- revealed her front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. It's also the name that foreign governments could successfully run through their immigration, hotel, and other databases to check on her activities. Maybe an Agency source could confirm this.

Question: But why would anyone want to out a clandestine CIA officer?

Answer: Maybe to attack her husband for questioning intelligence used to justify a war, and to attack the CIA both for Wilson's whistle-blowing and for dragging its heels during the drive to war (remember how ticked the Bushies have been at the CIA for not drinking the Kool-Aid?). Maybe going after a clandestine officer was intended as simply the latest and most brazen effort to intimidate and exert pressure on Agency analysts and officers. Only the leakers know their motives.

Question: Who knew Valerie Plame's maiden name to leak it to Novak?

Answer: If Plame was indeed a non-official cover clandestine officer, only officials at the highest level of government would have had access to that information. Among those officials might have been Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who had two former advisers, John Hannah and David Wurmser, working for Vice President Dick Cheney in the White House.

Question: So the Under Secretary leaked the name?

Answer: Not necessarily. The Under Secretary might have had access to the information, but others would too. He also could have relayed the information to others in government, perhaps unaware that it would be leaked, or perhaps aware.

Question: So why hasn't the Special Counsel looked into any of this?

Answer: According to several reports, he has. Richard Sale of United Press International reported in February 17, 2004, that federal law enforcement officials had 'hard evidence' against John Hannah and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby:

Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, were the two Cheney employees. 'We believe that Hannah was the major player in this,' one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.

The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah 'that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time' as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal law-enforcement official said.

This morning's New York Times cover story confirms that Libby has been a focus of the investigation:

Mr. Fitzgerald has also looked into any role that I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, may have played. Lawyers in the case have said their clients have been asked about Mr. Libby's conversations in the days after Mr. Wilson's article -- in part based on Mr. Libby's hand-written notes, which he turned over to the prosecutor.

In addition, several journalists have been asked about their conversations with Mr. Libby. At least one, Tim Russert of NBC News, has suggested that prosecutors wanted to know whether he had told Mr. Libby of Ms. Wilson's identity. After Mr. Russert met with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC said that he did not provide the information to Mr. Libby.

If these reports are accurate, they echo what Wilson himself told Joe Conason in a May 4, 2004, interview for Salon:

Wilson: Gleaned from all those cross currents of information, the most plausible scenario, and the one that I've heard most frequently from different sources, has been that there was a meeting in the middle of March 2003, chaired by either [Vice President Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby or the Vice President ­ but more frequently I've heard chaired by Scooter ­ at which a decision was made to geta work-up on me. That meant getting as much information about me as they could: about my past, about my life, about my family. This, in and of itself, is abominable. Then that information was passed at the appropriate time to the White House Communications Office, and at some point a decision was made to go ahead and start to smear me, after my opinion piece appeared in the New York Times.

Salon: You mention two other names: John Hannah, who works in the Office of the Vice President, and David Wurmser, who is a special assistant to John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and National Security. Last Wednesday, their names both appeared on a chart that accompanied an article in the New York Times about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and the war cabal within the Bush administration. Did these people run an intelligence operation against you?

Wilson: I don't know if it's the same unit, but it's very clear, from what I've heard, that the meeting in March 2003 led to an intelligence operation against my family and me. That's what a work-up is -- to try to find everything you can about an American citizen.

They also echo what Wilson says in his book, The Politics of Truth:

Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration. The protracted silence on this topic from the White House masks considerable tension between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.

The rumors swirling around Rove, Libby, and Abrams were so pervasive in Washington that the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, was obliged to address them in an October 2003 briefing, saying of Rove: 'The president knows he wasn't involved. It's simply not true.' McClellan refused to be drawn into a similar direct denial of Libby's or Abrams's possible involvement, however.

Question: So even Wilson says Karl Rove did nothing wrong?

Answer: No. There may have been three original crimes. First, the crime committed by those who knowingly and willfully revealed the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer by giving Robert Novak the name 'Valerie Plame.' Second, those who served as relatively unwitting cut-outs, willfully revealing classified information -- which is both a crime and a violation of their non-disclosure agreements -- but not realizing that they were disclosing the identity of a clandestine CIA officer. And third, revealing any and all other details of Wilson's trip in the classified State Department document, including his wife's role in the trip (if any), not simply his wife's status as CIA. Allegedly, Rove may not have known the full picture, but what he did was nonetheless wrong and potentially criminal. And he knew was talking to reporters about the details of classified information, and he apparently didn't care enough to shut up.

