|
October, 2005 Archives
Bush Nominates Alito For Supreme Court
Today, President Bush announced his next Supreme Court nomination, just days after Harriet Miers was forced to resign by the religious right.
According to a statement released by the White House this morning, Judge Alito was born in April 1950 in Trenton. He graduated from Princeton University in 1972, and went to Yale Law School, where he earned a J.D. in 1975. From 1977-1980, Judge Alito served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.
From 1981 to 1985, Judge Alito served as assistant to the solicitor general. He has argued 12 cases on behalf of the federal government in the United States Supreme Court and he has argued numerous others before the federal courts of appeals.
His career included serving as deputy assistant to the attorney general from 1985 to 1987. From 1987 to 1989, Judge Alito served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights, the White House said.
Here are some initial reactions to the pick:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: "I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. . . . Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The president has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan: "Instead of unifying the country, President Bush has chosen the path of confrontation. Sandra Day O’Connor has been the court's swing Justice, casting the deciding votes over the years to protect women’s reproductive freedom. Alito's confirmation could shift the court in a direction that threatens to eviscerate the core protections for women's freedom guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, or overturn the landmark decision altogether."
Gary Bauer: "Today, President Bush made an exceptional selection for the United States Supreme Court with the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito. Judge Alito's integrity, experience and qualifications are beyond question ... He is a mainstream conservative who will uphold the best traditions of our nation's highest court."
Senator Sam Brownback (R): "I commend the president and congratulate Judge Alito on this nomination, and I look forward to the upcoming confirmation hearing, during which members of the Judiciary Committee will have a robust and, I hope, civil dialogue with the nominee about the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts in American life."
That pretty well sums it up, doesn't it? Gary Bauer thinks he's great and Harry Reid thinks he's a radical.
Judge Alito has left a substantial paper trail outlining his narrow view of the Constitution and the rights granted by it to the American people. Some of the highlights of his record include a) being the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the way Alito voted (to further restrict a woman's right to an abortion by requiring her to get her husband's permission, even in a domestic violence situation) and b) upholding the unauthorized strip search of a 10 year-old girl during the execution of a search warrant of her father's home.
Justice O'Connor was a fiscally conservative, socially moderate justice who helped keep the court in line with public opinion. These cases (which reportedly are just the tip of the iceberg of Alito's decisions) begin to paint a picture of not a moderate at all, but instead a radical anti-woman, anti-civil rights extreme conservative who delights in his nickname of "Scalito" or "Little Scalia."
Posted on October 31, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Scooter Libby is Indicted: Karl Rove is Not
Things are heating up in Plamegate. Prosecutor Fitzgerald has reportedly leased more office space. Today, Scooter Libby was indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to the grand jury. Libby has resigned and will be replaced as Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted for five counts by the federal grand jury investigating the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to the grand jury, RAW STORY can confirm.
Libby resigned. According to the New York Daily News, his post will be filled by Cheney's chief counsel David Addington. A detailed announcement will be made at 2:15 p.m. ET.
The only sitting Cabinet member to be indicted in recent history was President Reagan's labor secretary, Raymond J. Donovan. Accused of grand larceny in 1984, he was acquitted in 1987. H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Nixon, resigned before being indicted -- and convicted -- in the Watergate coverup.
CNN is reporting that Karl Rove will not be charged, but will continue to be investigated, which Ann Coulter told Miles O'Brien "is the worst possible scenario for the White House." Everyone is now just waiting for the official statement from Fitzgerald at 2pm Eastern time today.
Update: Patrick Fitzgeral's first major press conference can be considered a success for him and his team. He came across as smart, thorough, concerned about the privacy rights of those being investigated, and non-partisan. He walked everyone through the charges agasinst Libby, which are all felonies. He made it very clear that outing a CIA agent is a very serious crime that hurts "all of us" and compromises our national security.
The grand jury by law has to be disbanded as of today. But he's not closing his investigation and moving home to Chicago, where he is a U.S. District Attorney. He won't say who might be indicted next or what he's investigating. But he's not going home, and he's leased more office space.
You can read the full text of the Scooter Libby indictment at The Smoking Gun.
Posted on October 28, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Goodbye to Harriet Miers
Harriet Miers has withdrawn from her nomination to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Bush and the White House bowed to pressure from the far right who weren't convinced that she's be enough of an idealogue for their purposes. Senate Minority leader Harry Reid commented on the news:
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues."
