White House Tries to Quell Anger Over Leak Claim

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, April 7 — The White House tried today to quell the furor over the leaking of sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq, as President Bush's spokesman insisted that any release of information was "in the public interest" rather than for political reasons.

The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said a decision was made to declassify and release some information to rebut "irresponsible and unfounded accusations" that the administration had manipulated or misused prewar intelligence to buttress its case for war.
"That was flat-out false," Mr. McClellan said.

Mr. McClellan was barraged at a news briefing by questions over assertions by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, that President Bush authorized him, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what was until then a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq.

At the time, the Pentagon had hardly finished basking in the easy military victory when it was caught up in questions over the failure to find deadly unconventional weapons in Iraq — the main rationale for going to war.

One of the findings in the prewar intelligence data was that Saddam Hussein was probably seeking fuel for nuclear reactors.

Mr. McClellan said the Democrats who pounced on Mr. Libby's assertions, contained in a court document filed on Wednesday, were "engaging in crass politics" in refusing to recognize the distinction between legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest and the irresponsible leaking of intelligence for political reasons.

Meanwhile, Democrats continued to assail the administration.

"This is a serious allegation with national security consequences," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said today on the Senate floor. "It directly contradicts previous statements made by President Bush, it continues a pattern of misleading by this Bush White House, and it raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with the Congress and the public."

Mr. Reid said it was time for the president to say whether, in fact, he authorized the disclosure of the prewar intelligence, as Mr. Libby said he had. "He must tell the American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the buck stops, or the leaks start," Mr. Reid said.

Mr. McClellan was in the somewhat odd position of not disputing that President Bush was involved in the disclosure of hitherto classified information, while describing any such disclosure as being in the public good.

Mr. McClellan, who has noted before that a president has the authority to declassify intelligence, said today that he was "not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding."

He was alluding to the trial of Mr. Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, on charges that Mr. Libby committed perjury and engaged in obstruction of justice in connection with an inquiry over who unmasked Valerie Wilson, an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, in the summer of 2003.
The unmasking occurred shortly after Ms. Wilson's husband, the former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times that he doubted reports that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger.

Some Democrats accused the White House at the time of destroying Ms. Wilson's cover to retaliate against her husband, but the White House repeatedly denied the accusations.

Mr. McClellan was asked today whether the president's own words at the time ("If there's a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is") and Mr. Libby's recent assertion demonstrated inconsistency, at best.

Not at all, Mr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" — a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.

Dems call on Bush to "come clean"

Dems name eight times Bush denied leak knowledge...

Getting the Money out of Politics

by Bill Moyers
A Culture of Corruption

Leaking

Atrios

There are a couple of different issues at play here. The first is, basically, is it an illegal act if the president violates on of his own executive orders? It's a somewhat metaphysical question, and absent an argument to the contrary I tend to think that the answer is "no" unless some statute is being violated as well.

However, that's not to say that violating your own executive orders is an appropriate thing to do.On the issue of document declassification I think the issues are fairly clear. There are well established processes for declassifying information which, in part, involve running the documents by people who supposedly should know whether revealing the information could harm national security or harm intelligence assets or whatever.

So, whatever legal right the president has to declassify information at will is separate from the issue of whether any competent president would go about doing such a thing. Whatever the legal issues, the president bypassed normal declassification procedures - put in place to ensure that revealing information does not threaten national security - in order to wage a political battle. Whether strictly legal or not, it's an act of a man who puts himself above the country. For shame.

Leaker in chief

latimes.com
From the Los Angeles Times
EDITORIAL
Leaker in chief

April 7, 2006



THE LATEST REVELATIONS in the investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame raise a question that every Sunday school student is familiar with: Can God make a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

For President Bush, the question is more like this: If information comes from the president, is it still a leak? And if that information is classified, by revealing it, has he declassified it? After all, the president has the legal power to declassify information. And a leak authorized by the president is — by most definitions, at least — not a leak, but an officially sanctioned release of public information.

The legal and political ramifications of the papers prosecutors filed late Wednesday in the case against former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby remain unclear. But if what Libby asserts is true, the president would be faced with an uncomfortable choice: He is either a leaker or a hypocrite.

In the filings, Libby says he was told by Vice President Dick Cheney that Bush had given presidential permission for Libby "to disclose certain information" to Judith Miller, then a reporter for the New York Times, about a classified prewar intelligence report. Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into who "outed" Plame.

The legal papers do not say exactly what Bush told Cheney, or what Cheney told Libby. And the administration is well within its rights to justify its policy in Iraq, which is what Libby was supposed to be doing when he was talking to Miller. It's entirely possible that Bush told Cheney to take the administration's case to the public, and that the vice president interpreted the mandate broadly, as is his wont. But he should have known, or the president should have told him, that such a mandate does not include the disclosure of classified information.

There also is the issue of Bush's numerous previous statements, now making their way across the Internet at the speed of a DSL line, about leaking. One of the most popular is from Sept. 30, 2003: "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Leave the legal issues about classified information and executive power to the constitutional scholars. The simpler question is whether Bush still believes, if he ever did, what he said in September 2003. If so, who in his administration needs to be taken care of?

The deception Bush can't spin

Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain -- and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous.
By Joe Conason

Apr. 07, 2006 If we are to believe the grand jury testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- as reported by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in court papers (PDF) -- then the president of the United States has been deceiving the country ever since the CIA leaks investigation began in 2003.

Compared with other deceptions that George W. Bush has perpetrated in the years since he promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, this one cannot be spun away as a misunderstanding, a "misunderestimate" or a mistake. From the moment that the Justice Department opened its probe of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity to the press, Bush insisted that he wanted to find and punish the culprits, especially if any of them were among his White House staff. He claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness.

And he let his press secretary insist repeatedly that the White House had absolutely no idea how this terrible thing had happened.

We have come a long way since then, of course. We have learned that at least two of the highest-ranking White House staff members leaked Plame's identity to reporters as part of a broader effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for daring to draw attention to White House misuse of intelligence on Iraq in an Op-Ed in the New York Times. We know that Libby, then the vice president's chief of staff and national security advisor, and Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, both participated in that effort -- and that both have lied repeatedly about their roles in the scheme.

We also know that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind Libby's leaking. As one of the most vocal sources of misinformation about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the months leading to the invasion, Cheney was particularly eager to "push back" against Wilson in the spring and summer of 2003. No doubt his zeal intensified with each day that those weapons failed to turn up in occupied Iraq.

And now, thanks to Libby's attempts to obtain classified materials for his criminal defense, we are told that the president played a direct and crucial role in the effort to discredit Wilson. Bush may not have been told that his staffers had leaked Plame's identity, but he certainly knew that they were disseminating classified material to selected reporters to discredit Wilson.

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, the vice president instructed him in July 2003 to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the classified contents of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, prepared in October 2002. The NIE indicated that Saddam Hussein had indeed been seeking to buy enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. By leaking that information to the Times, Cheney hoped to discredit Wilson, who had publicly rebuked the White House for exaggerating Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Testifying before the grand jury, Libby claimed that he had balked initially at Cheney's instructions because the CIA report was classified -- and that Cheney told him the president had authorized the leak to Miller. (The president may or may not have the right to unilaterally declassify information.)

