reality-based educator

Trouble in paradise for the Bush administration. Time magazine (via Think Progress and AmericaBlog) has a scoop in the CIA leak case that ought to bring Rovegate back to the front pages just in time to ruin the preznit's summer vacation and send the administration rats scurrying for cover in Crawford, Texas (through the use of anonymous leaks, of course!):

"As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.

When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on." --By Massimo Calabresi. With reporting by Timothy J. Burger, Michael Duffy and Viveca Novak

Remember, Rove's alibi is that he never heard of Valerie Plame until somebody in the press told him who she was (though he can't remember which member of the press this was). But Time says after the Pincus article ran on June 12th, a "general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others about Wilson's trip and its origins" ensued.

How could the "others" discussing the Wilson matter in June 2003 not include the preznit's main political operative, Karl Rove? How could Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney, as members of the National Security Council, not be involved in Operation Smear Wilson as well?

This could be serious trouble for the administration. If Time's report is true and special prosecutor Fitzgerald has the administration conspiring to smear Wilson as early as June 12th and then lying about it to the FBI and/or the grand jury, there are going to be a whole lot of frog-marches going in the White House come October when the grand jury ends.

And perjury just might be the least of the charges.

From The Associated Press:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Five U.S. soldiers were killed by roadside bombs in two separate incidents in Baghdad, the U.S. military said Sunday.

In the first attack Saturday around 1:40 p.m., a patrol hit a roadside bomb in the southern Dora neighborhood, killing a soldier from Task Force Baghdad, a statement said. Two others were wounded in that incident.

Later that evening, around 11 p.m., four Task Force Baghdad soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb exploded in southwestern Baghdad.

The names of all the soldiers killed are being withheld pending notification of next of kin...

...The violence continued Sunday when a car bomb exploded south of Baghdad, killing five civilians and wounding 10, including two policemen. The bomb targeted a police vehicle as it was passing on a main road near the town of Haswa, 30 miles south of Baghdad, said police Capt. Muthanna Khaled Ali.

A day earlier, roadside bombs killed two British contractors in southern Iraq and at least seven people in the capital. The Britons, who worked for the security firm Control Risks Group, were guarding a British consulate convoy in Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad. Two Iraqi children were wounded when a second device exploded five minutes later, police said."

5 dead American soldiers doesn't even merit a mention on the NY Times or the Washington Post websites. I guess the "5 dead American soldiers" story is so played out now after two+ years of war that they don't even bother covering these kinds of stories prominently anymore. The insurgent attacks have to be spectacular in Iraq and the numbers of dead and wounded high or the news media yawns at the incidents.

I'd bet the families of those 5 Americans aren't yawning. I'd also bet the families of the slaughtered Iraqi civilians aren't yawning. Nor the families of the two British contractors killed by a roadside bomb blast.

But instead of covering these stories and getting pictures and video to send home showing just what a mess it is in Iraq, the NY Times and the Washington Post both have stories about how the "lame-duck" preznit isn't so lame-duck anymore, what with the passage of CAFTA and pork-laden highway and energy bills this week. And the Washington Post goes down on Condi Rice with a "What an improvement Condi is over Colin Powell at the State Dept." story that actually made me wretch in my coffee this morning.

But no stories about the deaths in Iraq. No stories about how the Bush administration blocked the release of more Abu Ghraib photos on July 22, 2005 that a judge had ordered under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU and others which show Iraqi children being raped at Abu Ghraib as well as other incidents of torture and abuse perpetrated at the hands of U.S. personnel which Donald Rumsfeld himself called "inhumane." No stories about the impending civil war in Iraq and what's going to happen to that country after the U.S. starts pulling out in 2006.

Instead we get suck-up stories from the press about how great Condi is and how resilient the preznit is (apparently because his "stubbornness" pays off in the end.)

No wonder these motherfuckers have gotten away with starting a war for bullshit reasons, screwing up the entire "post-Mission Accomplished" phase through sheer stupidity and arrogance, leaking a covert CIA operative's name for partisan gain, ramming through Congress laws that entrench more and more power and in the hands of astronomically rich corporations and the investment class while squeezing ordinary workers for every nickel, dime, and job benefit they have, and allowing malignant corporations like ExxonMobil to run U.S environmental policy while the effects from global warming become more and more serious in the world (2005 is on pace to be the hottest year ever!!!)