"I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."
"In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."
I, for one, am absolutely sick and tired of this "stealth nominee" business. If the next nominee is a rabid foe of Roe vs. Wade, and of women's rights, he/she should just come out and say so. The American people need to know what they're getting. If Bush wants to appoint someone who doesn't believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution, then he should just say so -- and make the nominee say so. Because when the American people hear how out of the mainstream some of the people on the short list are, I don't think they're going to like it.
Posted on October 27, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Fitzgerald Asks Grand Jury to Indict Libby and Rove
According to Bloomberg, the Plamegate grand jury has adjourned for the day.
The U.S. grand jury hearing evidence in the leak of a CIA agent's identity won't announce any indictments today, a Justice Department official said.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald met today with grand jurors at the federal courthouse in Washington. Fitzgerald made no comment as he and his staff arrived at 9 a.m. for the start of the session, which lasted about three hours.
Raw Story reports on the indictments that Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to issue:
Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.
Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.
*****
Those close to the investigation said Rove was offered a deal Tuesday to plead guilty to perjury for a reduced charge. Rove’s lawyer was told that Fitzgerald would drop an obstruction of justice charge if his client agreed not to contest allegations of perjury, they said.
Rove declined to plead guilty to the reduced charge, the sources said, indicating through his attorney Robert Luskin that he intended to fight the charges. A call placed to Luskin was not returned.
So, no indictments today: Rove and Libby must really be sweating it out.
Posted on October 26, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
New York Times Chastises Judith Miller
Judith Miller is in hot water with her own newspaper. On Sunday, The New York Times'
ombudsman wrote an column which questions Judy Miller's professionalism and journalistic ethics. It also strongly implies that she would be better off resigning from the paper.
To begin considering the handling of Ms. Miller and this whole episode, it is necessary to step back more than two years. Ms. Miller may still be best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Howell Raines was then the executive editor of The Times, and several articles about weapons of mass destruction were displayed prominently in the paper. Many of those articles turned out to be inaccurate.
*****
The most disturbing aspect of the Oct. 16 retrospective was its revelation of the journalistic shortcuts that Ms. Miller seems comfortable taking.
*****
The Times needs to review Ms. Miller's journalistic practices as soon as possible, especially because she disputes some accounts of her conduct that have come to light since the leak investigation began. Since Ms. Miller did the Plame-leak reporting, the paper has made a significant effort to be as upfront as possible with readers about anonymous sources. An update of the rules for the granting of anonymity in The Times's ethics guidelines by Allan M. Siegal, the standards editor, may also be a good idea.
*****
What does the future hold for Ms. Miller? She told me Thursday that she hopes to return to the paper after taking some time off. Mr. Sulzberger offered this measured response: "She and I have acknowledged that there are new limits on what she can do next." It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.
So, Judy lied to her editors repeatedly. She witheld notes and salient facts from them. And now she seems to think she can just waltz back into the Times office like everything is just fine and dandy. What arrogance.
Posted on October 25, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Will Indictments Lead to Resignations at the White House?
The Washington Post reports that if Patrick Fitzgerald issues indictments this week in Plamegate, there will most likely be a string of resignation letters landing on President Bush's desk.
Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) said yesterday that he expects White House officials will step down if they are indicted this week but stressed that speculation should cease until special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announces the results of his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Asked yesterday about two figures who are considered central to Fitzgerald's inquiry -- Karl Rove, White House deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- Allen said, "I think they will step down if they're indicted." But, he added during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," "Let's see what happens rather than get into all this speculation and so forth."
*****
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), appearing on the same program, said people should wait, but if there were an indictment, she hoped it would be for "a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime."
*****
Former attorney general Richard Thornburgh, who once served as head of Justice's criminal division, said that he considered opening of the Fitzgerald Web site as "an ominous development" for those under investigation. "You don't open up a Web site if you're ready to shut down an investigation," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
He also challenged the idea that an indictment for less than the original crime was not important. "If there is false testimony given or there's an attempt to corrupt any of the witnesses or evidence that is presented to the grand jury, that's a very serious offense because it undermines the integrity of the whole rule of law and investigatory process."