In an April 5 brief to the court, Fitzgerald summarized the testimony of the vice president's former chief of staff about those events:
"Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 [2003] occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President had specifically authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE ... Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out ... Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

Libby's story doesn't directly implicate the president in the Plame leak. But the latest revelations contrast rather sharply with the assurances provided by White House press secretary Scott McClellan back in the fall of 2003, when the administration was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to probe the leak of Plame's identity. On Sept. 29, 2003, Helen Thomas asked him whether "the president has tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?"

In his most patronizing tone, McClellan replied, "Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." Asked whether the president knew anything beyond what the media had reported, McClellan said, "We don't have any information [about the leak] that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear." He emphasized that the president knew nothing about the leak, repeating, "We have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement."

The press secretary bristled when Thomas and other reporters suggested that the president had reacted too passively to the leak, and seemed unconcerned about its implications for national security and Plame's safety.

"Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information," said McClellan. "The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously."

That was the famous press briefing when McClellan exonerated Rove, while promising that any official responsible for the leak would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," he said, speaking for the president.

How will McClellan explain away Libby's testimony, if and when a White House reporter asks a difficult question? He could say that the president had automatically declassified the NIE when he told Cheney that it could be revealed to Miller, but that wouldn't excuse the lies. He could claim that Libby is lying, but that might be dangerous. He could say that the president had no idea what Cheney and Libby were doing with the CIA document he declassified, but that would make the boss look very dumb.

Or he could confirm the rumors that have been circulating about his plans to resign in the near future, and leave these irritating problems to someone else.

Meanwhile, the White House and the CIA may have to rethink their recent threats to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act for reporting leaks of classified information, such as the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program. Will Bush really want to indict reporters for doing their jobs, now that everyone knows he disclosed the nation's secrets to try to cover his own butt?

The deception Bush can't spin

Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain -- and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous.
By Joe Conason

Apr. 07, 2006 If we are to believe the grand jury testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- as reported by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in court papers (PDF) -- then the president of the United States has been deceiving the country ever since the CIA leaks investigation began in 2003.

Compared with other deceptions that George W. Bush has perpetrated in the years since he promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, this one cannot be spun away as a misunderstanding, a "misunderestimate" or a mistake. From the moment that the Justice Department opened its probe of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity to the press, Bush insisted that he wanted to find and punish the culprits, especially if any of them were among his White House staff. He claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness.

And he let his press secretary insist repeatedly that the White House had absolutely no idea how this terrible thing had happened.

We have come a long way since then, of course. We have learned that at least two of the highest-ranking White House staff members leaked Plame's identity to reporters as part of a broader effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for daring to draw attention to White House misuse of intelligence on Iraq in an Op-Ed in the New York Times. We know that Libby, then the vice president's chief of staff and national security advisor, and Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, both participated in that effort -- and that both have lied repeatedly about their roles in the scheme.

We also know that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind Libby's leaking. As one of the most vocal sources of misinformation about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the months leading to the invasion, Cheney was particularly eager to "push back" against Wilson in the spring and summer of 2003. No doubt his zeal intensified with each day that those weapons failed to turn up in occupied Iraq.

And now, thanks to Libby's attempts to obtain classified materials for his criminal defense, we are told that the president played a direct and crucial role in the effort to discredit Wilson. Bush may not have been told that his staffers had leaked Plame's identity, but he certainly knew that they were disseminating classified material to selected reporters to discredit Wilson.

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, the vice president instructed him in July 2003 to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the classified contents of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, prepared in October 2002. The NIE indicated that Saddam Hussein had indeed been seeking to buy enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. By leaking that information to the Times, Cheney hoped to discredit Wilson, who had publicly rebuked the White House for exaggerating Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Testifying before the grand jury, Libby claimed that he had balked initially at Cheney's instructions because the CIA report was classified -- and that Cheney told him the president had authorized the leak to Miller. (The president may or may not have the right to unilaterally declassify information.)

In an April 5 brief to the court, Fitzgerald summarized the testimony of the vice president's former chief of staff about those events:
"Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 [2003] occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President had specifically authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE ... Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out ... Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

Libby's story doesn't directly implicate the president in the Plame leak. But the latest revelations contrast rather sharply with the assurances provided by White House press secretary Scott McClellan back in the fall of 2003, when the administration was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to probe the leak of Plame's identity. On Sept. 29, 2003, Helen Thomas asked him whether "the president has tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?"

In his most patronizing tone, McClellan replied, "Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." Asked whether the president knew anything beyond what the media had reported, McClellan said, "We don't have any information [about the leak] that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear." He emphasized that the president knew nothing about the leak, repeating, "We have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement."

The press secretary bristled when Thomas and other reporters suggested that the president had reacted too passively to the leak, and seemed unconcerned about its implications for national security and Plame's safety.

"Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information," said McClellan. "The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously."

That was the famous press briefing when McClellan exonerated Rove, while promising that any official responsible for the leak would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," he said, speaking for the president.

How will McClellan explain away Libby's testimony, if and when a White House reporter asks a difficult question? He could say that the president had automatically declassified the NIE when he told Cheney that it could be revealed to Miller, but that wouldn't excuse the lies. He could claim that Libby is lying, but that might be dangerous. He could say that the president had no idea what Cheney and Libby were doing with the CIA document he declassified, but that would make the boss look very dumb.

Or he could confirm the rumors that have been circulating about his plans to resign in the near future, and leave these irritating problems to someone else.
Meanwhile, the White House and the CIA may have to rethink their recent threats to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act for reporting leaks of classified information, such as the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program. Will Bush really want to indict reporters for doing their jobs, now that everyone knows he disclosed the nation's secrets to try to cover his own butt?

The deception Bush can't spin

Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain -- and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous.
By Joe Conason

Apr. 07, 2006 If we are to believe the grand jury testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- as reported by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in court papers (PDF) -- then the president of the United States has been deceiving the country ever since the CIA leaks investigation began in 2003.

Compared with other deceptions that George W. Bush has perpetrated in the years since he promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, this one cannot be spun away as a misunderstanding, a "misunderestimate" or a mistake. From the moment that the Justice Department opened its probe of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity to the press, Bush insisted that he wanted to find and punish the culprits, especially if any of them were among his White House staff. He claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness.

And he let his press secretary insist repeatedly that the White House had absolutely no idea how this terrible thing had happened.

We have come a long way since then, of course. We have learned that at least two of the highest-ranking White House staff members leaked Plame's identity to reporters as part of a broader effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for daring to draw attention to White House misuse of intelligence on Iraq in an Op-Ed in the New York Times. We know that Libby, then the vice president's chief of staff and national security advisor, and Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, both participated in that effort -- and that both have lied repeatedly about their roles in the scheme.

We also know that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind Libby's leaking. As one of the most vocal sources of misinformation about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the months leading to the invasion, Cheney was particularly eager to "push back" against Wilson in the spring and summer of 2003. No doubt his zeal intensified with each day that those weapons failed to turn up in occupied Iraq.

And now, thanks to Libby's attempts to obtain classified materials for his criminal defense, we are told that the president played a direct and crucial role in the effort to discredit Wilson. Bush may not have been told that his staffers had leaked Plame's identity, but he certainly knew that they were disseminating classified material to selected reporters to discredit Wilson.

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, the vice president instructed him in July 2003 to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the classified contents of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, prepared in October 2002. The NIE indicated that Saddam Hussein had indeed been seeking to buy enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. By leaking that information to the Times, Cheney hoped to discredit Wilson, who had publicly rebuked the White House for exaggerating Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Testifying before the grand jury, Libby claimed that he had balked initially at Cheney's instructions because the CIA report was classified -- and that Cheney told him the president had authorized the leak to Miller. (The president may or may not have the right to unilaterally declassify information.)

In an April 5 brief to the court, Fitzgerald summarized the testimony of the vice president's former chief of staff about those events:
"Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 [2003] occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President had specifically authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE ... Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out ... Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

Libby's story doesn't directly implicate the president in the Plame leak. But the latest revelations contrast rather sharply with the assurances provided by White House press secretary Scott McClellan back in the fall of 2003, when the administration was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to probe the leak of Plame's identity. On Sept. 29, 2003, Helen Thomas asked him whether "the president has tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?"

In his most patronizing tone, McClellan replied, "Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." Asked whether the president knew anything beyond what the media had reported, McClellan said, "We don't have any information [about the leak] that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear." He emphasized that the president knew nothing about the leak, repeating, "We have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement."

The press secretary bristled when Thomas and other reporters suggested that the president had reacted too passively to the leak, and seemed unconcerned about its implications for national security and Plame's safety.

"Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information," said McClellan. "The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously."

That was the famous press briefing when McClellan exonerated Rove, while promising that any official responsible for the leak would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," he said, speaking for the president.

How will McClellan explain away Libby's testimony, if and when a White House reporter asks a difficult question? He could say that the president had automatically declassified the NIE when he told Cheney that it could be revealed to Miller, but that wouldn't excuse the lies. He could claim that Libby is lying, but that might be dangerous. He could say that the president had no idea what Cheney and Libby were doing with the CIA document he declassified, but that would make the boss look very dumb.

Or he could confirm the rumors that have been circulating about his plans to resign in the near future, and leave these irritating problems to someone else.
Meanwhile, the White House and the CIA may have to rethink their recent threats to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act for reporting leaks of classified information, such as the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program. Will Bush really want to indict reporters for doing their jobs, now that everyone knows he disclosed the nation's secrets to try to cover his own butt?

The deception Bush can't spin

Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain -- and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous.
By Joe Conason

Apr. 07, 2006 If we are to believe the grand jury testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- as reported by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in court papers (PDF) -- then the president of the United States has been deceiving the country ever since the CIA leaks investigation began in 2003.

Compared with other deceptions that George W. Bush has perpetrated in the years since he promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, this one cannot be spun away as a misunderstanding, a "misunderestimate" or a mistake. From the moment that the Justice Department opened its probe of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity to the press, Bush insisted that he wanted to find and punish the culprits, especially if any of them were among his White House staff. He claimed to consider the leaking of classified information to be a matter of the utmost seriousness.

And he let his press secretary insist repeatedly that the White House had absolutely no idea how this terrible thing had happened.

We have come a long way since then, of course. We have learned that at least two of the highest-ranking White House staff members leaked Plame's identity to reporters as part of a broader effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for daring to draw attention to White House misuse of intelligence on Iraq in an Op-Ed in the New York Times. We know that Libby, then the vice president's chief of staff and national security advisor, and Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, both participated in that effort -- and that both have lied repeatedly about their roles in the scheme.

We also know that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind Libby's leaking. As one of the most vocal sources of misinformation about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the months leading to the invasion, Cheney was particularly eager to "push back" against Wilson in the spring and summer of 2003. No doubt his zeal intensified with each day that those weapons failed to turn up in occupied Iraq.

And now, thanks to Libby's attempts to obtain classified materials for his criminal defense, we are told that the president played a direct and crucial role in the effort to discredit Wilson. Bush may not have been told that his staffers had leaked Plame's identity, but he certainly knew that they were disseminating classified material to selected reporters to discredit Wilson.

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, the vice president instructed him in July 2003 to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the classified contents of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, prepared in October 2002. The NIE indicated that Saddam Hussein had indeed been seeking to buy enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. By leaking that information to the Times, Cheney hoped to discredit Wilson, who had publicly rebuked the White House for exaggerating Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Testifying before the grand jury, Libby claimed that he had balked initially at Cheney's instructions because the CIA report was classified -- and that Cheney told him the president had authorized the leak to Miller. (The president may or may not have the right to unilaterally declassify information.)

In an April 5 brief to the court, Fitzgerald summarized the testimony of the vice president's former chief of staff about those events:
"Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 [2003] occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President had specifically authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE ... Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out ... Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

Libby's story doesn't directly implicate the president in the Plame leak. But the latest revelations contrast rather sharply with the assurances provided by White House press secretary Scott McClellan back in the fall of 2003, when the administration was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to probe the leak of Plame's identity. On Sept. 29, 2003, Helen Thomas asked him whether "the president has tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?"

In his most patronizing tone, McClellan replied, "Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." Asked whether the president knew anything beyond what the media had reported, McClellan said, "We don't have any information [about the leak] that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear." He emphasized that the president knew nothing about the leak, repeating, "We have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement."

The press secretary bristled when Thomas and other reporters suggested that the president had reacted too passively to the leak, and seemed unconcerned about its implications for national security and Plame's safety.

"Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information," said McClellan. "The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously."

That was the famous press briefing when McClellan exonerated Rove, while promising that any official responsible for the leak would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," he said, speaking for the president.

How will McClellan explain away Libby's testimony, if and when a White House reporter asks a difficult question? He could say that the president had automatically declassified the NIE when he told Cheney that it could be revealed to Miller, but that wouldn't excuse the lies. He could claim that Libby is lying, but that might be dangerous. He could say that the president had no idea what Cheney and Libby were doing with the CIA document he declassified, but that would make the boss look very dumb.

Or he could confirm the rumors that have been circulating about his plans to resign in the near future, and leave these irritating problems to someone else.
Meanwhile, the White House and the CIA may have to rethink their recent threats to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act for reporting leaks of classified information, such as the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program. Will Bush really want to indict reporters for doing their jobs, now that everyone knows he disclosed the nation's secrets to try to cover his own butt?

Bush OKed Leak

Cheney's Aide Says President Approved Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGER

I. Lewis Libby Jr.'s testimony indicates that President Bush may have played a direct role in the disclosure of intelligence on Iraq.

White House Troubled By Democracy in U.S.

by John Nichols

Defenders of the war in Iraq are always quick to dismiss any expression of opposition by the American people as so inconsequential that no one in Washington will take notice. That's what they did in March of 2005, when 50 Vermont town meetings voted for anti-war resolutions. And that is what they are now doing in April of 2006, when confronted with the news that the citizens of 24 Wisconsin cities, villages and towns -- including a half dozen communities that voted for President Bush in 2004 -- have voted for Bring the Troops Home Now referendums that call for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The problem with the attempt to dismiss the Wisconsin votes -- which is so obviously meant to discourage more communities in more states from using democratic processes to challenge the war -- is that the Bush White House is not on message. Instead of feigning ignorance of the referendums, or simply refusing to comment, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stumbled through a lengthy discussion of the Wisconsin results on the day after the voting.
Of course, McClellan would never let the truth pass over his lips. But the confirmation that opposition to the war has spread even to some of the most Republican sections of the country had evidently unsettled the White House spokesman.