But these bastards send out Frank Lunzt, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlet and the rest of the Party Propagandists to muddy the waters on any negative story on the White House and so we get stories where the New York Times and The Washington Post perform blowjobs on the administration instead of holding them accountable for the mistakes (or crimes!!!).

There's much talk this morning about how the preznit is back on a roll after getting Congress to pass CAFTA, a highway bill, an energy bill, and a bill shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits this week. Plus Bush plans to recess appoint John Bolton to the UN despite the opposition of the Senate and the fact that Bolton didn't tell the truth on his Senate disclosure form.

A good week for the preznit and the Republican Party, right?

Maybe. But maybe not.

I'm not so sure all those Republicans, some of whom were on record as opposing CAFTA, will find it so easy to defend that vote come 2006 midterm election-time. Only 15 of 202 House Democrats voted for the trade agreement while 202 Republicans voted for it. Some of those Republicans, like Robin Hayes of North Carolina, voted "no" on the agreement before having their arms twisted by the Republican leadership to change their votes. Republican congressmen from the south and the midwest may have a particularly difficult time explaining why a free trade agreement so heavily supported Intel, Microsoft, and Pfizer is more important to the country than a livable wage for the working class.

The energy bill is also rife with problems. The Washington Post reports this morning that the bill has been "turned into a pinata of perks for the energy industry...The bill exempts oil and gas industries from some clean water laws, streamlines permits for oilwells and power lines on public lands, and helps the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. One obscure provision would repeal a Depression-era law that has prevented consolidation of public utilities, potentially transforming the nation's electricity markets." Consumer advocates particularly fear that the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935 will "trigger a flurry of mergers and acquisitions by banks, oil firms and even foreign countries, leading to increased rates and Enron-style frauds."

Increased energy rates and Enron-style fraud? Sounds like another victory for the preznit and the Republican party that they can proudly run on in 2006!

Now the pork-laden highway bill that was approved by the House 412-8 and contains money for every Congessional district in the nation is a winner for the preznit (even though he had threatened to veto the bill because it was loaded with so much budget-busting pork projects). But I'd bet both parties get to crow about the highway bill come 2006, so that's pretty much a wash.

And the bill shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits? Not sure about that one. The NRA people are ecstatic about the bill's passage, of course, but they already vote pretty overwhelmingly Republican, so I guess the victory here for the preznit and his party is just bringing home the bacon for the base.

And Bolton? I am starting to get the feeling that if Bush recess appoints Bolton to the UN, Democrats will successfully argue that it's another example of Bush's arrogance, contempt for the opposition, and inability to work with others. Even Republicans like Trent Lott and Pat Roberts are on record saying a recess appointment is a bad idea. In addition, recess appointing Bolton may throw a wrench into the John Roberts Supreme Court proceedings. Democrats are much more likely to filibuster Roberts if Bush bypasses them on Bolton and a few Republicans may also be sympthetic to that cause.

So a good week for the preznit and the Republican Party? Perhaps. But remember, sometimes when you get what you wish for - like CAFTA, an energy bill that allows mergers and acquisitions in the industry and almost certainly means higher energy rates in the future, and a recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN - you rue your "victories" later on down the line.

From Gallup:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds a decline in George W. Bush's job approval rating. After standing at 49% approval in the prior two CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted this month, now just 44% of Americans say they approve of Bush, a new low mark for the president. The poll also shows a drop in Bush's favorable rating to 48%, which is the first time it has dropped below 50% since Gallup began tracking this opinion in 1999. Four in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, which is essentially unchanged from early July. The poll shows continued positive momentum for the Democratic Party in terms of national party identification and ratings of the two major political parties, both of which were evident before the drop in Bush approval occurred.

The July 25-28 Gallup Poll finds 44% of Americans approving and 51% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. Bush's prior low approval rating was 45%, which occurred once in March and once again in June of this year. ..

...Even while Bush's ratings are falling, other core Gallup ratings show more stability.

* For example, 40% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and 58% are dissatisfied. In early July, 42% were satisfied and 57% dissatisfied.

* Ratings of the national economy also show little change. In early July, 36% said economic conditions were excellent or good and 18% said poor. Thirty-five percent said the economy was getting better and 54% said worse. Now, 32% rate the economy as excellent or good (23% as poor) and 35% say it is getting better and 53% say getting worse.

* While the Iraq war could be responsible the general descent into the mid-to-high 40% approval range for Bush over the last two years, there has been little change in the public's views on Iraq in recent polls to suggest it is behind Bush's current rating. The July 22-24 poll showed fewer Americans (46%) calling the war in Iraq "a mistake" than did so in June (53%).

Democrats Faring Better

Recent Gallup Polls have shown growing positive momentum for the Democratic Party, even while Bush's ratings were somewhat higher. For example, the July 22-24 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 52% of Americans rating the Democratic Party favorably, while just 46% give a favorable rating to the Republican Party. When the question was last asked in April, each party was rated favorably by 50% of Americans.

Additionally, Gallup has observed a consistent edge for the Democrats in terms of national party identification in its recent polls. In the current poll, 33% say they are Democrats, 28% Republicans, and 37% independents. This is the fourth consecutive poll in which Democrats have outnumbered Republicans in Gallup Polls...

...For comparison's sake, the party identification averages were evenly divided in Gallup Polls conducted in the first half of 2005 (34% Republican and 33% Democratic) and in all of 2004 (34% Republican and 34% Democratic). "

Huh. Bush gets his lowest Gallup poll approval rating ever while Democrats are rising in popularity and identification. With all the carping this week about the preznit's victories on CAFTA, the highway bill, the energy bill, and his Supreme Court nominee, I was under the impression Bush had his "mandate" back.

But I guess not.

Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, doesn't want to hold hearings into whether the Bush administration manipulated pre-war Iraq intelligence because it would embarrass the preznit. Gee, what a surprise! The Boston Globe has the story:

"WASHINGTON -- For eight months, the Senate Intelligence Committee has made little effort to pursue its long-promised probe into whether the Bush administration intentionally misconstrued intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war -- an investigation that would have delved into whether White House aides tried to put pressure on CIA analysts.

The revelation that Karl Rove, a White House political adviser, leaked information about a CIA operative to discredit her husband's complaints about President Bush's use of intelligence has focused new attention on the relationship between the White House and CIA. But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has shown no signs of moving ahead with its investigation.

Pat Roberts, chairman of the committee, vowed last year that soon after the presidential election was over, his panel would examine whether Bush or his top aides misled the public about prewar intelligence, or pressured CIA agents to make a stronger case for invading Iraq. But since then, the Intelligence Committee has made no measurable progress on the investigation. Instead, Roberts has offered vague public promises of picking up the key pieces of the probe at some point but has warned that other more pressing matters must be dealt with first...

...The failure of the committee to act has taken on renewed importance in recent weeks, as the criminal investigation of an administration leak that revealed the identity of undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson has widened to implicate Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. On Monday, Democrats called for a special congressional probe into the leak, including Rove's and Libby's conversations with reporters.

Libby was particularly involved in helping the administration make a case to topple Saddam Hussein. He coordinated Cheney's efforts to seek out information directly from CIA analysts and was part of a group of administration neoconservatives that relied heavily on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi, who was once Washington's choice to replace Hussein, and the Iraqi National Congress.

Though an investigation of the uses of prewar intelligence would not cover the leaking of Plame Wilson's name -- that occurred after the invasion of Iraq -- it could shed light on whether members of the administration took other actions to suppress or discredit opposing views.

Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said in February that the committee's investigation of the administration's use of intelligence is 'on the back burner,' and said in April that other issues have more urgent claims on the committee's attention.

In an interview last week, Roberts said portions of the promised investigation have proceeded, including an examination of intelligence that led the Bush administration to conclude that Iraq would be relatively easy to handle after Hussein was ousted from power.

But Roberts added that committee members remain at odds over how to judge public prewar statements made by members of the Bush administration and Congress. Many of the more than 400 such statements compiled by the committee are now known to have been based on faulty intelligence, and that could explain why the statements turned out to be misleading, Roberts said.

Some Democrats merely want to call attention to the statements to embarrass Bush and his top aides, Roberts said, and he sees no use in treading that ground when the committee could better concentrate its resources on future threats.

''So what do you do with that?' Roberts asked. ''What have we gained other than the political objective of saying this administration issued the intelligence? Look in the front window. Don't look in the back and pick off somebody's comment that some senator or somebody in the administration said and say, 'Gee, had that person known, he wouldn't have said that.'

