Year: 2007

White House in Panic Mode as Iraqi Leaders Urge Citizens to Arm and Republicans Do the Same

Trish

You know it’s serious when Bush finally takes note. The last time something contrary to his dignitudish certitude penetrated the concrete and barbed wire around his shrunken brain was when Americans took Congressional control from Republicans in last year’s elections.

If he thinks he took a whuppin’ then, look out. Iraq’s chaos and Republicans’ inability to keep denying it have reached critical mass.

After a weekend that left hundreds dead and wounded, there’s one thing Iraq’s leaders agree on: their security forces are outgunned. They now suggest civilians take up the slack.

Isn’t the A.A. definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results? We are like, so there.

Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died today in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.

The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.

Things are so bad that some in Iraq are ready to stop pretending that what they have is a government.

Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government.

“The situation has become terribly bad,” al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. “All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not.”

Republicans in Congress are finally catching on. And they’re not happy.

ABC News has been told the White House is in “panic mode” over the recent defections of Republican senators on the president’s stay-the-course policy in Iraq…

The Republican defections are seen as “a crack in the dike,” according to the senior White House official, and National Security Adviser Steven Hadley is most concerned…

The source of all this concern is the reckoning about to come later this week, when Bush has to acknowledge just how bad things are, and how, even without Rumsfeld to blame, Bush just can’t get his Iraq act together.

A senior White House official told ABC News the report will be “mixed.” The White House does believe there has been progress on the security front in Iraq, but the political progress is obviously very bad.

One official familiar with the report said there are some bizarre categories under benchmark that say “satisfactory, nonsatisfactory and unsatisfactory”.

And yet, even with classifications like subsatisfactory, dissatisfactory, and freakin-bad-anti-satisfactory, Bush is unwilling to do anything different. Isn’t that the A.A. definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing and expect different results? We are like, so there.

Despite the report’s mixed conclusions about the president’s policy, senior White House officials told ABC News not to expect Bush to announce any kind of changes or new strategy.

Poll: Little Support for Bush and His Libby Commute, But Growing Support for Impeachmnent

Buck Banks

There’s some speculation that George Bush’s dismally low approval rating made it all that much easier for him to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence because, well, what did he have to lose? His vaunted “political capital?”

As Time’s Richard Lacayo sees it, it’s just another Bush promise that seemed to be broken — or was it?

George W. Bush once promised that anyone in his Administration who broke the law would “be taken care of.” At the time, he appeared to mean they would face the consequences of their actions. Then he took care of I. Lewis Libby, and all at once, his words assumed a somewhat different tone.

Semantics aside, National Journal’s PollTrack surveyed the surveys, and found that Scooter’s Get Out of Jail Card did not play with most Americans:

A 54-percent majority said they wanted to see the House move to impeach the vice president.

Just 31 percent of American Research Group respondents said they supported Bush’s move to commute Libby’s sentence. About double that number (64 percent) said they disapproved.

A full pardon would have been even less popular. Just 11 percent of respondents said they supported a “complete presidential pardon” for Libby; 84 percent opposed one. Seven in 10 Republicans said they were against a pardon; 82 percent of Democrats and a whopping 97 percent of independents said the same.

Earlier polls didn’t show much support for a pardon, either. Just two in 10 told FOX News/Opinion Dynamics pollsters two weeks ago that Bush should let Libby off the hook. Polls from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation and Gallup taken soon after the March 6 verdict found similarly low numbers.

Are we, as a nation, fed up enough with Bush and Cheney’s antics to demand they be impeached? Maybe:

The ARG survey also shows that some Americans want to put their disapproval of Bush into action. Forty-five percent of the total sample said they support the House starting impeachment proceedings against the president, including half of all self-described independents. Overall, 46 percent opposed it. Cheney’s numbers were even worse: A 54-percent majority said they wanted to see the House move to impeach the vice president, and four in 10 said they did not.

Nobody Wants to Join Bush’s Army

Trish

Like Bush’s poll numbers, the mystery is not why Army recruiting numbers are so low but how they manage to score at all. Who would sign on to this catastrophe?