When asked by a reporter about the anti-war votes -- "What was your reaction to these referendums in Wisconsin, from the President?" -- McClellan replied with a rambling repetition of the White House's stay-the-course-into-the-quagmire line. But the spinner-in-chief, who really should have the rap down by now, struggled to get the talking points out.

"It's important that the Iraqi leaders continue to move forward and form a unity government that is based on strong leadership and represents -- that represents all Iraqis," babbled McClellan. "And that's -- and we are continuing to keep our focus on the strategy for victory that the President has outlined. The worst thing we could do is withdraw before the mission is complete. And that would be retreating. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. But they cannot shake our will. They cannot -- we will not lose our nerve. The President understands the importance of a free Iraq for laying the foundations of peace for generations to come."

Er, keep our focus, uh, can't shake our will, um, won't lose our nerve...

Blind defenders of the war, who claim to be committed to spreading democracy in Iraq, continue to argue that democracy in America does not matter. For all their enthusiasm about elections abroad, they dismiss the will of the American people as expressed through ballot boxes here in the United States.

But how will they explain away the fact that the White House wordsmith was so obviously shaken by a few dozen elections in small towns in the middle of the country?

Perhaps McClellan's mumbling has something to do with the fact that even this White House recognizes that, when Americans in traditionally Republican communities are voting for immediate withdrawal, it is no longer credible to claim, as McClellan attempted on Wednesday, that: "I think most Americans recognize the importance of succeeding in Iraq."

Try as he might to spin this one, it is evident that even Scott McClellan is coming to the realization that most Americans recognize the importance of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Plenty of opportunities to impeach Bush

by Diane E. Dees

The United States of America has undergone three impeachment proceedings. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached because he removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton from his position, which was a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. He was not convicted, and Kansas Senator Edmond G. Ross, who cast the vote that saved the president, is profiled in John F. Kennedy's Profiles In Courage.

In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon was impeached because of the Watergate break-iin coverup, but he resigned from office before the proceedings could go forth. And in 1998-99, President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair he had with an intern. Clinton, of course, was not convicted.

In each case, impeachment proceedings were begun because of the perception that the president had violated a law. Patiot Daily points out that Congress may ratify Bush's illegal spying with new FISA legislation so that his actions will be deemed legal and he cannot be impeached for having committed them.

Patriot Daily goes on to say, however, that during the month of March alone, Bush violated enough other laws to make impeachment proceedings possible. The writer of the Patriot Daily piece says that, "to avoid writing a book," it was necessary to omit any violations of law committed before March 1, 2006, violations of humanitarian laws and negligence, and some of the prior laws to which there had not been additional information added.

With these restrictions in mind, here are just a few of the March violations:
Bush signed the spending bill, knowing that violated a Constitutional requirement that the bill must first pass in both chambers.

He violated the material witness law by using it as preventive detention authority who could commit terrorist acts some day but for whom there is no cause for criminal charges.

He violated the Clean Air Act by by loosening emission standards for aging coal-fired power plants. The Clean Air Act makes it clear that only Congress may make such a decision.

In a legal brief written for the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush cited evidence from a debate by two Republican senators. There was no such debate. The evidence was manufactured by the White House.

Bush defined "material support" for terrorists in such a distorted fashion that victims of terrorists wound up being defined as terrorists.
He approved the ports deal, knowing that Dubai's boycott of Israel was illegal under U.S. law.

He failed to hand over delinquent mining company safety violation fees to the Department of the Treasury, as required by law. (He also decreased major fines, and did not collect any in half of the caes.)

He violated the law when he secured the UAE ports deal without the required national security review.

Bush's nuclear deal with India violates U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation laws.

Patriot Daily lists many more violations committed by the Bush adminiistration, as well as relevant links.

The Shrinking Nest Egg

The Shrinking Nest Egg
by Robert B. Reich

Americans aren’t saving because they simply can’t afford to.

Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq Wins at Wisconsin Polls

By Matthew Rothschild

April 5, 2006Wisconsin voters want U.S. troops out of Iraq, and they want them out now. On Tuesday, folks in 34 cities and towns across Wisconsin cast their votes on referendums calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. The referendums passed in 24 out of 32 communities.
read more

"Anti-Christian Conspirators" Slay Delay

Published on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 by TruthDig
by Robert Scheer

Blame it on the vast anti-Christian conspiracy. That was the explanation offered by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas and his supporters last week for the whirlpool of legal difficulties that finally led the ex-leader of the Republicans in Congress to admit it was time to call it quits.

The convener of a “War on Christians” conference held in the nation’s capital outrageously depicted the former House majority leader’s political plight as the unwarranted crucifixion of a Christ-like leader by God-haters. And, with his trademark gall, the infamously ethically challenged DeLay eagerly embraced this explanation when it was his turn to speak to the adoring crowd.

“We have been chosen to live as Christians at a time when our culture is being poisoned and our world is being threatened,” thundered the Texan pest-control entrepreneur who rose to become one of America’s most powerful politicians. “The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won.”

Let’s leave aside for a moment the absurdity of right-wing Christians’ persecution complex at a time when their adherents effectively control all three branches of the federal government. What’s even more confusing is how so many enemies of virtue seem to have had a field day operating under poor DeLay’s auspices, including the latest member of his staff to plead guilty to a felony. That would be Tony Rudy, DeLay’s former deputy chief of staff, who has now pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge for accepting payments from fellow criminal Jack Abramoff while serving in DeLay’s office, and later working to corrupt public officials and defraud clients.

To be fair to DeLay, it should be noted that as absurd as his religious posturing may appear, it comes at a time when he has been denied the services of his onetime spiritual adviser and former chief of staff. Edwin Buckham, an evangelical minister who turned lobbyist after leaving DeLay’s staff, is himself now mired in potential legal problems stemming from Rudy’s plea bargain. A devastating article by R. Jeffrey Smith in the Washington Post last week reported that Buckham and his wife received a total of nearly a million bucks from the “nonprofit” U.S. Family Network, which he created as a front group largely funded by clients of Abramoff.

The group — once fraudulently touted by DeLay in a fundraising letter as a “grassroots” organization devoted to family values — was started by Buckham while he was still in charge of the congressman’s staff and operated out of a Washington town house that also served as DeLay’s off-Capitol Hill office. The main family values served by the organization were apparently those of the Buckham family, which received nearly one-third of its entire disbursements, and the Rudy family, which received payments of $26,000 funneled to Tony Rudy’s wife while he was on DeLay’s staff. Buckham, in turn, completed the circle by carrying DeLay’s wife, Christine, on the payroll of his consulting firm for three years.

Dizzy yet? It gets worse, much worse. Despite its alleged focus on protecting American families, the Family Network’s lobbying instead found success in securing DeLay’s political support of Russian oil profiteers, sweatshop operators in the U.S. protectorate of the Northern Marianas, and American Indian gambling casinos afraid of competition. It’s a peculiar record for an organization launched with the stated purpose of pushing policies to advance “families, the economic prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and general well being of the United States.” But perhaps DeLay and his underlings just have a different interpretation of what “it” is when it comes to “moral fitness.”

