This post at DailyKos made me ponder Dick Cheney for a few moments. Just letting you know the trigger-point for this post, I’m not saying it really told me anything new or which I didn’t suspect. But, when this administration is reviewed in its entirety sometime decades hence, I think we’ll find that there was widespread disregard for the niceties of the law — be it with respect to proper use of classified materials, observance of due process, compliance with open door laws, observance of civil service laws, observance of campaign finance laws, observance of election laws, observance of the laws against torture, and other niggling details. I further think that we’ll find that George W. Bush didn’t really know what was going on, didn’t really know what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I think we’ll find that Cheney knew exactly what was going on, knew exactly what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

The Evansville Courier Press has an article entitled Scooter Libby that is rather remarkable. It stands for the proposition that Scooter Libby, convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal prosecutors, received too harsh a sentence when the judge sentenced him to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Just to provide a bit of perspective, by my not at all expert calculations, this is about the same sentence as one might receive for possessing about 40 pounds of marijuana.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with investigating the circumstances leading to Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s outing of undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. In the course of his investigation, Libby apparently lied to him repeatedly, thereby hindering an effective investigation.

With respect to this investigation, the Evansville Courier Press makes the rather startling assertion “it was known from the outset that no crime had occurred and who the leakers were.” Known by whom? When? Editor & Publisher has a nice run down of the White House Press Secretary’s statements on the matter:

9/29/03 – White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. And yet, as it turns out, he was. McClellan says, “I’ve made it very clear, [Rove] was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.”

10/7/03 – McClellan says he spoke to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Elliott Abrams and they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity.

10/10/03 – McClellan reports that he spoke with Libby, Rove, and Abrams about the Plame leak and those individuals “assured me that they were not involved in this.”

After that, the White House clammed up and claimed they wouldn’t comment on an “ongoing investigation.” So for the Courier Journal to claim that “it was known at the outset” who the leakers were is preposterous.

The editorial goes on to say:

Much about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is still not public, including why Libby felt compelled to lie. Was it to protect his boss, as administration critics suspect, or simply an overzealous defense of the White House rationale for going to war, as his defenders insist?

Protect his boss from what? The Courier Press has assured us that “it was known from the outset that no crime occurred.”

The Courier Press ends with this eyebrow raiser:

A pardon issued on the eve of Libby’s scheduled arrival at federal prison would be seen for what it is — hypocrisy and favoritism.

But Bush’s standing is so low that a pardon couldn’t do him much more damage, and it seems little enough to do for a loyal aide who is one of the dwindling few who still believe in this White House.

“Go on, George. Give him the pardon. Sure, it’s wrong, but what have you got to lose?”

From the What Was the Hold Up Department?: ABC News: Louisiana Rep. Jefferson Indicted in Bribery Probe.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
. . .
Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson’s home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer. . . . Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotape taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson’s home.

House Democrats stripped Jefferson of his Ways & Means committee membership last year. If he’s on any other committees, he needs to be bounced.

Via Balloon Juice:

The Commissar has handily assembled authoritative statements from every major official at the DOJ denying a significant role in creating the list of axed Attorneys. It just appeared one day under their noses and then some mysterious, unexplained force compelled them to act on it. I tell you, that’s pretty spooky. If it weren’t for my doggone empiricism I would join them lest the List grow angry and smite me.

Reminds me of Ash’s disembodied hand in Evil Dead II. Groovy!

Tim F. at Balloon Juice has an interesting take on the “digital divide” between Conservatives and Liberals on the Internet. Generally speaking, it seems that Democratic candidates have thriving online operations and liberal netizens have some degree of influence on Democratic politicians. Meanwhile, Republican candidates don’t seem to be having nearly the online success of their Democratic counterparts and conservative netizens don’t have the same degree of influence on their preferred politicians. Says former Republican Congressional aide David All: “For the most part Republicans are stuck in Internet circa 2000.”