I find it extremely unlikely that Karl Rove will resign if he's indicted. I think he'll stay right where he is or he'll take a "leave" from his position and continue to advise President Bush on an informal basis.
Posted on October 24, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Investigating Karl Rove's Garage
While we're all waiting around to see if Patrick Fitzgerald is really going to convince the grand jury to issue a slew of indictments on Tuesday, perhaps we can find some clues as to what's going to happen in Plamegate by peeking inside Karl Rove's
garage.
On the morning of October 13, 2005, journalists were lurking around Rove's house. Finally Rove's wife, Darby, raised the white garage door to show them that Rove wasn't home the day before. That was a tactical error on Darby's part: the garage is so jam-packed full of junk you can't even park a car inside it. Which of course leads to terrible headlines from the Associate Press and a full story on how junky Rove's garage is.
He is "the architect" who steered George W. Bush to victory four times, twice as Texas governor and twice as president.
But can Karl Rove organize his own garage? Can the master of Bush's political planning figure out where to put the ladders, paint cans and cardboard boxes?
*****
The inventory, seen from outside:
-Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.
-What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.
-A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.
-A tall aluminum ladder.
-A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.
-Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.
-In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.
-Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.
You can see the photo of Karl's garage here.
"Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets"? "Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff"? Very, very suspicious.
Posted on October 23, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Patrick Fitzgerald Goes Digital
Plamegate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has now launched a website. There's not a lot there so far -- apparently they were having some trouble with their HTML code. Hopefully, someone will get that handled over the weekend in time to issue a slew of press releases, indictments and hi-res images of Fitzgerald and the indictees. Because all there is now is a bunch of really boring PDF files. Yawn.
Somehow, this doesn't sound like Fitzgerald is going away anytime soon.
Posted on October 22, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Plamegate Investigation Focuses on Coverup
The New York Times reports that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove have both been warned that they could be in serious legal trouble.
As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.
With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
The Times article says that the focus is moving to the coverup: whether Rove, Libby and others lied to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and to the grand jury. It's always the coverup that seems to lead to the worst legal trouble and it sounds like Fitzgerald isn't the type of guy to enjoy being lied to.
Posted on October 21, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Karl Rove Names Libby as His Source...Maybe
The facts underlying Plamegate become more and more murky. The Washington Post reports that
Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that it "may have been" I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that told Rove that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed. The Post quotes "a source familiar with Rove's account," which probably means a paralegal or attorney who works for Fitzgerald.
In a talk that took place in the days before Plame's CIA employment was revealed in 2003, Rove and Libby discussed conversations they had had with reporters in which Plame and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV were raised, the source said. Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said.
Rove has also testified that he also heard about Plame from someone else outside the White House, but could not recall who.
The account is the first time a person familiar with Rove's testimony has provided clues about where the deputy chief of staff learned about Plame, and confirmed that Rove and Libby were involved in a conversation about her before her identity became public. The disclosure seemed to further undermine the White House's contention early in the case that neither man was in any way involved in unmasking Plame.
*****
Lawyers in the case have said Rove and Libby are the central focus of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's 22-month investigation, which is scheduled to end by the time the grand jury expires Oct. 28. But they are not the only officials worried about the uncertain conclusion to the case.
John Hannah, an aide to Cheney and one of two dozen people questioned in the CIA leak case, has told friends in recent months he is worried he may be implicated by the investigation, according to two U.S. officials.
It is not clear whether Hannah had any role in unmasking Plame, or why he should fear Fitzgerald's probe. But the eleventh-hour emergence of another possible target shows how Fitzgerald has cast his net so widely over the past two years that it is impossible to know who, if anyone, it might ensnare.
*****
But many unknowns remain. What role did Hannah play? What, if any, role was played by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer? Who was the second source for Robert D. Novak, the columnist who first disclosed Plame's name and role in July 2003? Who was the White House official who leaked word about Wilson's wife to The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, who has never publicly revealed his source?
The rest of the lengthy article gives an excellent summary of Plamegate, who's involved and what could happen next. The bottom line is this: until Fitzgerald speaks, no one knows what's going to happen or even if anyone will be indicted.
But at a minimum, the leaked testimony so far shows that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other White House aides know a lot more than they're saying publicly. It also shows that either Karl Rove lied to President Bush about his involvement with outing Valerie Plame or -- what would be much worse for the White House -- Rove told Bush the truth from the beginning and the president knew exactly what was going on the entire time.