After all, DeLay did argue publicly that allowing textile manufacturers in the Marianas to sew in “Made In the USA” labels while not having to follow our labor and immigration laws was the moral thing to do. And when Abramoff, recipient of more than $7 million in lobbying fees from the Marianas government, managed to get him to visit, DeLay took the opportunity not only to call Abramoff “one of my closest and dearest friends,” he also cast the sweatshop owners’ cause — protecting their right to cheap imported Chinese labor — in a Christian framework. “Stand firm,” Delay urged them at a dinner hosted by a major sweatshop company, as he promised to protect their profitable loophole from any corrective legislation. “Resist evil. Remember that all truth and blessings emanate from our Creator.”

What is still unclear, however, is how, if DeLay really fears the judgment of his creator, can he be so cavalier in assuming he will get an eternal pass on this despicable behavior?

The-uh-uh-uh Yankees Win!

Yankees Win, 44-3 and 45-2, as Council Approves Stadium

Feingold Says He Supports Gay Marriage

Tue Apr 4, 6:23 PM ET

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), a potential presidential candidate, said Tuesday he supports giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, again positioning himself to the left of possible 2008 rivals.

"Gay and lesbian people in our country are fighting a mean-spirited movement to harm them and to discriminate against them," Feingold, D-Wis., said in a telephone interview. "I stand with them against that movement, and I'm proud to stand with them."

Feingold said he decided to express his support for gay marriage in response to a Wisconsin constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions, which will appear on the state ballot in November.

Giuliani's Deadly Impact?

by Kristen Breitweiser

Can someone please explain to me why Rudy Giuliani gets to give a victim's impact statement at the Moussaoui penalty phase hearing? Which family member did Guiliani lose in the attacks?

Forgive me, but Giuliani is the person responsible for deciding to locate NYC's emergency command center in the World Trade Center along with a diesal fuel tank (against the advice of certain FDNY officials) before 9/11.

Locating the city's emergency command center in a known al Qaeda target (the towers were struck in 1993 and al Qaeda publicly promised to return to finish the job) was a colossal failure in judgment on his part that cost hundreds of lives on 9/11.

During the attacks, because the command center was rendered inoperable, NYC had no clear chain of command and no physical command structure in place to coordinate the emergency response. Frankly, the whole reason Giuliani was on television all day and available for interviews was because he was scrambling around the streets trying to set up a command post since the one he had designed and located was paralyzed during the attacks.

Anyone who wants to witness the results of NYC's abysmal emergency response to the attacks need only listen to the recently released 911 tapes that chillingly reveal a total lack of coordination and flow of vital life-saving information plaguing the city and its emergency response apparatus that day. (By the way, Mayor Bloomberg has yet to fix the 911 system--even five years later.)

Furthermore, Giuliani is also responsible for giving the FDNY inoperable Motorola radios. This, too, cost hundreds of lives when firemen did not hear the order to evacuate the towers prior to their collapse. (By the way, those radios are still not fixed--blame this on Bloomberg, too.)

How is a man who is responsible for such horrific and deadly judgments invited to give a victim's impact statement as to how 9/11 impacted him?

By these standards, should I expect Condoleezza Rice (Ms. "Nobody knew planes could be used as missiles"), George Tenet (Mr. "I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks"), and perhaps, George Bush (Mr. "I was reading a story about a pet goat while thousands of people perished and burned alive in the World Trade Center because I didn't want to alarm the school children.") to provide victim's impact statements, as well?

Turning the Tables

Turning the TablesFor once, the Democrats are getting their act together while it's the Republicans who are divided

War Crimes in Iraq

by Noam Chomsky
Returning to the Scene of the Crime: War Crimes in Iraq

Fw: Potholes in the Road to Immigration Reform - FCNL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Guthrie" <kathyguthrie@fcnl.org>
To: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Potholes in the Road to Immigration Reform - FCNL

The Senate is now debating immigration reform-- reviewing legislation
to address the reality that an estimated 12 million people are now
living in this country without valid immigration documents. FCNL has
expressed support for the 271-page bill proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter
(PA) and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a moderate
alternative to a more punitive "enforcement only" bill
offered initially by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN). The
Specter bill offers the best possibility for real immigration reform in
this congressional session.

--The Specter bill includes elements that we at FCNL believe are
essential to comprehensive immigration reform:

--It regularizes the guest worker program, provides some security
against abuse of these workers, and creates a path to citizenship for
people who come to work here.

It provides a reasonable solution to the fact that millions of
immigrants are already living and working in the United States without
proper documentation. While this is not an amnesty program, it allows
people who have lived in this country for many years, paid taxes, and
become essential to the U.S. economy a path to citizenship over a
period of time. At the end of a waiting period, people who violated
civil immigration laws would have to pay a $2000 fine, repay any back
taxes that they owe, clear background checks, and learn English and
civics before being eligible for citizenship.

This legislation is as important for what it does not contain as for
what it contains. For example, current law treats illegal entry into
the country as a "civil violation" -- a minor infraction of
the law that does not necessarily justify immediate arrest and
detention. The House-passed bill, H.R. 4437, treated these violations
as serious crimes - felonies. The Specter bill does not make that
change. It also does not criminalize individuals and groups who offer
humanitarian assistance to people without appropriate documentation, as
the House bill would do.

But this bill is a compromise, so it contains some items that FCNL does
not favor, and a few provisions that ought to be removed before final
passage. As the amendment process continues, FCNL will look for and
support amendments to address these issues:

--Treating immigrants like criminals. The Specter bill rejects the idea
(which appears in the House bill, H.R.4437) that violations of
immigration laws should be treated as felonies. But the Senate version
retains a substantial apparatus to enforce immigration laws as if they
were criminal laws. For instance *The bill would load the
National Crime Information Center a criminal database with information
about millions of civil immigration law violators. (Section 231)
*The bill would, in effect, require local law enforcement
agencies to arrest and detain people who have not committed a crime
beyond violating immigration laws. (Section 231) Local law enforcement
agencies argue this legislation would make it more difficult to get
cooperation from their communities to protect public safety.
*The bill requires that anyone (other than Mexican nationals)
caught trying to enter the U.S. without appropriate documentation shall
be detained until removed from the country, or a final decision
regarding their admission is reached. (Section 131)
*The bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to
"construct or acquire" 20 detention facilities, with capacity
for 10,000 individuals who might be detained pending removal. As part
of this process, the head of the Department of Homeland Security
announced recently that the U.S. plans to open "family-focused
detention" facilities in May 2006. Closed military base facilities
are to be considered for these detention facilities.

--Invading everyone's privacy. New employees are already required to
establish their right to work in the U.S. by presenting valid
identification papers such as a birth certificate, an original Social
Security card, and a license or similar document. The Specter bill
takes this requirement a step further. It authorizes the creation of a
national database that includes all of the information necessary to
verify a potential employee's eligibility for employment in the U.S. It
would require employers to seek pre-approval of all potential employees
through this database. If the electronic system is unable to confirm
eligibility, the employer is required to dismiss the person and to
cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security by sharing all
available information on that person. Employers would face heavy fines
for non-compliance.

This database comes with a lot of baggage, including the massive
workload involved in maintaining such a vast database and verifying
names that cannot be found on the first attempt, the potential for both
error and abuse, and the high likelihood of bureaucratic problems even
for people who meet all legal requirements for employment. Sen. Kennedy
(MA) has offered an amendment (SA 3219) to address some of the privacy
concerns in this section.