Summer is traditionally the peak recruiting season. Army officials are now worried that July and August will be difficult as well, raising the possibility that the Army will miss its annual goal of 80,000 new recruits for fiscal year 2007

ABC News has learned the Army missed its recruiting goal in June for the second month in a row. It’s the first time in more than two years that the Army has missed recruiting goals for two consecutive months.

The figures are especially worrisome because the summer is traditionally the peak recruiting season. Army officials are now worried that July and August will be difficult as well, raising the possibility that the Army will miss its annual goal of 80,000 new recruits for fiscal year 2007, which ends on September 30…

The Army will officially release its June recruiting figures on Tuesday, but Pentagon officials tell ABC News the numbers are similar to May, when the Army recruited only 93 percent of its goal of signing up 5500 new recruits. The goal for June was 8,400. The last time the Army missed back-to-back monthly goals was April and May 2005.

The numbers will only get more difficult in the months ahead; to meet its annual recruiting goal, the Army will need to sign up more than 30,000 new recruits over the next three months.

Why Won’t Cindy Sheehan Just Shut Up and Go Away?

Buck Banks

Two months ago we thought we were rid of Cindy Sheehan, whose well-intentioned anti-war activities were rendered virtually meaningless by her own personality and her poorly chosen associations. In May Sheehan said she was quitting the peace movement and retreating from public life to mend her health and personal life.

Unfortunately, she’s back and yacking at the media again.

Now, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is threatening to challenge the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2008 elections unless Nancy Pelosi files articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush within the next two weeks. Ooh, I’ll bet Nancy’s just quaking in her Prada heels.

“I think all politicians should be held accountable,” Sheehan told The Associated Press on Sunday. “Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war.”

While Sheehan does have a point that the Democratic leadership has rendered the term “Democratic leadership” an oxymoron, the thought of Sheehan running for Pelosi’s seat in Congress is absurd. Granted, Pelosi has had her blond moments since becoming House speaker, but she has a track record that trumps Sheehan’s “name recognition,” which Sheehan says is her strong suit.

While I would never belittle Sheehan’s loss of her son or deny her right to protest against the war in Iraq, I think she would be doing the peace movement, the impeachment movement and all of us a favor if she would just quietly fade away. And stay away.

Nixon on Fred Thompson: “He’s Dumb as Hell”

Trish

Pres. Nixon didn’t want Fred Thompson as minority counsel during the Watergate hearings because he doubted the mental capacity of the future actor and lobbyist.

Nixon to Haldeman: “Oh shit, that kid!” Haldeman: “Well, we’re stuck with him.”

Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville and had managed Baker’s re-election campaign…

Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.” Nixon did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee’s Democratic counsel.

This assessment comes from audiotapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by the Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions published in Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes, by Stanley Kutler.

“Oh, s—, that kid,” Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson’s appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.

“Well, we’re stuck with him,” Haldeman said.

The two were concerned that Thompson would be outgunned by much brighter lawyer John Dean, who was ready to desert their sinking ship. Appealing to Thompson’s strong partisan side helped him focus and prepare for the questioning.

Dean, the panel’s star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew if he was granted immunity.

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.”

“Not extremely so,” [Nixon lawyer J. Fred] Buzhardt agreed.

“But he’s friendly,” Nixon said.

“But he’s friendly,” Buzhardt agreed. “We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination.”

Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the cross-examination.

“I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day,” Buzhardt said.

Later in the conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was “willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have to be as a Republican increasingly.”

That seems to be one lesson that got through Thompson’s thick skull and stuck.

Four Years Ago Today Leakin’ Libby Called Judith Miller

Trish

The record is set straight yet again, this time by Clarence Page. But for all those folks who continue to leave comments on this site disputing what Libby did, I doubt it will help.

Weeks before Novak reported Plame’s name in his July 14, 2003, column, Libby revealed Plame’s CIA job in meetings with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on June 23 and July 8

…Valerie Plame was a covert agent under the relevant 1982 law that makes it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert intelligence officer. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald cleared up that dispute in a memorandum during the sentencing phase of Libby’s trial. “It was clear from very early in the investigation,” he wrote, “that Ms. Wilson qualified under [the 1982 law] as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.”