But Rockefeller and other Democrats say that differing opinions on how to handle public statements is not a legitimate reason to hold up the investigation. Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the fact that there has been no investigation of the misuse of intelligence means US policy may still be based on mistaken conclusions.

''A year and a half later, there's still no report, no conclusions, no accountability for the mistakes, and no way to be sure they won't be repeated,' said Kerry. ''This is just further evidence of a pattern by this White House and the Republicans in Congress to stop at nothing to discredit their critics and silence the tough questions before they get asked.'

The dispute over the committee's investigation goes back to last June, when it completed a report criticizing the intelligence gathering and analysis of the CIA and other agencies, citing errors that contributed to the mistaken belief by top US government officials that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

But over the objections of Democrats, the committee declined to address questions of how Bush and his top aides used the intelligence. Roberts said those questions would be answered in a second phase of the committee's investigation, to begin shortly after the election to avoid the appearance of political motives in the investigation. That investigation, however, has not been pursued.

Now the revelations of Rove's and Libby's roles in leaking information about Plame Wilson's identity -- the subject of a federal criminal probe -- has raised the possibility that officials sought to exact retribution against someone who openly criticized intelligence that was a crucial underpinning of the case for war."

Yeah, Roberts is too busy to look into whether the Bush administration misled the nation about prewar intelligence or hounded the CIA into making a stronger case for invading Iraq. You see, Roberts has to look into whether the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, is politically motivated to get Bush.

Never mind that Fitzgerald was apppointed by Bush to his position as US attorney in Chicago. Never mind that Fitzgerald has gone after both Republicans and Democrats in the Windy City and has lately incurred the wrath of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley for having the temerity to indict officials inside of Daley's administration. Never mind that Fitzgerald has registered as an "Independent" and has taken special care to appear completely apolitical in his role as prosecutor.

Never mind all that. He's going after the preznit's top aides on possible treason, perjury, obstruction, and conspiracy charges and Roberts cannot have his preznit embarrassed. So Pat Roberts, water carrier for the White House, is going to take on Patrick Fitzgerald.

Good luck, Senator Roberts. Knowing just a little about Patrick Fitzgerald, I suspect the special prosecutor eats little fucking spinheads like you for dinner. But if you want to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars looking into why Fitzgerald is investigating the CIA leak case instead of looking into why the Bush administration pressured the CIA to support the Iraq war on bullshit intelligence, so be it.

Remember, Senator Roberts, you're not going to run the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence forever. And when somebody from the other party takes over with subpoena power, he or she can look into whether the Bushies manipulated prewar intelligence for political reasons and whether any Senate Republicans helped.

And then the fun begins and the spin ends.

From the "No Fucking Kidding" File (Via the Associated Press):

"WASHINGTON -- An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.

Planning for reconstruction should match the serious planning that goes into making war, said the panel headed by Samuel Berger and Brent Scowcroft. Berger was national security adviser to Democratic President Clinton. Scowcroft held the same post under Republican Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush but has been critical of the current president's Iraq and Mideast policies.

'A dramatic military victory has been overshadowed by chaos and bloodshed in the streets of Baghdad, difficulty in establishing security or providing essential services, and a deadly insurgency,' the report said.

'The costs, human, military and economic, are high and continue to mount,' said the report, which was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent foreign policy group.

Two years after a stunning three-week march on Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi military forces have been unable to secure and rebuild the country, and reconstruction has fallen victim to a lack of security, the report said...

...The report said the critical miscalculation of Iraq war-planning was the conclusion that reconstruction would not require more troops than the invasion itself.

Not only are more troops needed but they should be trained for postwar duty, the task force said.

In Iraq, the task force said, postwar requirements did not get enough attention, and there were misjudgments, as well. This, the report said, "left the United States ill-equipped to address public security, governance and economic demands" after the war.

And this, in turn, undermined U.S. foreign policy and gave an early push to the insurgency in Iraq, the task force said.

In Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, the report said, the postwar period has been marked by inefficient operations and billions of dollars of wasted resources."

In response to the report, Senator Pat Roberts is opening an investigation into the Council on Foreign Relations to see if their relations "really qualify as being, you know, foreign" while RNC Chairman/confirmed bachelor/Bush administration apologist Ken Mehlman said today that both Sandy Berger and Brent Scowcroft are traitors to the nation who are aiding and abetting the enemy by criticizing Our Great Leader in his "crusade on terror".

