alternative hippopotamus

• Fitzgerald suspects Cheney (*):
  

  Why, after all, was special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald so determined to get the truth from Libby and, barring that, to punish him for obstructing justice? Prosecutorial ethics preclude Fitzgerald, a Bush appointee, from answering such questions. But the most likely scenario is that he suspected that it was Cheney who committed the underlying crime — that Cheney instructed Libby to out a CIA agent in his no-holds-barred crusade against a critic. (See my Feb. 21 column, The Cloud Over Cheney and my May 29 column, Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney.)

• Our Founding Fathers didn’t look at impeachment as a symptom of BDS, but as a critical check and balance: (*)
  

  The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: “In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to ‘pardon crimes which were advised by himself’ or, before indictment or conviction, ‘to stop inquiry and prevent detection.’ James Madison responded:

  “[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

  “Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.”

• This is not your father’s Washington Post: (*)
  

  “The President and his followers know that they can apply completely different rules to themselves, and freely break the law, because our Washington establishment, our ‘political press,’ will never object too strenuously, or even at all. Over the last six years, our media has directed their hostility only towards those who investigate or attempt to hold accountable the most powerful members of our political system — hence their attacks on the GOP prosecutor investigating the Bush administration’s crimes, their anger towards the very few investigative reporters trying to uncover Washington’s secrets, and their righteous condemnation towards each of the handful of attempts by Congress to exercise investigative oversight of the administration.

• Instapundit is a prick: (*)
  

  “My prediction: Bush will rise in the polls as estranged conservatives warm to him in light of lefty indignation.”

There’s a quote from today’s Washington Post piece on Cheney that has gone thus far un-dissected in the blogosphere. It’s hardly a trivial point, even though it’s located well into the article. I would argue that this speaks volumes about Cheney’s approach to government:

In the years that followed, crossing Cheney would cost some of the same officials their jobs. David Gribben, a friend from graduate school who became the vice president’s chief of legislative affairs, said Cheney believes in the “educational use of power.” Firing a disloyal or poorly performing official, he said, sometimes “sends a signal crisply.” Cheney believes he is “using his authority to serve the American people, and he’s obviously not afraid to be a rough opponent,” Gribben said.

I read this and thought immediately of Ron Suskind’s “One Percent Doctrine.” Suskind describes Cheney’s philosophy towards Iraq as setting an example in a way that closely resembles the “Educational use of power.” (page 123)

“The primary impetus for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings on the Gulf in this period, was to make an example of Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States.

“In Oval Office meetings, the President would often call Iraq a “game changer.” More specifically, the theory was the United States- with a forceful action against Hussein- would change the rules of geopolitical analysis and action for countless other countries.”

Continuing on this theme, I’d argue that the “educational use of power” was one of the motives behind the whole Plame affair. It wasn’t just that Wilson needed to be discredited. After all, Libby could just as easily have written an op-ed in the NYT that rebutted Wilson’s original op-ed. Wilson needed to be destroyed, and this would set a chilling example for future critics.

Today’s Expression: “Bathos on Stilts.”

Background: “Bathos is Greek for depth. As used in English it originally referred to a particular type of bad poetry, but it is now used more broadly to cover any ridiculous artwork or performance. More strictly speaking, bathos is unintended humor caused by an incongruous combination of high and low.”

Example: (with added bold for emphasis, and italics for fun)

Though nothing compared to this creepy one signed jointly by Mary Matalin and James Carville. Creepy, because the letter is in only Matalin’s voice (”His wife and my husband share similar political views…my husband…joins me in the sentiments expressed here”). She delivers more yada yada yada (”One of my man enduring and endearing memories of Scooter is of his universal love of families…”; “…which required not only long but also intense and often off-site work at the so-called ‘undisclosed secure locations’…. And when the little ones finally trotted off to bed happy and full of candy and stories, Scooter went back to work, as was always the case, late into the night.”). Really, read the whole thing, especially the paragraph beginning “My lifelong view…”. It’s bathos on stilts. Clemency, she/they conclude, would mitigate the “additional devastation to them and the many other children who love Scooter.”

Notes: Because of the many children who love Scooter, Fred Hiatt is said to be penning an editorial: “Yes, Virginia, There Is an I. Lewis Libby.”

I’ve been thinking of changing the name of this blog to Anonymous Source; as far as I can tell my from my site stats, this blog is as close to anonymity as you can imagine. It’s your loss, of course. Every so often I have something useful to say, and, as it is right now, I’m the only one who knows about it.

For instance, here’s a little bit of trivia for you: The Washington Post, which you may read in its entirety on pressdisplay.com is different from the website washingtonpost.com. Many (I would guess nearly all) political bloggers on both sides of the aisle read wapo.com, and figure they got all the important stuff, so who needs to shell out the $9.95 a month?

“Ah,” as my friend P. Hamlet used to say, “there’s the rub.” Like this blog, the Washington Post occasionally has something useful to say, and you may well miss it on washingtonpost.com.

For instance, I found this graphic on page A6 to be very useful. Yes, there is a link to it on washingtonpost.com, but it’s nothing like the 2 page spread in the Washington Post.

For your convenience, here’s a pressdisplay link that you may find useful above, debunking some of the rightwing talking points we tend to hear.

TPM:

Fox News analysts all agree: Libby verdict flawed, no underlying crime.

Remember kids: it’s never wise to take joy in the suffereing of others, even if their sufferering makes you feel tingly all over.

Often I like to play a guessing game. What stories are the right-wing blogs going to cover today? And when there are stories like this one, the question becomes: how are they going to try to knock it down?