Posted on October 20, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Bill O'Reilly Visits Jon Stewart
Crooks and Liars has the video of Bill O'Reilly's very entertaining appearance on The Daily Show last night. Stewart asked O'Reilly was he was always so angry, and why he was still continuing to boycott France. The two of them have real chemistry.
O'Reilly said they told him backstage that there was a new show spoofing him. Of course, he was referring to the very funny new show, The Colbert Report, which airs after The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Colbert's character is a pompous, ego-centric, hardhitting newsman surrounded by a neon red, white and blue set, with Colbert's name in lights everywhere. There are intrusive graphics, wild camera angles and an on-set producer who Colbert asks about the time, as does CNN's Aaron Brown. But the show doesn't just spoof O'Reilly. Colbert's character is a mixture of many news anchors, including Sean Hannity. He has polls like Lou Dobbs. The first night he had a "gravitas-off" competition with Stone Phillips, to see who could read absurd copy in a more serious, grave tone. Stone Phillips clearly won, which was even funnier. He gravely intoned something about "rat-a-tat-tat and a toot-de-toot-toot" yet is sounded like very serious, breaking news. As he told his viewers, what America really needs is an authoritative news voice to tell them what to think. And Colbert plans to do just that.
Posted on October 19, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Harriet Miers' Abortion Views Become Clearer
It looks like all has become clear in the "will she or won't she vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade debate" swirling around Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.
"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.
Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.
This should make James Dobson happy and should terrify every woman who would prefer to make her own medical decisions without the intervention of the federal government.
Posted on October 18, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Judith Miller: Journalism's Big Disappointment
What an utter disappointment. Judith Miller goes to jail to protect a source, so she says. Then after tiring of prison life and fun visits with John Bolton, she decides to sing like a bird for Patrick Fitzgerald. And what did she say when asked who told her the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame? She can't remember. "As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from," she says. In her unbelievably vague, rambling essay for
The New York Times, she raises many more questions about her bizarre behavior during this case.
Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.
What was evident, I told the grand jury, was Mr. Libby's anger that Mr. Bush might have made inaccurate statements because the C.I.A. failed to share doubts about the Iraq intelligence.
The entire piece is riddled with strange quotes. "Maybe it meant" "The notes state"...like she wasn't even present at the telephone calls in question. Judy, Judy, Judy, who are you really protecting? Because it sure isn't Scooter Libby.
Posted on October 17, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Hillary Clinton's Fundraising Off to a Good Start
The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton's fundraising efforts are going extremely well. With the New York Senate election more than a year away, Hillary has $13.8 million in her war chest. Her likely opponent, Jeanine F. Pirro, has raised only $400,000 since August, 2005. Luckily for Pirro, Governor George Pataki stepped up to the plate and endorsed her candidacy. Without that endorsement, things would be looking pretty grim for Ms. Pirro.
On a day of rapidly developing events, Mr. Cox, a Manhattan lawyer who is married to President Richard M. Nixon's daughter Tricia, dropped out of the race hours after he met privately with Gov. George E. Pataki, the state's top Republican. Mr. Pataki told him that he would endorse Ms. Pirro and use his influence to rally rank-and-file Republicans behind her candidacy, according to a party official.
Mr. Pataki's endorsement puts an end to weeks of speculation over whether he would come to the aid of Ms. Pirro, the Westchester district attorney whose campaign has been struggling in recent weeks to overcome a series of missteps and an aggressive challenge from Mr. Cox.
Mr. Pataki publicly announced his decision to back Ms. Pirro at a news conference in Midtown, where he described her as a "a fighter" and "a trailblazer" as she stood by his side.
The combination of Mr. Pataki's endorsement and Mr. Cox's withdrawal gave Ms. Pirro a lift on a day that would otherwise have been dominated by news of her anemic fund-raising.
It's interesting that Pataki decided to endorse Pirro (who is a terrible public speaker -- remember her disastrous speech where she stuttered and stared into space when she couldn't find part of her notes?) over Cox. Maybe Pataki just couldn't see getting behind a guy whose only claim to fame is that he's Richard Nixon's son-in-law.