We remain optimistic that Congress will retain the fairest elements of
the Specter bill, and will reject some of its most disturbing
provisions. As you communicate with your senators about this bill,
encourage them to initiate or support amendments that will fill in some
of the pot-holes in the bill and create a workable system for welcoming
and integrating immigrants into the U.S.

_______________________________________

The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/

Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/

Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump

Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/donate/

Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see
the end of this message.

Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.

________________________________________

Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.

---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=67493199&queueid=677047246.

"Stop, Hammer"

Wonkette

Our deepest condolences to Tom DeLay, who ended the portion of his political career that relied on convincing people to vote for him in order to embark on that much more lucrative portion in which he just makes a shitload of money and exercises roughly the same amount of power and influence (depending, of course, on his legal situation — but we don’t think a little jail time will really stop the checks from flowing in for work in defense of Christianity).

Yeah, we’ll miss the old bastard — he knew how to be a majority leader, dammit. It’s about taking the R.J. Reynolds corporate jet to your arraignment and not giving a shit, not being famous for your goddamn tan like some dimestore George Hamilton. It’s about multiple admonishments from the House ethics committee, comparing yourself to Jesus, flashing a shit-eating grin in your mugshot, money-laundering, calling for violent retribution against activist judges, and contacting six federal agencies to trail Texas Democrats! Boehner — you have some mighty big shoes to fill. And Tom — we’ll miss you. We hope you keep up the shamelessness, wherever you end up.

Asked if he had done anything illegal or unethical in public office, DeLay replied curtly, “No.” Asked if he’d done anything immoral, he said with a laugh, “We’re all sinners.”

Oh, we could parse that “we” (Republicans? Congressmen? House Majority Leaders? Texans? Members of the DeLay family?), but we’d rather just accept it in the spirit in which it was offered. Tom, from those of us equally proud of being sinners, we thank you. While you were running things around here we laughed a little, we cried a little, and we learned a lot.

All that said, we’re still pretty relieved that not armed.

Standing Up To Bush

Published on Monday, April 3, 2006 by the Boston Globe
Editorial

President Bush's secret intercepts of American citizens' communications are ''more serious abuses" than President Nixon perpetrated in Watergate, according to an informed observer. John Dean, counsel to Nixon during Watergate, was on target when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday that Congress should fight back when a president ignores laws it has passed.

Dean argues that Bush's program of electronic surveillance without the court warrants required by law is probably much broader than Nixon's trampling on civil liberties as he sought to find dirt on his perceived political enemies.

Senator Lindsey Graham countered at the hearing that Nixon's motive was base self-interest, while Bush is seeking to strengthen national security. This is a worthwhile distinction from the South Carolina Republican, but it only underlines the cavalier manner in which Bush brushes off congressional actions and mandates. For if Bush can offer a good reason for the eavesdropping he has ordered, he will easily get a warrant from the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 precisely to advance national security.

Instead, Bush has ignored the clear mandate of that law. This is part of a growing trend by Bush toward unilateralism in domestic as well as foreign policy. Examples include his recent use of novel signing statements announcing that, even though he has just signed a piece of legislation into law, he may not feel bound by parts of it.

Earlier last week, the Supreme Court gave encouraging signs that it will stand up to efforts by Bush to undercut its powers, at least in some cases. Five judges loudly challenged the administration's contention that it could deny some supposedly terror-related detainees a forum to assert their innocence. Some justices also questioned whether Congress could take away that right. But the outcome of that case will not be known for weeks.

In the meantime, Congress has shown itself to be all too pliant to Bush's steady consolidation of power.

Dean's appearance came as the Judiciary Committee took up a resolution from Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to have the Senate censure Bush for ''unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans. . . ."

Only three senators, all Democrats, support censure. But the Republican chairman of the committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said that, while the resolution has no merit, ''it provides a forum for the discussion of issues which really ought to be considered in greater depth than they have been."
It should not take a censure resolution to get the members of Congress to stick up for themselves. If they do not, they are as culpable as Bush.

Down Goes Delay!

by Cenk Uygur

Down goes DeLay! Down goes DeLay! Down goes DeLay!

The Hammer is down and out! It's a good day to be an American.

If I sound festive, that's because I am. One of the cornerstones of Republican corruption and fundamentalism has been knocked out. Greed is not good. Justice does prevail. There is hope in the world.

For six long years, a lot of us have been asking, "How long can this go on?" It seemed like there was never going to be any check on these out of control Republicans running the country into the ground. Now, it looks like the American system does work after all.

Let me be the first to say -- before DeLay even announces his resignation -- that he is not resigning because he wants to spend more time with his family. It might very well be because he needs to spend more time in prison.

Last week, prosecutors were singing the praises of Jack Abramoff in open court, telling a judge in one of his cases how cooperative he has been with federal prosecutors. They weren't that enthused because he had turned over Bob frickin' Ney.

No way DeLay steps down unless they've nailed him. What, he was afraid of a tough electoral fight in November? It's inconceivable that would scare him away.
No matter what the reason though, today is indisputably a good day in America. I am most proud of the local and federal prosecutors who were not shy in pursuing these cases of corruption no matter where they led. They were not deterred by significant political intimidation. It appears they fought for justice and the American way, and in so doing, preserved those ideals.

It's great to see that there are men of honor left in the country. When all is said and done, real American heroes are going to found out of the rubble of this administration. The Justice Department lawyers that stepped down rather than follow illegal orders. Military commanders who retired early rather than carry out loathsome commands. Prosecutors who insisted on following the law and enforcing the American justice system.

With Libby, Abramoff, Safavian and DeLay out for the count, justice is on the comeback trail. Now, it's America 4, Bad Guys 6 (Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rove, Frist, Cheney, Bush). But give us time. I hear the sweet sound of justice rolling down the road. And it sounds like music to my ears.

What happens next? A short FAQ

by Farhad Manjoo

Tom DeLay's resignation sets in motion a series of events in the Texas's 22nd Congressional District, so let's look at the what could/may/might happen next. One caveat: Nobody really knows anything right now, so much of this is bloggy speculation. Of course, that's what makes it so much fun.

Which Republicans hope to replace DeLay? Two candidates have already jumped in: Tom Campbell, an attorney who won 30 percent of the vote against DeLay in the March primary race (DeLay won 62 percent), and David G. Wallace, the mayor of Sugar Land, DeLay's hometown.

DeLay says that he'll support any Republican in the race, but there's no love lost between him and Campbell. Before the primary, DeLay's campaign manager said this of Campbell: "Clearly, Mr. Campbell is no conservative.... Every day he proves he's nothing more than an outsider who isn't concerned with conservative issues or fighting for the priorities of Texas taxpayers. He's not qualified to run for Republican precinct chair, let alone represent hundreds and thousands of Republican voters in Congress." (Emphasis added because it will be fun to ask DeLay about statements like this if Campbell becomes the candidate.)

Despite these claims, Campbell looks no less conservative than DeLay. The Houston Chronicle's editorial board, which endorsed him in the race against DeLay, billed Campbell as "a clean Tom DeLay, someone who shares the staunch Republican values of his district but who recognizes that special interest influence in Congress must be reined in and stronger ethics and disclosure rules promulgated." (A "clean Tom DeLay" -- sounds much like a creature of legend, as impossible as a musically gifted Kevin Federline.)