I don’t know if there is any scientific basis, but, as one reason for the divide, Tim F. asserts what I’ve seen passing as the common wisdom about the disposition of conservatives versus liberals. Conservatives respond better to authority than do liberals. Liberals are less organized. “Ask 3 Democrats, get 4 opinions.” The result is that radio is a more effective communication tool for conservative political operations than the Internet. Radio is one-to-many without a lot of that anti-authority “feedback” messing things up. Internet is more of a “many-to-many” form of communication. The ability for the liberal rabble rousers to argue among themselves ends up being a positive thing for Democratic political operations:

“What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past—they couldn’t get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn’t stay on message—is now an asset,” Leyden said. “All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it.”

Tim F. says:

Researchers like Bob Altmeyer have exhaustively demonstrated that conservative followers like being told what to think and conservative leaders don’t tolerate input from the masses. In that way radio is the perfect medium, sending the Party line through a select group of reliable disseminators to the polloi with little chance for feedback, which liberals value but authoritarians hate. It helps explain why few conservative blogs allow comments and why Clear Channel radio often jettisons popular local conservatives to make room for a Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage monoculture. Feedback is a bug and the more mouthpieces you have the harder it gets to control the Party line.

Interesting theory, though it obviously paints with an awfully broad brush. I have noticed that conservative bloggers tend not to open up their comments as much as liberal bloggers seem to. That’s just one data point — coming from me, it’s also an anectdotal one. Even if there are these tendencies among Republican and Democratic voters, I suspect that these tendencies are very susceptible to being overridden as the political times change. With Iraq and George W. Bush’s betrayal of articulated conservative pricniples hanging as albatrosses around their neck, I think the Democrats will find themselves with considerably more power in the near future. Power will work its corrupting influence. Institutional players with huge money will seek to influence the Democrats even more and, as they gain influence, online liberal citizens will lose what influence they do have. Meanwhile, the Republicans will regroup, become more responsive to citizens, and will use the Internet more effectively.

Just a guess.

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired wrote a letter to President Bush on the subject of his veto of legislation funding the troops and setting a timeline for getting them out of Iraq. It’s strong stuff.

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear — most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops’ peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power – military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking – or have been broken already – by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable – and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military’s finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

So, President Bush has vetoed 2 bills now – one on stem cell research and one on funding the troops.

The cover up is always worse than the original scandal. Looks like the Attorney General scandal may get to a new level of bad for AG Alberto Gonzales. Murray Waas, reporting for the National Journal, says that the AG’s political lackeys, Kyle Sampson (resigned) and Monica Goodling (taking the 5th) were given extraordinary power over the hirings and firings of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. These two were supposedly working closely with the White House and the delegation of authority to them “was an attempt to make the department [of Justice] more responsive to the political side of the White House.”

That’s interesting in its own right. But the delegation of authority was apparently not disclosed to the House or Senate Judiciary committees investigating the matter. Senator Leahy is not amused. I know, I know. I’ll bet this delegation of authority just slipped Alberto Gonzales’s sieve-like mind. At the end of the day, hiding this delegation of authority is going to do more damage to Gonzales and the Bush administration than the original decision to politicize the Department of Justice.

Update Alberto Gonzales had quite a quote on the subject of the memo:

“I was reminded that it was shown to me yesterday. I haven’t studied it. Let me study it. And I don’t want to comment on it, but I was reminded that it was shown to me. But I didn’t study it and so before commenting on it I’d like to have the opportunity to study it and find out what happened here because again I need to look at it.”

Oh my. (H/t Monticello for the quote via WISH-TV)

Iacocca may be trying to sell a book; he may not have all the answers, but he does have a fine rant in Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

There is quite a bit more in the excerpt at the linked page, and presumably much, much more in his book. The excerpt was enjoyable. I probably won’t bother with the book, however.

Advance Indiana has a post on Victor Gold’s book entitled Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP. AI’s description of the book captures most of my uneasiness with the Republican Party, particularly on the federal level and particularly over the past decade or so.