Question: So what are the next questions?

* Who authored the INR (State Department's intelligence branch) memo, and why and how was it misleading?

* Who leaked the name, 'Valerie Plame,' and how did he or she receive that
information?

* Who else was complicit in the worse crime of outing a clandestine CIA
officer? In the lesser crime of revealing classified information?

* What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

* What did the President know, and when did he know it?

* Why were people in the White House so afraid of what Joe Wilson had to say?

Read the rest of this post...

USA Today: Every Letter Denounces Rove

The American people are angry about Karl Rove and angry that George Bush refuses to honor his word about firing any leaker. Every letter in Monday's USA Today denounces Bush and Rove. The money quote:

Rove, whom we all thought was a genius, is using grade-school excuses regarding his role, saying he referred to Plame not by name, but as Wilson's wife. Of course, Wilson has only one wife and there is only one CIA, but we are supposed to excuse him.

The American people are smarter than all of this. We see this act as unethical and Rove as not the kind of person who can be trusted with power.

The president is known for being loyal. Will his loyalty rest with his old friend Karl or with the people who re-elected him?

Wait till they see Bush trying to weasel out of firing anyone guilty of leaking. How is the letters page on Rove running in your newspapers? And keep those letters to the editor flowing into your local papers -- it keeps the letters page focused on Bush's deceit and spurs the newspapers into maintaining their focus. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

What's up? Read the rest of this post...

NYT: Bush raised the bar for firing Rove

What a lying sack.

WASHINGTON, July 18 - President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired.

C.I.A. Inquiry May Hinge on What the Leaker Knew (July 18, 2005) "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."

For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity.

Read the rest of this post...

Scott McClellan lying, live, on CSpan 1 right now

Scottie is saying the president hasn't changed his standard. We want to know what the facts are.

Q. But you had said that anyone involved with this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anyone who committed a crime.

A. Yeah, we've been through these issues over the past week, I know what was said previously.

Q. Did the president equate the word leaking to a crime? Is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

Q. Two years and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? (Helen Thomas, love her) All he has to do is call him in?

A. Because there's an investigation continuing at this point, the appropriate people handling these issues are the people investigating this investigation.

Q. We don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. Given the facts you said these men didn't discuss a CIA agent's identitity, does the white house have a credibility problem?

A. No.

Q. You made statements that have proven to be untrue.

Q. Given the new formulation of somebody committing a crime....

A. I'm not going to add to what the president said...

Q. What about president's previous statements. Do they remain operative? (funny, the media is using Watergate language here, statements remaining "operative")

Q. Dancing around definitional issue. You're telling us there's nothing new in what the president said today, yet you said before that someone would be fired if they were even involved in the leak. The president appears to have set up a higher bar. They are not the same thing on their face.

A. I would not read anything into it more than what the president said.

Q. You said you talked to Scooter and Rove and Abrams, you said they weren't involved. Do you stand by that?

A. blah blah blah

Q. Has the president asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he's had.

A. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully.

Q. Has the prosecutor asked the White House not to speak to his top aides about this topic?

A. You can ask the prosecutor.

Q. Has the White House coordinated with the RNC and GOP members of congress on this issue?

A. I answered that last week. Read the rest of this post...

Bush changes his story about firing Rove. Bush also caught lying in 2003

Bush today has now changed his story about the leak investigation. Previously he said he'd fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. Today he changed his story and is now saying he'll fire anyone involved in committing "a crime."

Per AP a few moments ago:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004 news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

Isn't that convenient that Bush's story has now changed. Now that Bush's top political aide has been proven to meet the Bush test for being fired, Bush moves the goal post.

Even more troubling, Bush has now been found to have lied about another matter:

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true."

So, back in 2003 Bush authorized McClellan to say that Bush "knew" that Rove wasn't involved. McClellan didn't just say Karl wasn't involved, he said "the president knows that Karl wasn't involved." That was a bold faced lie from the president himself.

And finally, Bush and McClellan say they can't comment until the investigation is over. Bush just commented. He said today that he'd only fire Rove if he committed a crime. Then it is now fair game to ask the president why his story has now changed, why before he said he would fire anyone who leaked, and why now he's moved the goal post in order to protect Rove, who either lied to Bush two years ago or who Bush has been protecting for two years.

If Bush wants to comment only when he's going to lie and move the goal post, then the media and the American people have the right to demand Bush explain why he lied to the American people two years ago when he said he's fire anyone involved in the leak.

Apparently "W" stands for William, as in William Jefferson Clinton.

UPDATE: The DNC has just released Bush's former quotes on the topic:

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/2003]

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [President Bush, Chicago, Ill, 9/30/2003]

Read the rest of this post...

Bush just said on TV that he didn't have all the facts about Rove

So, either he doesn't want to know the facts and is an incompetent commander in chief, or he knows the facts and is lying.

1. Bush says he still need to get all the facts today on TV during a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister.

2. What facts does Bush still need to get? Karl Rove's own attorney admitted that Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity to TIME magazine, and we now know that Rove also confirmed her identity to Bob Novak, and that Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby has also been leaking her identity. We have the facts, Bush has the facts. So what facts is he still waiting to find out? Does the president think Karl Rove's attorney is a liar?

3. If Bush still needed to get "the facts" then why didn't he call Karl Rove into his office two years ago - or, well, today - and say, damn it, tell me what happened? In fact, Bush claims he did just that - he told his staff he wanted to know what happened.

So there are two options here.

A. Either Rove and Libby told him what happened, that they leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent as political revenge, and Bush chose to not say a thing and instead keep Rove and Libby on staff like nothing happened while a two year investigation wasted taxpayer money in order to find out what Bush already knew, and did nothing to stop his own spokesman from going on national TV, to the American people and the media, and repeatedly lied about Rove and Libby not being involved in the leak.

or

B. Rove and Libby lied to Bush, said they had nothing to do with the leak, and Bush today is doing nothing about the fact that he was lied to about such a serious matter, and Bush is refusing to call Rove and Libby back into his office to ask them what they did and why, in order to ensure neither of them poses a risk to national security with their security clearances.

So which one is it? Did Rove and Libby lie to the president two years ago about a critical matter of national security, and now the president refuses to do a damn thing about it? Or has Bush known all along that Rove and Libby were the leakers, and thus Bush is complicit in the White House conspiracy to lie to the media and the public about this issue? Read the rest of this post...

Bush Lied To Congress On Iraqi Elections

As we know, Bush wanted to provide covert support to Iraqi candidates, undercutting that country's burgeoning democracy and endangering the long-term faith of the Iraqi people in their government. (Time magazine first reported on this in October of 2004.) Bush was stymied by Congress, which strongly objected.

But did Bush go ahead and do it anyway? The New Yorker has the expose.

A State Department official confirmed that there was an effort to give direct funding to certain candidates. “The goal was to level the playing field, and Allawi was not the sole playing field,” he said. Warrick was not operating on his own, the State Department official said. “This issue went to high levels, and was approved”—within the State Department and by others in the Bush Administration, in the late spring of 2004....

At least one Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, strongly protested any interference in the Iraqi election. An account of the dispute was published in Time last October.... The essence of Pelosi’s objection, the recently retired high-level C.I.A. official said, was: “Did we have eleven hundred Americans die”—the number of U.S. combat deaths as of last September—“so they could have a rigged election?”

But then Bush went ahead and did it anyway.

Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added, “because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster....”

I was informed by several former military and intelligence officials that the activities were kept, in part, “off the books”—they were conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress. Some in the White House and at the Pentagon believed that keeping an operation off the books eliminated the need to give a formal briefing to the relevant members of Congress and congressional intelligence committees, whose jurisdiction is limited, in their view, to officially sanctioned C.I.A. operations.

So Congress has oversight on covert operations, objects to a plan and Bush assures them it has been scuttled. Then he goes ahead and does it anyway.

The New York Times reports that Bush's people are lying in response to questions about this revelation.

Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that "in the final analysis, the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try - and did not try - to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."

The statement appeared to leave open the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate.

In other words, Bush tried to stonewall and issued a denial that actually confirms what he likely did. Members of Congress are rightfully angry about this abuse of power -- consulting with Congress and then lying to them and cutting them out of the loop on covert operations.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, issued a statement saying that she could not discuss classified information, noting: "Congress was consulted about the administration's posture in the Iraqi election. I was personally consulted. But if the administration did what is alleged, that would be a violation of the covert action requirements, and that would be deeply troubling."

In short, Bush lied to the world when he pledged to keep the elections free and fair and then he lied to Congress about it as well. Was Iran interfering with the elections? It surely was trying. Does that mean the US should try and interfere as well? Maybe in real politik -- or maybe they could speak openly and honestly about that interference and keep their word and not do the same -- fight corruption and influence instead of joining in. The article goes on to detail convincing evidence of ballot box stuffing.

Think about it: Bush's biggest accomplishment -- the image of Iraqis exercising their right to vote and getting that purple mark on their finger -- is abjectly mocked by Bush thwarting Congress, feeding funds to parties he liked and ballot box stuffing on the day of the election. Some triumph...if you're Boss Tweed.

But don't get caught up in a debate on the best way to micromanage Iraq. Bush lied to the world when he said he wanted free and fair elections. And then Bush lied to Congress. Read the rest of this post...

Troops Reenlist At High Rates

USA Today reports that -- unlike Vietnam -- our brave soldiers continue to reenlist at high rates, partially making up for the shortfall in new recruits. Why? In part, money.

Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

But however much money is dangled in front of them, it is remarkable and brave that they would choose to reenlist in a war that every grunt knows has been mismanged since the day Baghdad fell and which the American people believe Bush lied about to beef up support for invasion. Thanks to murderous ethnic rivalries, the people of Iraq who suffered under Hussein continue to suffer under daily suicide bombings -- the attack that astonished London is Iraq's daily bread. Our soldiers can't change how the war is executed, but to their credit they must feel a bond with their fellow soldiers and the people of that country.

Imagine what our troops could do if they were properly armed and equipped, with enough boots on the ground to secure the peace and a commander in chief who faced up to tough problems instead of ignoring them. Maybe in three and a half years.... Read the rest of this post...

WH: Change the Subject with Sup. Court Nominee?

That's what NBC's First Read is ruminating about:

Will the White House introduce its SCOTUS nominee during the thick of the Plame leak investigation? The Washington Post reports that President Bush may announce his pick as early as this week, rather than next week. That would be a big effort to change the subject -- and might well succeed. It would also "prove" that the White House is not distracted by the Rove controversy, and possibly force Senate Democratic critics to tone it down in the interest of having that much talked about, dignified confirmation debate. Presumably, it would also be a sign that the White House is confident that no other memos or damaging material about the Plame leak will come to light during the SCOTUS debate.

Um, NBC, presumably, that's what the White House wants you to think. Just a reminder, this White House has lied to you for the past two years about this scandal. Lied. So, here's an idea: don't presume anything. And, don't trust anything they say.

I may be going out on a limb here. But, I think the press can cover two stories -- A Supreme Court nominee and the biggest national security scandal in years. Give it a try at least. The White House only succeeds in this distraction strategy if the media lets them. Remember, Rove thinks you're a bunch of patsies. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

After all the developments over the weekend, should be another rough week for the White House. What else? Read the rest of this post...

The credibility gap continues

Whether we are talking about the reasons for the war in Iraq or the current state of affairs in Iraq, this White House simply is unable to give the public straight and honest answers. Since the terrible 7/7 bombings in London, 242 Iraqis have been killed with the latest attacks happening this morning.

The US and UK invaded Iraq supposedly to bring democracy and freedom but even after all of this time, Iraqis are still living without regular electricity and clean water and incredibly, gas. On top of all of this they are living in fear because the streets are so dangerous with a steady stream of suicide bombers and murder. Are any of us really safer after all of the lives lost and money spent? Read the rest of this post...

UK and Pakistan take turns blaming each other for 7/7

Last week Jack Straw criticized the religious schools in Pakistan, suggesting that their radicalism led to the bombings in London and over the weekend Munir Akram, Pakistan's UN ambassador responded by raising the issue of exclusion and racism in the UK and the inability to bring the Muslim community in to the mainstream in the UK.

Both sides are raising valid points and it's about time that everyone gets a lot more serious about these problems. Sure, there are plenty of radical madrassas in the Muslim world and something needs to be done but as an outsider myself in Europe, I'm quite aware of the rigid seperations that exist. While the UK seems to be more advanced than the continent with integration, Europe as a whole is struggling with this issue which is going to increasingly be a problem until someone takes action.

So far I've been a bit surprised with the choice of words that UK officials, Tony Blair included, have used and wish that we could see something more constructive and serious. It's high time everyone is brought in to the fold so the extremists no longer have such fertile ground for recruiting but this means a lot of hard work for both sides. Read the rest of this post...