Posted on October 14, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Harriet and George: The Correspondence
The Smoking Gun has made available for your viewing pleasure the various notes written between Harriet Miers and George Bush when Bush was Governor of Texas. Some of you might be wondering where in the world The Smoking Gun managed to dig up a personal card sent to Governor Bush: did someone rifle through his desk or something? The explanantion is more mundane: the correspondence is part of more than 2000 pages of documents released this week by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
OCTOBER 12--Sure, nobody seems to know anything about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's judicial philosophy, abortion position, or conservative bona fides. But here's something not open for debate: the old gal loves exclamation points and seemed to enjoy writing gushy notes to then-Governor George W. Bush. Below you'll find copies of personal correspondence exchanged between Bush and Miers from 1995-2000 (before migrating to Washington, Miers headed the Texas State Lottery Commission, a post to which Bush appointed her).
In a 1997 Hallmark greeting card (adorned with a photo of a dog), Miers sent along belated birthday wishes and noted that "You are the best governor ever--deserving of great respect!" In another note (penned on an American Greetings card), Miers wrote that she hoped Bush's daughters realized that their parents were "cool." A 1995 Miers note thanked Bush for a visit, adding that an airplane ride with the governor was "Cool!" Sadly, the document dump did not include Miers's e-mail or IM messages, which are surely filled with loads of sappy emoticons.
She's certainly polite. Remember, many insiders said that Bush 41 made it to the White House on thank you notes. The man was a veritable note-writing machine. Maybe Harriet reminds W of dear old dad.
Posted on October 13, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
James Dobson's Strange Explanation
Karl Rove's kidney stones and possible impending indictment continue to take a toll on President Bush' ability to spin situations favorably. As the flap over the nomination of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court Justice grows bigger, Bush really put his foot in it today. When asked why he picked Harriet, the president replied that "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion."
That one statement has opened the door for intense questioning of Miers about her religion and how it might affect her vote. He picked her because of her religion? That's not going to play well with the majority of Americans who don't like the idea of anyone imposing his religious views on the rest of us (e.g., the Schiavo debacle). Bush got backed into a corner when James Dobson blabbed to the media that he had information about Miers from Karl Rove "that he probably shouldn't have." Naturally, the Judiciary Committee wants to know what kind of back room deal was struck between Dobson and Rove, and what this inside information consists of. The leading theory? That Rove promised Dobson that Miers would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dobson denies it, but many senators aren't buying it.
On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
Dobson said Rove told him that Miers had been a member of Texas Right to Life. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said she was not a member of the organization "that I'm aware of."
"My understanding is that she attended some events, some fund-raising events that they had," McClellan said.
Miers bought a $150 ticket to a 1989 fund-raising dinner for another anti-abortion group — Texans United for Life — according to the president of the group, now called the Texans for Life Coalition.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know. We don’t confirm Justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals," the Vermont senator said. "No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun."
Amen, Brother Leahy.
Posted on October 12, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Severe Drought Hits the Amazon Rainforest
Reuters reports that the Amazon rainforest is now suffering the worst drought in more than 40 years. The drought is causing wildfires, killing millions of fish and causing illness among the people who live near the river.
[S]cores of piranhas shook in spasms in two inches of water -- what was left of the once flowing Parana de Manaquiri river, an Amazon tributary. Thousands of rotting fish lined the its dry banks.
The governor of Amazonas, a state the size of Alaska, has declared 16 municipalities in crisis as the two-month-long drought strands river dwellers who cannot find food or sell crops.
Some scientists blame higher ocean temperatures stemming from global warming, which have also been linked to a recent string of unusually deadly hurricanes in the United States and Central America.
Rising air in the north Atlantic, which fuels storms, may have caused air above the Amazon to descend and prevented cloud formations and rainfall, according to some scientists.
"If the warming of the north Atlantic is the smoking gun, it really shows how the world is changing," said Dan Nepstadt, an ecologist from the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Research Institute, funded by the U.S. government and private grants.
"The Amazon is a canary in a coal mine for the earth. As we enter a warming trend we are in uncertain territory," he said.
Deforestation may also have contributed to the drought because cutting down trees cuts moisture in the air, increasing sunlight penetration onto land.
Other scientists say severe droughts were normal and occurred in cycles before global warming started.
Global warming is real. According to the Pentagon's own scientists, it is the greatest threat Earth faces, far greater than the threat of terrorism. And the weird weather stories just keep coming.