About David Wallace, there's a lot less to say. His job as mayor is part-time; in his day job, Wallace is a real estate developer and investment banker, the New York Times reports. Wallace has a campaign Website, but it is "under construction" at the moment. The city's Website features a short bio and resume.
There will be no primary to choose which of these two will face Democrat Nick Lampson in November. Instead, according to some local Republican officials quoted in the press, a committee of GOP officials will choose which person will replace Delay on the ballot.

Will there be a special election? If Delay leaves his post soon (as he says he will do), Texas may hold a special election to determine who will fill his seat for the remainder of Delay's current term. It isn't clear, though, whether the state is required to fill this seat; this means is that before November's election, there could be another race in Texas's 22nd, or there could not.

There's yet more confusion: Some bloggers point out that if there is a special election in the 22nd, the winner may need a majority -- rather than a mere plurality -- to win the seat under Texas's election law (see the relevant statues in PDF format here and here.) Because there may be several candidates who'd split the left-leaning vote and only one on the right (whichever one the Republicans settle on, if they can do that), Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos says that the majority-vote rule would help the GOP in the special election. It goes without saying that the winner of the special election will have an enormous advantage in November's race.

How does this affect Nick Lampson?

Two theories: 1) He's toast, because the liberals will now pull back all they'd been pouring into his race, and he'll face a candidate who will likely appeal to many in the district, or 2), He's golden, because now he may challenge a candidate who's weaker than DeLay, and the lefty hordes will only strengthen their support of his effort if only to spite DeLay.

Of course, nobody knows. Left-leaning blogs, though, are already encouraging readers to step up their support of Lampson. And Lampson says he'll take whatever the Republicans can throw at him. "From day one I have been running because this district needs a congressman who will make headlines for the right reasons and work for the mainstream values I share with the people of this district," Lampson said in a statement. "No matter who I face in the general election, I am going to fight hard and I am going to win in November."

A Meet The Press Worth Watching.

General Tony Zinni's scathing summary of the Iraq disaster.

Woodward and Reality

Woodward and Reality
by David Corn
A newly disclosed secret memo shows Woodward's insider account of an important Bush-Blair prewar meeting missed the best (and most critical) stuff.

John McCain: The Sell-Out Express

John McCain: The Sell-Out Express
by Cenk Uygur

A Strategy For Censure

by georgia10
Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:16:29 AM PDT

Yesterday's Senate Judiciary hearing on censure marks a turning point in the debate over Presidential accountability. Over at Firedoglake, Christy and others are simmering with disgust over the fact not all committee Democrats attended the hearing. I've witnessed comments throughout the blogosphere expressing outrage that either Democrats didn't show up, or that they have yet to sign on to censure. Obviously, I'm disappointed, but I'd like to shift the focus a bit.

When Senator Feingold first introduced his resolution, Republicans said it was a "gift." Well, it is a gift--for Democrats. It is a bold move destined to fail (sorry folks, the numbers don't lie) but it succeeds in forcing Republicans to defend the indefensible: a failed President who is not trusted by the American people.

While some were focused on the empty chairs in the hearing, I was focused on the tone of the rhetoric on the right. Republicans fiercly defended the President, and in doing so, made some remarkable statements. Take Senator Sessions, who emphatically declared the following:
"Our President is an honest man. A candid man, a strong leader. And the people of America know it."

Now, if Sessions were up for re-elction, that clip would pure gold. Can you imagine the campaign ad? Sessions frothing at the mouth, defending his Dear Leader, followed by a clip of the President saying he's not concerned about bin Laden, or his famous Mission Accomplished speech. Close the ad with "Senator Sessions has spent the last six years rubber-stamping the President's failures. Can we trust his judgment anymore? Can we afford to?" You get the idea.

And that is what we should be extracting from the censure debate. When Republicans launch into their odes to the President, most of us tune out or sit on our hands to refrain from throwing something at the TV. But we should be cataloging every statement lauding the President's trustworthiness, every clip where a Republican praises the President's judgment.

A case study: Mike DeWine. Senator DeWine has been clamoring to distance himself from Bush, embracing a campaign theme of "independence". An all-together predictable approach, given that the President's approval ratings are at all time lows. In the latest WSJ poll, Democrat Sherrod Brown has pulled ahead of DeWine by about nine points. Good news, to be sure, but certainly not enough to calm my nerves about that race.

So how can we use censure to increase Brown's lead in the Ohio race? DeWine, if you recall, has sponsored the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006", which legalizes the President's illegal conduct. Obviously, DeWine trusts the President. So let him go on record. He should be bombarded with questions about it, over and over again until he is painted into a corner, forced to declare, like Sessions, that he "trusts" the President and that the President has been doing a magnificent job. Cannon-fodder for campaigns, that's what censure can be.

I know it's difficult to focus on the right instead of the left side of the aisle when it comes to censure. But we have just six months to win back six seats in the Senate, and 15 in the House. We should be upset that Democrats have not jumped aboard a clearly appropriate resolution, but we can't let that frustration cloud our singular goal: winning back Congress.

This censure resolution can help us achieve that victory in November. It succeeds in putting Republicans on the defensive, forcing them to go on record as to whether they trust the President and how much they approve of his performance. At a time when vulnerable incumbents are scampering away from Mr. 33%, this censure resolution allows us to grab them by the tail and drag them back to the debate. It provokes over-the-top rhetoric which we can use in our campaigns to solidify them as nothing more than rubber-stamp Republicans unworthy of another term in office.

And if the censure resolution accomplishes that, if it helps us shackle Republicans to the sinking anchor of Bush's Presidency, then Feingold's move will truly be a success--no matter how many Democrats sign on to it.

We Need Alexander Hamilton

We Need Alexander Hamilton
How unfettered trade and poor policy are endangering our economic future, and what we should do about it.
By Ernest C. Hollings

The Endgame in Iraq

April 2, 2006
New York Times Editorial

Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.

The Bush administration will not acknowledge the desperate situation. But it is, at least, pushing in the right direction, trying to mobilize all possible leverage in a frantic effort to persuade the leading Shiite parties to embrace more inclusive policies and support a broad-based national government.

One vital goal is to persuade the Shiites to abort their disastrous nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr. Jaafari is unable to form a broadly inclusive government and has made no serious effort to rein in police death squads. Even some Shiite leaders are now calling on him to step aside. If his nomination stands and is confirmed by Parliament, civil war will become much harder to head off. And from the American perspective, the Iraqi government will have become something that no parent should be asked to risk a soldier son or daughter to protect.

Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail. That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent.

Yet Shiite leaders have responded to Washington's pleas for inclusiveness with bristling hostility, personally vilifying Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and criticizing American military operations in the kind of harsh language previously heard only from Sunni leaders. Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, the radically anti-American cleric and militia leader, has maneuvered himself into the position of kingmaker by providing decisive support for Mr. Jaafari's candidacy to remain prime minister.

It was chilling to read Edward Wong's interview with the Iraqi prime minister in The Times last week, during which Mr. Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias that are currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into the army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

It is conceivable that the situation can still be turned around. Mr. Khalilzad should not back off. The kind of broadly inclusive government he is trying to bring about offers the only hope that Iraq can make a successful transition from the terrible mess it is in now to the democracy that we all hoped would emerge after Saddam Hussein's downfall. It is also the only way to redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.