…yes, Armitage did leak Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to report it to the public. But Armitage was not the first or the only leaker. Weeks before Novak reported Plame’s name in his July 14, 2003, column, Libby revealed Plame’s CIA job in meetings with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on June 23 and July 8. Novak also received confirmation of Armitage’s tip from Karl Rove, Bush’s senior political adviser. Rove also discussed Plame, without mentioning her name or covert status, with Matt Cooper, then of Time magazine…

Alas, Libby was snagged by a version of the old Watergate rule: It was not the initial “crime” but the cover-up that got him. Fitzgerald could not find enough evidence to meet the law’s high threshold of proof to prosecute the leak of Plame’s identity. Libby’s false statements did not help…

I sympathize with the public’s confusion about this. I blame the drumbeat from Libby’s supporters who don’t let facts get in the way of a lively argument. I thank the researchers at Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog site, for their assistance in helping me collect examples. They include:

– William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard on NBC’s “Today” show: “… I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame’s name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know …”

– Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a Republican presidential debate: “I think the sentence was way out of line, … grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was, and he knew a crime wasn’t committed.”

– Republican former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee in an ABC radio commentary: “The leaking of Valerie Plame’s name didn’t constitute a crime because she was not a ‘covered person’ under the relative criminal statue.”

And FYI, all you doubting posters. We really did land on the moon. And the Nazis purposefully killed millions of Jews in the 1930s and ’40s.

Are We Still in Iraq So Democrats Can Win?

Trish

Independent weekly columnist and author Hal Crowley was no doubt already working on this masterpiece when headlines proclaimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would — incredibly — not yet consider impeachment an option for either Bush or Cheney.

Crowther tries to MOVE US ALREADY from our collective inertia and the delusions we’ve accepted about what we have to lose by leaving Iraq (nothing) and by impeaching Bush/Cheney (nothing).

He also asks a damn good question.

The Bush administration is a cadaver decomposing on America’s doorstep—yet no one will take responsibility for it, no one will give it a decent burial, no one even has the courage to step over it and try to get on with a nation’s decent business.

Democrats are so desperate to win the presidency in 2008 that they refuse to relinquish their two most persuasive, most visible arguments for regime change

This is the president who cannot be resuscitated and cannot be removed. A lame duck is a thing we’ve dealt with before…A dead duck in the White House is a constitutional crisis no scholar ever anticipated and no think tank ever analyzed.

The president’s Memorial Day speech at Arlington was a crowning outrage, one that pushed many a patient, hopeful citizen over the edge into incoherent despair… “Now this hallowed ground receives a new generation of heroes,” he declaimed. “I hope you find comfort in knowing that your loved ones rest in a place even more peaceful than the fields that surround us here.”

…Hypocrisy of such concentrated toxicity seems almost superhuman. “Shame!” the dead cry, but in America, shame died years ago and lies buried in an unmarked grave, perhaps at Arlington…

As Baghdad disintegrated, body bags proliferated and his henchpersons’ interlocking scandals reverberated—as his approval rating scraped bottom near an historic 25 percent, meaning he’s squandered the trust of at least half the people who voted for him in 2004—President Bush faced no future but no certain reckoning. Can no one rid us of this albatross?

…Across the country, from Hawaii to Maine, 70-odd city councils and 14 state Democratic parties have voted to impeach both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney…But in Congress no one seems to have the stomach for the job.

[…]

Three Solid Sources: Valerie Wilson Was a Covert Agent When Team Cheney Outed Her

Jon Ponder
“I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.”
— Valerie Wilson, under oath, March 2007

Bashing their victims is a tried and true Republican tactic. Now, desperate to divert attention from suspicions that Pres. Bush petit-pardoned Scooter Libby to buy his silence on White House malfeasance, they’re doing it to Valerie Wilson — again.

Last week they trotted out the thoroughly debunked claim that Wilson was not covert at the time Team Cheney outed her. If her status was covert, the men who betrayed her identity — Richard Armitage, Karl Rove Scooter Libby and Ari Fleischer, under the direction of Vice Pres. Dick Cheney — could have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

Here are three solid sources that make it clear that Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent in July 2003:

[…]