Posted on October 11, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
The Mystery of Harriet Miers
Time magazine leads with a piece on Harriet Miers about the two knocks against her and how she's going to be confirmed anyway. There's not a lot that is new in the article except for the tidbit that she was once engaged. But the article doesn't give any thrilling details, such as the fiance's name. Other than that, it just rehashes what we already know: not much. The article speculates that when Rove was out of the office with kidney stones, Andy Card (who doesn't get along with Rove at all) cooked up the Harriet Miers nomination with President Bush, keeping it a secret from everyone -- including Harriet.
One of Miers' jobs as White House counsel was to judge the judges, including the search that ended with the Roberts pick. According to a presidential adviser who has been briefed on the chronology of the decision, senior adviser Karl Rove was less involved than he is in most major decisions. Some conservatives speculate that Rove was distracted or out of the loop because of his possible legal jeopardy in the CIA leak case, but White House officials reject that notion. The driving force was chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who took over the vetting role. "This is something that Andy and the President cooked up," the adviser told TIME. "Andy knew it would appeal to the President because he loves appointing his own people and being supersecret and stealthy about it." Relations between Rove and Card have always been strained, and this adviser said the nomination has reignited the tension. Another Republican involved said it reflected Bush's isolation. "Somebody just like her should have told him, "Mr. President, no. This is a mistake." But he picked the picker, so there was no one there to tell him no."
And as for whether she'll be a Sandra Day O'Connor or a Clarence Thomas, an SMU classmate Gary Rice says he thinks she'll more of an O'Connor-type justice.
"My theory is that she is going to be a Justice very much like Sandra Day O'Connor," says Gary Rice, in words that might cheer moderates but spook anyone looking for someone with a weed whacker who will go after liberal rulings of the past 30 years. "If she moves the law, it will be in small steps. She won't be one to say, 'Let's just throw all that out and do something different.'" One of the most intriguing insights into the Real Harriet Miers came from her longtime friend, former law partner and sometime love interest Justice Nathan Hecht, who is considered the most conservative justice on the Texas Supreme Court. "This is very important, and I don't think the public understands," he told TIME. "When you take an oath and swear that you will judge cases properly after that, you can't inject your personal views or religious faith into decisions because it would be wrong. You would either be a bad Christian or a bad judge. Religion says a lot about who you are personally, but it says nothing about stare decisis [following precedent], the commerce clause, the First Amendment, search and seizure or any of the issues she's going to deal with." All of which will surely leave some Christian activists wondering, What's the good of having the first Evangelical on the bench if she leaves her faith in the robing room?
One thing's for sure: this will be much more contentious confirmation hearing than Justice Roberts had.
Posted on October 10, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Bush Bird Flu Plan Unpopular
Reaction to President Bush's call for Congress to give him the power to use the military in the event of a bird flu pandemic has been quite negative. It's clearly a backdoor way to introduce federal martial law in the event of a flu outbreak.
Bush said aggressive action would be needed to prevent a potentially disastrous U.S. outbreak of the disease that is sweeping through Asian poultry and which experts fear could mutate to pass between humans.
Such a deadly event would raise difficult questions, such as how a quarantine might be enforced, the president said.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil.
But Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness, told The Associated Press the president's suggestion was dangerous.
Giving the military a law enforcement role would be an "extraordinarily Draconian measure" that would be unnecessary if the nation had built the capability for rapid vaccine production, ensured a large supply of anti-virals like Tamiflu and not allowed the degradation of the public health system.
"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," Redlener said.
And Gene Healy, a senior editor at the conservative Cato Institute, said Bush would risk undermining "a fundamental principle of American law" by tinkering with the act, which does not hinder the military's ability to respond to a crisis.
"What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role," he wrote in a commentary on the group's Web site. "That reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."
Healy said soldiers are not trained as police officers, and putting them in a civilian law enforcement role "can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty."
This is simply an attempt at a power grab by the executive branch, which is specifically prohibited under current law. And even if it weren't illegal, we don't have the troops for something like this: they're all in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the state governments working in conjunction with the CDC (and possibly the WHO) who should be in charge: they're the ones who have experience handling epidemics and viral outbreaks. Not a bunch of 22 year-olds with rifles.