John Dean to Senate: Censure is Necessary

Published on Saturday, April 1, 2006 by The Nation
by John Nichols

"[The] president needs to be reminded that separation of powers does not mean an isolation of powers," former White House counsel John Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday. "He needs to be told he cannot simply ignore a law with no consequences."

Arguing in favor of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold's motion to censure President Bush for illegally authorizing the warrantless wiretapping of the phone conversations of Americans, the man who broke with former President Richard Nixon to challenge the abuses of the Watergate era told the committee that Bush's wrongs were in many senses worse than those of Nixon.

"I recall a morning – and it was just about this time in the morning and it was exactly this time of the year – March 21, 1973 – that I tried to warn a president of the consequences of staying his course. I failed to convince President Nixon that morning, and the rest, as they say, is history," Dean, who famously told Nixon that there was "a cancer growing" on his presidency, explained in testimony submitted to the committee. "I certainly do not claim to be prescient. Then or now. But actions have consequences, and to ignore them is merely denial. Today, it is very obvious that history is repeating itself. It is for that reason I have crossed the country to visit with you, and that I hope that the collective wisdom of this committee will prevail, and you will not place the president above the law by inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."

Republicans on the committee attempted to dismiss Feingold's motion as a partisan gesture, rather than a necessary reassertion of the system of checks and balances that has so decayed since Congress ceded its oversight role in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was particularly aggressive in echoing Republican National Committee talking points, denouncing Feingold's motion as nothing more than an attempt to "score political points."

But Dean rejected that claim, as did Bruce Fein, a lawyer who served in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department and who joined Dean in testifying in favor of the censure motion.

"To me, this is not really and should not be a partisan question,'' said Dean, who served as chief counsel for the Republican minority on the House Judiciary Committee before joining the Nixon White House. "I think it's a question of institutional pride of this body, of the Congress of the United States.''

Feingold went even further, suggesting that Congress has a duty to hold president's to account for authorizing a secretive domestic spying program that operates without legal authorization, in clear violation the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"If we in the Congress don't stand up for ourselves and the American people, we become complicit in the lawbreaking,'' Feingold said. ``The resolution of censure is the appropriate response.''

Predictably, Hatch and several of the more aggressive defenders of the Bush administration on the committee fell back on the "talking points" argument that it would be inappropriate to censure Bush while the country is at war in Iraq. "Wartime is not a time to weaken the commander-in-chief,'' growled the Utah Republican.

But Feingold rejected the suggestion that Congress should surrender its oversight responsibilities in wartime.

"Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy," explained the senator, who added that, "We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people, and the President must return to the law. He must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal actions and for misleading the American people, both before and after the program was revealed."

The President's "good faith" defense

Saturday, April 01, 2006
By Anonymous Liberal

In its article covering Friday's censure hearing, the New York Times reports:

Several Republicans argued that whatever the legal status of the spying program, it did not deserve punishment because, unlike Nixon, Mr. Bush had acted in good faith.

"This is apples and oranges," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told Mr. Dean. "Anybody who believes that Richard Nixon was relying on some inherent-authority argument is recreating history."

Oh really.

Here's a passage from the same 1969 TIME Magazine article Glenn highlighted yesterday:

If anything, the Nixon Administration has been less than apologetic about the practice. Last month, in a memorandum filed during the Chicago trial of eight men charged with conspiring to incite acts of violence during the Democratic National Convention, the Justice Department claimed the inherent right to bug or wiretap-without court orders-any time it felt that the "national security" was in jeopardy.

As authority for this broad power, the Government cited the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" from domestic subversion as well as foreign enemies. Contending that every President since Franklin Roosevelt had permitted such wiretaps, the Government went on to imply that they were even more important now because of the growing violence and rioting in the nation's cities and on its campuses.

Not only did Nixon rely on an inherent authority argument, but he had an infinitely stronger case because Congress had not yet passed FISA. Nice try, though, Senator Graham.

I also want to take a moment to address the emerging "good faith" defense of the President, which is being advanced by Republicans like Senators Graham and Specter who are clearly skeptical of the NSA program's legality. The argument seems to be that while Bush may have acted illegally, he did so based on a good faith belief that his actions were legal, and therefore he does not deserve harsh criticism or Congressional sanction.

I can see why Republicans like Graham and Specter have gravitated toward this argument. It allows them to express their genuine skepticism about the legality of the program without having to criticize the President for authorizing it.

But there's a major problem. Everything the administration has done for the past four and a half years indicates that it does NOT have a good faith believe in its own legal arguments. If Bush administration officials had any confidence whatsoever in their legal theories, they could at any point seek judicial blessing of the NSA program. All they would have to do is try to introduce evidence obtained via warrantless surveillance in court, either in a criminal prosecution or in an application for a FISA warrant. Either move would force the court to address the legality of the NSA program. In the latter context, the administration would have the benefit of being able to present its case ex parte and in secret.

But they are unwilling to do this, and for one simple reason: they are pretty certain they will lose. This paragraph from a U.S. News & World Report story last week is particularly revealing:

White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney's chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing, according to several government officials.

So they were willing to deceive judges and to drop entire prosecutions rather than test their legal theories in court. If that's not good faith, what is? The article goes on to make the obvious point:

[John] Martin, who has handled more intelligence-oriented criminal cases than anyone else at the Justice Department, puts the issue in stark terms: "The failure to allow it [information obtained from warrantless surveillance] to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."

But that's not the only evidence that the administration doesn't have much confidence in its own legal theories. The administration has worked feverishly to scuttle any further investigation into its activities and to challenge the standing of litigants (like the ACLU) who have sought to have the legality of the NSA program adjudicated in court.

And, perhaps most glaringly of all, there's the fact that the administration's primary legal argument was apparently conceived years after the program was first authorized. It's pretty hard to have a good faith belief in the merits of an argument you haven't even thought up yet. The administration is so confident in the merits of its legal theories that it won't even release the relevant OLC legal opinions, despite repeated requests.

No, despite what "several Republicans" argue, this administration does not and has never had a good faith belief that its legal theories will prevail in court.

But, you may protest, perhaps Bush did have a good faith believe that his actions would help prevent terrorism, even if he knew they were probably illegal. Isn't this a mitigating factor? Sure, if it's true. And for all I know it is. But there are two points we must not lose sight of.

First, because this surveillance is taking place in secret and without judicial review, we have no way of knowing who is actually being spied upon and why. We must simply take the administration's word. But history has shown that a president's word isn't worth a whole lot in this area. Surveillance authority was abused not only by the Nixon administration, but by his Democratic predecessors. The whole point of FISA was so we wouldn't have to take the president's word anymore. Even if you trust Bush to use this power only on terrorists and never on anyone else, can you really say the same about all future presidents?

Second, even if Bush's motives are as pure as the driven snow, it doesn't justify knowingly violating the law, at least outside of very extreme and short-term emergency scenarios. The viability of our system of constitutional government depends on the willingness of our leaders, particularly the president, to take seriously the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances embodied in our Constitution. Subverting these concepts is dangerous.

As John Dean said at Friday's hearing:

"I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self-righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals."

Amen to that.