Gold is (was?) a family friend of the Bushes and was a co-author of Bush the Elder’s “auto”biography. So, Gold is probably not pre-disposed to bash Republicans. And yet:

Gold’s beef with the younger Bush’s administration can be summed up as follows: “Under Bush and Cheney, he argues, the GOP has moved away from principles of small government, prudent foreign policy and leaving people alone to live their private lives — all views Gold associates with his hero, Goldwater.” “[His book] makes plain Gold’s contempt for the direction of his party and the guidance of its leaders.” “For all the Rove-built facade of his being a ‘strong’ chief executive, George W. Bush has been, by comparison to even hapless Jimmy Carter, the weakest, most out of touch president in modern times,” Gold writes. “Think Dan Quayle in cowboy boots.” “The war was a big factor.” “It seemed to Gold to run counter to the traditionally conservative notion of keeping clear of foreign entanglements.” “He was infuriated by Bush-Cheney moves to augment executive power.” “And he was disgusted by the Terri Schiavo episode, which to this old libertarian seemed emblematic of a modern GOP takeover by religious zealots.”

I just love the use of the passive voice when a government scandal is being “explained.” Probably the quintessential form of this is the phrase, “mistakes were made.” So, I was tickled to read that President Bush used that phrase when commenting on the Justice Department dismissing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons having to do with their personal loyalty to President Bush as opposed to professional reasons having to do with their ability to do their jobs.

“Mistakes were made, and I’m frankly not happy about it,” Bush said during a joint news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico.

. . .

[Attorney General] Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made in the dismissal of the federal prosecutors, but he rejected calls for his resignation from Democrats incensed by fresh evidence that the Bush administration testified inaccurately about its role in the controversy.

Gonzales went on to “accept responsibility,” but placed the blame on his chief of staff. The Bush administration has correctly noted that the U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President,” but went on to falsely assert that these sorts of dismissals are customary.

In the past, incoming administrations have replaced United States attorneys with their own presidential appointees after taking over from the other political party, as President Bill Clinton did when he won the White House after 12 years of Republican control. But neither the Clinton nor the Reagan administrations sought the removal of United States attorneys in their second terms.

Mark Silva, writing for the Chicago Tribune has a good recap on the story to date:

The saga started after Bush’s re-election in 2004 with a recommendation to the Justice Department by Harriet Miers, then-counsel to the president, that all 93 of the nation’s federal prosecutors be replaced. The White House explained that Miers, whom Bush later offered and withdrew as a Supreme Court nominee, was looking for “fresh blood” in the prosecutors’ offices.

. . .

Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales and rejected Miers’ recommendation to replace all the prosecutors, resigned Monday after Gonzales blamed him for the withholding of information about the firings from Congress.

. . .

Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. The White House says that the firings mostly were based on poor job performance.

. . .

Q–Was partisan politics involved in any of these cases?

A–The administration insists it was not, but critics think otherwise. One of those fired, David Iglesias of New Mexico, said two New Mexico Republicans, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, called him to ask whether a political corruption investigation involving a prominent Democrat would be finished by Election Day 2006. He told them it would not. The Justice Department confirmed that Domenici called the agency to complain about Iglesias, and Iglesias was later dismissed.

Q–Are there indications that Iglesias had a poor job performance?

A–Iglesias was given a strong job evaluation in 2005. But Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Justice Department officials “felt that he was not managing the office as well as it should be” and “didn’t possess leadership skills.”

Q–Is political influence the only issue here?

A–No. The controversy has heated up considerably since it was learned that Justice Department officials who testified before Congress under oath last week misstated how active the White House had been in the firings.

Q–How active?

A–It was revealed Tuesday that President Bush told Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors were not aggressive enough in vote fraud cases. It was also disclosed that White House counsel Harriet Miers had planned a U.S. attorney purge two years earlier. And the emerging role of White House political adviser Karl Rove has attracted particular notice.

Q–Did the Justice officials give intentionally misleading testimony to Congress about the White House role?

A–Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned Monday after acknowledging he did not tell other officials about the full extent of White House contacts before they testified. Bush said Wednesday that “mistakes were made” in communication, but he insisted the firings were not political.