Isn't it great living in George W.'s America?

POSTSCRIPT: I made up the quotations from Pat Roberts and Ken Mehlman. One reader of this blog thought they were real. The problem is, many of the administration apologists and/or Republican Party members say so many outrageous things that even the craziest sounds real. Think Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who recently suggested the United States should bomb Islam's holy sites if the U.S. is attacked again by terrorists. You wouldn't think that's a real quotation - but it is. So even stupid quotations like the ones I made up sound real in this day and age.

Unfortunately.

Many of the Republican apparatchiks who appear on the cable news and Sunday morning talk shows, led by RNC chairman/confirmed bachelor/Rovian protege Ken Mehlman, try to downplay the damage done in the Plame leak case by arguing that no crime was committed because Valerie Plame wasn't really a "covert" agent. Remember, under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative to someone without a security clearance. But if Plame wasn't really "covert," as the Bush administration's apologists have argued, then no crime was committed and we can all continue happily with the business of moving America forward into the 19th century.

The culmination of this "not covert" argument came Sunday when Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition that Valerie Plame's covert status was problematic because "driving back and forth to the CIA headquarters, I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert." Roberts, through his spokesperson, later went on to say that he would hold hearings into "the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities" to see if perhaps the CIA is too generous in handing out a "covert" status to its employees. Roberts' spokesperson also said that Roberts will "review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years."

On TPMcafe, former CIA agent (and Republican) Larry Johnson exposed the absurdity of Robert's argument that Plame couldn't be considered covert because she showed up to work at CIA headquarters every day:

"I guess Senator Pat Roberts believes that if he repeats a lie long enough it eventually becomes true. While it is one thing for a political bag carrier like Ken Mehlman to be woefully ignorant about CIA practices and procedures, it is downright alarming that Senator Roberts can be so misinformed. Today, while appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Roberts repeated the specious claim that Valerie Plame could not be undercover because she went to work everyday at CIA Headquarters.

Folks, there is no excuse for this level of incompetence. There are thousands of undercover CIA employees who drive through the three gates at CIA Headquarters in McLean, Virginia everyday. And this Senator from Kansas who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee has the audacity to blame CIA for intelligence failures? How can he recognize failures when he does not even understand the very simple basics about people who work undercover at CIA. He should spend more time reading up on the CIA and less time memorizing Ken Mehlman talking points."

Today, we get more evidence that Valerie Plame was indeed considered a "covert" agent by the CIA. In a front page article in The Washington Post, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow says that he testified before the grand jury last year that he spoke with journalist Robert Novak in the days before Novak outed Plame as a covert CIA operative in a column for the Chicago Sun-Times. Harlow says he "warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about her, her name should not be revealed." Harlow then checked Plame's status after his discussion with Novak and "confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

We have two CIA employees, including the former CIA spokesman, saying Plame was "covert" while Pat Roberts, Ken Mehlman, David Brooks, Bill Safire, Tucker Carlson, Congressman Peter King (R-NY), and other administration apologists argue that she wasn't "covert enough". Now let's ask a simple question: what if a Clinton administration official had revealed Plame's identity to a journalist as political payback instead of Bush administration officials committing this act? What would Pat Roberts, Ken Mehlman, David Brooks, Bill Safire, Tucker Carlson, Peter King and the rest be saying?

Simple: they would be saying that people in the Clinton administration had placed partisan politics above national security and somebody needed to be held accountable for it. And they would be right. Just as the people who today demand that the senior administration officials responsible for the leaking of Plame's name for partisan gain be held accountable for placing politics above national security are right.

Remember, it is not for Pat Roberts, Ken Mehlman, David Brooks, Bill Safire, Tucker Carlson, Peter King or any other Bush administration apologist to decide who gets "covert" CIA status. Only the CIA decides that.

POSTSCRIPT: As Josh Marshall has noted at Talkingpointsmemo.com, Pat Roberts wouldn't allow the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to look into the origins of the Niger document forgeries which allowed the Bush administration to argue in the first place that Saddam was attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Roberts' reasoning was thus: the FBI was looking into the matter and Roberts didn't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation. Yet now Roberts is happy to probe Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame leak case while it is still ongoing! Obviously Roberts received his orders from the White House that Fitzgerald's investigation must be discredited in case Fitzgerald comes down with indictments of senior officials like Rove and Libby. So Roberts will attempt to paint Fitzgerald's investigation as political hackery, just the way the administration (and Roberts in the SSCI report on the Niger controversy) attempted to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson as a political partisan who got his job through nepotism. As Craig Crawford told Keith Olbermann on Countdown

"This is the politics of distraction. If you don't want to meet the merits of a charge, then just attack somebody else. It's what's happened with this effort to discredit Joe Wilson. It's what got them into trouble in the first place, and here they are doing it again. But if you spot the critics of Joe Wilson everything they want to say about him and his wife, it doesn't change the fact that the CIA basically launched an investigation of the White House for leaking an undercover agent's identity. None of that changes no matter what you say about Joe Wilson." (MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/25)

And since the Bush administration apologists can't meet the merits of the charges against Rove, Libby, et al., they attack and attack and attack. But none of that will matter if Fitzgerald comes down with indictments.

Or convictions.

From USATODAY/CNN/Gallup:

"• For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the central justification given for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003 after stores of the weapons weren't found.

• By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq, similar to the results when the question was asked in April 2004.

• About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory.

Still, on the question designed to test fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January."

Okay, let me get this straight - a majority of Americans believe Bush misled us into a war that we either can't or won't win, yet a majority of Americans also say it wasn't a mistake to start the war in the first place.

Who are these fucking people? How stupid are they? You mean to say someone conned you into something you can't win and you still think the con was a good idea?

Jesus fucking Christ, no wonder Bush was able to bamboozle the public in two elections. Americans are possibly the dumbest fucking people on the face of the earth. Maybe if people stopped watching so much fucking "reality" televison and started to read something other than USA Today, they wouldn't be so easily manipulated by Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the Republican apparatchiks!

Senator Pat Roberts told Wolf "That's A Serious Allegation" Blitzer yesterday on CNN's Late Edition that Valerie Plame couldn't be a "covert" agent because she "drives back and forth to CIA headquarters" and "I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert."

Former CIA agent Larry Johnson, a colleague of Valerie Plame's and a Republican, tells us that "there are thousands of undercover CIA employees who drive through the three gates at CIA headquarters in McClean, Virginia everyday." Now how is it that Senator Pat Roberts, who is after all the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, doesn't know that even top secret "covert" agents train and/or work out of CIA headquarters in Virginia? Amazing. Perhaps Senator Roberts is too stupid to be chairman of such an important committee?

Or is Senator Roberts just trying to muddy the waters for his White House masters on the Plame case? Remember, it is not for either the White House or Pat Roberts to decide if Valerie Plame was covert or not. It is also not for Robert Novak, David Brooks, or Ken Mehlman to decide that designation either.

It is for the CIA to decide whether Plame was covert or not and they did indeed designate her a "covert agent" when they referred the Plame leak case to the Department of Justice.

So Pat Roberts and the rest of the apparatchiks for the White House need to shut the fuck up about Plame not being covert and start asking really important questions - like why the White House put its own political interests ahead of national security and why most of the Republican Party seems to be willing to provide excuses and bullshit rationales for Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other members of the Bush administration who have certainly acted unethically and may in fact have broken obstruction, perjury, conspiracy, and/or classified disclosure laws?

POSTSCRIPT: Roberts, who promised a post-election investigation into the possible political manipulation of pre-war intelligence, has since decided there isn't sufficient time to hold such an investigation. Roberts is going to hold an investigation into whether the CIA hands out to many "covert" designations to its employees however. That's Pat Roberts, for you - purveyor of the No Bush Administration Political Need Left Behind Act (2001-2008).

From The New York Times:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 23 - They just keep getting stronger.

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever.

After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad.

And the insurgents are choosing their targets with greater precision, and executing and dramatizing their attacks with more sophistication than they have in the past.

American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.

But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.

'We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents,' said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. 'But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge.'

At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government 27 months ago.

The danger is that the violence could overwhelm the intensive American-backed efforts now under way to draw Iraq's Sunni Arabs into the political mainstream, leaving the community more embittered than ever and setting the stage for even more violence and possibly civil war.

And then, just in case you think the New York Times is highlighting the "bad news" in Iraq while ignoring the "good", here's some more recent bad news that shows just how dangerous and chaotic Iraq is right now:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A suicide attacker slammed a truck loaded with explosives into concrete barriers outside a Baghdad police station Sunday, killing at least 20 people and wounding 30, police said.

The attacker detonated his charge at the Rashad police station in the eastern neighborhood of Mashtal around 2:50 p.m., said Capt. Mahir Abdul Satar.

Six cars, including two police cars, were seen burning and several nearby shops were damaged, police officials said. The blast left a giant, blackened crater at the scene.

Body parts lay scattered around the area as firefighters worked to extinguish the blaze and rescue workers carried away victims on stretchers.

Insurgents have regularly targeted Iraq's police and security forces in attempts to further destabilize the country, which has been struggling to put together a new constitution and broad-based government."

The political situation in Iraq doesn't seem to be doing any better than the security situation:

"Members of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's bloc threatened Sunday to walk out of the constitutional drafting committee in support of a Sunni group that boycotted the process.

Committee member Adnan al-Janabi, who also is part of secular leader Allawi's eight-member bloc, criticized the way the commission dealt with Sunni members' decision to suspend their participation in drafting the new charter.

'Their demands and suspension of membership should have been studied and taken in a way that reassures them and brings them to participate in the draft constitution that we want to be agreed upon by all Iraqis,' he said.

Al-Janabi, who also is a spokesman for Allawi's group, said the bloc's continued participation remains in question.

'Our continuation in the committee drafting the constitution has become dependent on getting clarifications to what we have asked earlier,' al-Janabi said.

The mixed makeup of the committee was deemed crucial for drafting a constitution acceptable to all of Iraq's ethnic and religious communities, a key to any political exit from the unremitting violence and the need for American troops to remain in Iraq.

If Allawi's secular group joins the Sunnis in pulling out of the process, it raises the concern that a committee already dominated by Shiite religious parties and ethnic Kurds would be left in control of drafting the charter.

Al-Janabi also expressed anger over commission chairman Sheik Humam Hammoudi's announcement that a draft would be ready within days, saying it was 'a draft that we were not consulted about and I don't know how it was written or who wrote it.'

On Thursday, the 12 remaining Sunni members of the commission suspended their participation to protest the assassination of Sunni member Mijbil Issa and adviser Dhamim Hussein al-Obeidi by unknown gunmen. Two of the original 15 Sunni members resigned earlier after insurgents threatened them.

The Sunni members demanded an international investigation into the killings, better security and a greater Sunni role in deliberations.

On Sunday, no Sunni members showed up at a planned constitutional meeting even though the group indicated a day earlier it was considering a possible return.

Shiite member Bahaa al-Araji said no decision will be taken 'without the presence of the brothers (Sunnis) unless there is a reason for the absence. Therefore, the committee will be committed to handing over the draft at the time agreed upon.'

The threatened walkout by Allawi's group is the latest hurdle in the commission's goal of getting a constitution drafted and approved by the assembly Aug. 15. That charter then would be scheduled for a public referendum two months later.

Voters in only three of Iraq's 18 provinces can scuttle the constitution if they reject it by two-thirds majority in the October referendum."

If you are reading the news reports from the Associated Press and The New York Times, it seems the only thing that has been "mostly eliminated" in Iraq these days is any chance of success. But the administration repeatedly hums the line that "times are tough but we're making progress" and points to how more people in Iraq are using cell phones and the Internet now than during Saddam's reign as signs that life is better in post-Saddam Iraq. And yet on average, 800 Iraqis a month are dying in suicide bomb incidents or other insurgent attacks. This is the progress? This is better?

Recent polls show that the administration's "progress" line is growing stale with the American people, but most Americans want to keep troops in Iraq until the "mission is completed".
I want to keep troops in Iraq too because I think to completely pull out now would create a horrible bloodbath and such grave political instability that the current Iraqi government wouldn't survive. But how long is it going to take us to "complete the mission" in Iraq to where we can start to bring the troops home?

The current political and security situation tells me that whatever "progress" we have made in Iraq is becoming "regress". It is increasingly obvious that the Bush administration has so fucked up the post-war phase in Iraq that the mission can never be completed now. I don't know when a majority of Americans are going to come to similiar decisions, but it won't be long. Within six months or a year, if the political and security situations in Iraq don't improve, I think majorities of Americans are going to start to say "Bring 'em home."

// posted by Reality-Based Educator @ 10:26 PM 0 comments