Basically, the narrative in the linked article is that Republican Representative Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici tried to pressure US prosecutor David Iglesias to indict Democrats in an effort to influence Wilson’s House race. And, when he didn’t play ball they had him fired. It appears that this wasn’t a unique case, and that politics was involved in replacing one US attorney with a buddy of Karl Rove and may have been involved in replacing another who successfully convicted Republican Representative Duke Cunningham.

Four of the US attorneys who were let go are scheduled to speak before Congress this coming Tuesday. And, they’ll be naming names.

My first assumption would be that the Right Wing Noise machine has got some work to do. Surprisingly, they appear to be ignoring the story. Are they assuming that the narrative is too complicated for Joe Q. Sixpack? Using elected office to reward friends and punish enemies isn’t that tricky a story. I’m just saying I’m surprised.

The usual suspects (NRO, Malkin, Instapundit, Cap’n Ed, Powerline) are following Drudge’s lead and taking a hard look at Hillary Clinton’s surpressed college thesis.

There’s also the story about Jerry Zucker taking on the Wilson/Plame saga as a movie project. It’s newsworthy, but not enough so to overshadow the other Wilson (Heather). It does give the Powerbreathers a chance to regurgitate White House talking points on the Plame affair, though. See how many you can find:

We now know that the White House didn’t leak Plame’s name, the State Department (Richard Armitage) did. And the leak evidently wasn’t illegal, since no one was prosecuted for it. And the CIA, far from being a right-wing bogeyman, has been complicit in the Wilson/Plame farce from the beginning: sending the unqualified and politically-motivated Joe Wilson to Niger at his wife’s urging, not signing him to a confidentiality agreement, not even getting a written report from him, referring the “outing” of desk employee Plame for criminal investigation, etc. No doubt the truth about the Plame matter will be as AWOL from the movie as it is from Variety’s blurb. On the bright side, the idea that any substantial number of people want to sit through a movie about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson strikes me as a fantasy.

I wanted to catch at least a glimpse of the Libby trial. So, I snuck out at lunch time and caught this part of the defense closing argument. I thought it was pretty interesting. Basically, in the following Wells is trying to explain why he argued that there was a conspiracy within the White House when his client was charged with perjury:

Wells: … they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Fitz: Dammit!
Walton: What?
Fitz: He’s using the Chewbacca Defense!
Wells: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a chief of staff for the Vice President, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

I was reading over Justin Rood’s breathy review of the Plame press conference this morning when I realized that if an alien from a foreign planet were reading this blog, and for all I know one is, the alien would get the impression that we’re merely star struck over the Wilson-Plame’s. That the Wilsons are our version of Brangelina. While I like to celeb-watch as much as the next hippopotamus, there’s some actual substance to the interest in Plame and Wilson.

So, here’s why I think it’s important that Plame is suing Scooter, Shooter, and Rove. I was reminded of much of this watching Bush’s Brain for the 3rd or 4th time last night.

• Karl Rove is a bully of the first magnitude. He has ruined lives and careers. And never once did he suffer consequences for his actions.
• Let’s leave aside the legal issues for a second. It’s not okay to use the power of elected office to smear political opponents. I’d call it un-American.
• Wilson/Plame vs. Cheney, Rove, et al is a reminder that we need not take abuse lying down. The sight of a David slaying a Goliath reminds us that we all have, for lack of a better expression, an inner David.

I noticed this post by Anonymous Liberal linking Suskind’s One Percent Doctrine with Cheney’s rationale for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, that’s not what Suskind says.

The One Percent Doctrine is a general rhetorical framework for justifying a broad range of (IMO Orwellian) Executive branch activities.

Suskind gives a more specific reason for the Iraq invasion: (p. 123)

“The primary impetus for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings on the Gulf in this period, was to make an example of Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States.

“In Oval Office meetings, the President would often call Iraq a “game changer.” More specifically, the theory was the United States- with a forceful action against Hussein- would change the rules of geopolitical analysis and action for countless other countries.”

This is the first text (at least that I’m aware of) that expresses the view that Iraq was primarily about a show of power. Reminiscent, I would say, of Cheney’s role in the Plame affair. By that I mean that the response to Wilson’s article was out of proportion not because Scooter was hot around the collar, it was out of proportionby intent. It was a demonstration to administration critics that if they go public their lives and careers will be ruined. It was a show of power.

I think it’s funny how different people react under stressful situations. For instance, Cheney gets handed a copy of Joe Wilson’s OpEd What I Did Not Find In Africa. He learns that former Ambassador Wilson had visited Niger on behalf of the CIA, and had concluded that Iraq was not trying to buy uranium from Niger. Furthermore, a copy of his report should have made its way to the office of the Vice President.

Cheney’s reaction, we learn is this: (WaPo)

“Have they done this sort of thing before?” Cheney wrote. “Send an amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?”

I clearly don’t have the same response mechanisms that the VP has. My first reaction would be: “How come I wasn’t copied on Wilson’s report? Did anyone follow up?” At that point I would have put my pen down for a moment. And swallowed hard. After pausing to wipe the cold sweat from my brow, I would have picked up my pen again. “Dear God,” I would write. “Any chance we misunderstood the threat Iraq posed? Could we have got the whole WMD story wrong? Please tell me that we didn’t put lives at stake without just cause.”

Again, if it were me, and the answer to the last question was in the affirmative, I would have typed out my letter of resignation along with an apology to the American people and nailed it to my desk.

I just think that Cheney and I have different response mechanisms, that’s all.

Update: For folks that live out of town, the Express is a free publication put out by the Washington Post. They run a bloglog column by Mike Glass, who was kind enough to quote me.