Posted on October 7, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Will Karl Rove Be Indicted?
The beltway is all atwitter today over the possiblity that Karl Rove may be headed for an indictment.
Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.
The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.
Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.
The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.
Being hauled in front of the grand jury for the fourth time is not a good sign, according to former prosecutors. Lawrence O'Donnell of the Huffington Post says that Rove's actions clearly indicate that he fears an indictment. No one in his right mind volunteers to go before a grand jury so many times, unless he's trying to stave off an indictment. O'Donnell also says that being asked to testify at the end of an investigation is the same as being asked to come in to negotiate a deal.
Next week should be a very interesting week.
Posted on October 6, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
A Spy in the White House
Ok, this can't be good. Apparently, Dick Cheney had an actual spy working for him for several years. He was a naturalized citizen and he used his top secret clearance to get into the computers and send secret documents to the Phillipines (who knows where they went from there). He also worked for Condi when she was National Security Advisor and was at the White House when Al Gore was Vice-president.
In 2000, Aragoncillo worked on the staff of then-Vice President Al Gore. When interviewed by Philippine television, he remarked how valued Philippine employees were at the White House.
"I think what they like most is our integrity and loyalty," Aragoncillo said.
How in the world does this happen in a post 9/11 world? Didn't everyone at the White House get re-vetted after we were attacked? Apparently not.
And on another subject, how humiliating. The spy didn't work for Russia or China or one of the big players. He worked for the Phillipines. That's just embarassing.
Posted on October 5, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Miers' Aide Says She's Extremely Anti-Choice
Well, that didn't take long. Those who are wondering where Harriet Miers stands on the abortion issue have direct evidence that Miers is vehemently anti-choice. In an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Miers' former campaign manager for her run for the Dallas City Council drops these little bombs this morning about her former boss:
As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989.
"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Ms. Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.
"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Ms. Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
*****
Ms. Bartos said Ms. Miers was supportive of abortion rights in her youth. She said Ms. Miers then underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion.
*****
Ron Key, who has been Ms. Miers' pastor since the early 1980s, said his church is anti-abortion. Mr. Key, who recently left Valley View Christian Church to found a new church with Ms. Miers and others, stopped short, however, of saying that those beliefs would color her approach to the law.
Well that seems clear enough. Unless she's undergone some other kind of major conversion in her thinking since 1989 (which is wildly unlikely given her resume) she'll vote for as many restrictions on Roe vs. Wade and then to overturn it faster than you can say "Harry Reid Should Keep His Big Mouth Shut." Oh, didn't you know? It was Harry Reid who suggested Miers to Bush.
Posted on October 4, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Harriet Miers Gets Her Chance
President Bush got this week's news cycle started by nominating Harriet Meirs, his personal counsel, to be the next Supreme Court justice. So who is Harriet Miers? She's one of the Bush inner circle. She went to SMU and SMU Law School. She was the first woman hired by Locke, Purnell, and later was the first female partner. She helped Bush clean up Texas Lotto. And when she went to the White House, she's the one that's led the search for all those conservative federal judges Bush is so fond of.
But she's never been a judge, so she has virtually no paper trail. A lifelong member of the Valley View Christian church, her pastor says her views on abortion are "consistent with the views of Christian evangelicals." But is that a Jimmy Carter evangelical or a James Dobson evangelical?
An article on Law.com notes that she's single, with no children but has dated conservative Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht off and on over the years. One assumes that Justice Hecht (who is rabidly anti-choice) was also unmarried during this episodic dating behavior.
What do we know? Harriet Miers is a trailblazer, no question. She gave money to Al Gore in the 80's before Al Gore was pro-choice. She remembers people's birthdays. She wears size 6 shoes. So, what does it all mean as far as her position on protecting the right to choose? No one has a clue as of today. Let the research begin.
Posted on October 3, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
|
Our Blogs
Bloggers Blog
Book Blog
Crafters Craft
Drivers Drive
Fantasy SF Blog
Gamers Game
Health News Blog
HowToWeb.com
The IWJ Blog
Lovers Love
Media Cynic
Petosphere
Pleasant Morning Buzz
Science News Blog
Shopping Blog
Singers Sing
Surfers Surf
Traders Trade
Video Nacho
Watchers Watch
Workers Work
The Write News
Writer's Blog
Text Ad Links:
|