Finally an employment service for the rest of us: cronyjobs.com.
Finally an employment service for the rest of us: cronyjobs.com.
There are certainly a lot of hints, allegations and murmurs out there tonight, particularly on the bloggier part of the web, about what might be coming down the pike from Patrick Fitzgerald. My favorite is this snippet from Hardball -- caught and excerpted on John Aravosis' Americablog -- which has Howard Fineman describing an alleged pre-indictment (political) death struggle pitting Karl Rove against Andy Card.
Gotta love that. Whether it's true or not, who knows?
In any case, an article (sub.req.) in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal contains this pleasant sounding sentence: "Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy."
And then further down there's this: "Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims."
First of all, it did play a big role. That's where the push back came from.
If this description is accurate, it must have many folks at the White House in cold sweats.
If Karl Rove goes down in this investigation it'll be a disaster for the president, both in terms of the damage occasioned by such a high-level White House indictment and, frankly, because he needs the guy like most of us need legs.
But this WHIG thing is a whole 'nother level of hurt.
This group was the organizational team, the core group behind all the shameless crap that went down in the lead up to the Iraq war -- the lies about the cooked up Niger story, everything. If Fitzgerald has lassoed this operation into a criminal conspiracy, the veil of protective secrecy in which the whole operation is still shrouded will be pulled back. Depositions and sworn statements in on-going investigations have a way of doing that. Ask Bill Clinton. Every key person in the White House will be touched by it. And all sorts of ugly tales could spill out.
Back in the old days a congressman arrested for a DWI was a pretty big deal. But with half of the political establishment in DC about to be indicted, I guess this sort of thing just doesn't show up on the radar.
Does this just-moved AP piece on Karl Rove look a bit like a political obit?
A friend in need is a ...
October 19, 2005 6:00 PM-7:00 PM
Please Join Congressman Mike Conway for a Reception with Special Guest Congressman Tom DeLay Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers 412 First Street, SE, 3rd Floor $1000 per PAC $500 per Individual Please RSVP to David Bowser or Amber Burton at 703-xxx-xxxx or email email@example.com
Just out from Murray Waas in National Journal: "In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony. Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation."
As I suspected it would, my post from earlier today about the Iraq spurred a storm of emails, many heated and indignant. But there also seemed to be more than a bit of confusion about just I was trying to say -- no doubt because of my lack of clarity.
So, on the main issue: We never would have gotten inspectors back into Iraq without a credible threat of force. But once the inspectors were in, they quickly began undermining the case that there was any serious WMD program or capability in Iraq. Had we pursued the inspections process in good faith, which we would have done had our true goal been eliminating WMDs (or confirming they weren't there), we probably would have avoided this current mess because the war never would have started.
That was my point.
An article by James Cramer in New York magazine predicting what has been obvious since 2002: that President Bush's fiscal profligacy is pushing the nation toward a harrowing economic crisis.
Matt Yglesias has a shrewd post on the on-going meta-debate about the what ifs and coulda shouldas of Iraq. Matt is advancing the increasingly convincing argument that even under the most competent and well-supplied management the entire Iraq endeavor may have been doomed to failure.
I said some of my piece on this question last month. But let me suggest another fold of the debate that seems seldom discussed nowadays.
All of our reasoning on this subject today is governed by the fact that it has proven an immensely challenging, perhaps impossible task. That weighs against the fact that the key casus belli -- the presence of weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be false.
So we have an immensely difficult, even impossible, challenge that we embarked on -- let's be frank -- for no good reason. And you don't have to be a genius to add up the pros and cons of that one.
But what if there had been weapons of mass destruction? Some in place and an active program under way?
Yes, I know this is a counter-factual which you may think has no particular point or reason now. But bear with me.
The notional reason for what happened in 2002 and early 2003 was not to overthrow the Iraqi government but to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction program. To many it seemed that the latter almost necessarily required the former. And under the erroneous information then considered conventional wisdom, that reasoning had a certain logic.
But here's the key. If our goal had actually been the elimination of a dangerous weapons of mass destruction program -- the one challenge that might conceivably have merited the mess we've gotten ourselves into -- we might well not be in this situation at all.
Support for war really could be contingent on this question. And forcing intrusive inspections could have -- indeed, it was in the course of demonstrating that the WMD threat was bogus and that war was unnecessary. That was the reason the White House was so eager to launch the war when it did. Their rationale was in the midst of being cut out from under them.
The difficulty of the situation we're in can't be evaluated without an accounting of whether we had a good reason to get ourselves into this mess. And I guess I'm saying that there was a way we could have had our cake and eaten it too.
Now, some of you will say that my argument here is an effort to rationalize or justify my one-time, contigent support for war. And to some degree that is certainly right. In a case like this everyone's motives and biases deserve scrutiny. Still I think this part of the equation gets too little attention today. There is another part of this puzzle beside easy reconstruction vs. disastrous reconstruction and WMDs vs. no WMDs.
Of course, this leaves aside the folly of intentions that I think was the liberal hawks' greatest error.
The Times has a piece in tomorrow's paper about "more than 2,000 pages of [Harriet Miers'] official correspondence and personal notes made public on Monday by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in response to open-records requests."
Honestly? A lot of it sounds like that Harriet Miers parody blog everyone's been linking to.
"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect."