Broken

The United States of America is founded on two basic functional principles: our democratic system and our rule of law, both set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In both categories, thanks to the Bush administration, this nation is in grave danger of failing. And by failing I mean setting itself up for chaos and blatant dictatorship, which in effect will threaten the future of the civilized world and perhaps life as we know it on Earth.

Our rule of law is challenged again and again, so obviously this past week when the Bushites try again to override a court decision that denies them their ability to destroy constitutional and international rights. The principle of habeus corpus is obscurely named --perhaps it should be repeated as "the right to your day in court" or to be charged and put on trial according to law. But its bad branding shouldn't obscure how fundamental a right it is--basic to every other right in the Constitution, including free speech and freedom of religion. As Constitutional law expert said on Countdown: "...it is actually the foundation for all other rights. When the president—when the government throws you into a dungeon for what you say or who you pray to, it‘s habeas corpus that‘s the right that allows you to see the enforcement of the other rights."

We learned more last week about the lengths to which the Bushites go to deny these rights, in the effort to circumvent the law by appealing to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft when he had relinquished his authority temporarily to have surgery and recover from it.

But these are not new efforts--the Bush administration has been doing all this persistently, and yet they continue to do so, with no one effectively stopping them. Such brazen success emboldens others to defy the rule of law, such as the Republicans who lined up last week to demand the immediate pardon of Scooter Libby, despite his lawful prosecution and conviction, despite the fact that he was convicted of obstructing justice by preventing effective investigation and possible prosecution of larger, underlying crimes in the Valerie Plame affair, and despite contravening the established procedures for pardons in the most outrageous ways. Pardons are normally given after the sentence is served or at least begun, and after the convicted admits guilt, repents and asks for mercy. But Republicans want the law and the courts to simply be ignored and overpowered by the executive.

What if President Clinton had looked at the Supreme Court decision of Gore v. Bush that gave the election to Bush in 2000, rightly concluded that it was a flawed decision, against precedent, and made by justices with political conflicts of interest, and simply voided it? The principle is exactly the same.

But from this, we get supreme irony. Clinton respected the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary. And so we got a guy who doesn't.

In other times, actions of which President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are accused or have admitted would be sufficient cause to bring articles of impeachment against them. But no such congressional action is forthcoming.The Bushite challenge to the rule of law is an aspect of their challenge to the fundamentals of our democratic system. The Iraq war is opposed by three-fourths of the American people, yet it goes on. Three-fourths of the American people believe the country is on the wrong track, and yet the Bushites persist. Even though the Bushites are legitimately in power until the next election, this indecent ignoring of the opinions of citizens is very dangerous to democracy.

More serious still are the Bushites direct threats to electoral democracy. The pattern of firing and hiring officers of the law in the U.S. Justice system based on political party and ideological loyalties is itself a major threat to our system. Yet the people responsible for this have not been held accountable. After many calls for his firing, after many predictions that he would not last out the week or the month, Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General of the U.S., despite evidence which continues to mount that he has been dishonest, incompetent and acted against the rule of law, and against fairness necessary for the democratic electoral system to function.

Moreover, the intent of these manipulations of justice seems more and more clearly to be to suppress votes that may go to Democrats, by appointing judges who would prosecute charges of voter fraud against Democrats, no matter how dubious those charges might be, and to ignore charges of voter suppression and fraud against Republicans, no matter how substantial the evidence might be.

The intent clearly is to create a permanent majority for Bushites, who might more properly be called Rovians, because they intend to continue beyond this administration (possibly with Fred Thompson.) So simply waiting for Bush to leave office won't be enough. The intent is to subvert the electoral system.

The Bushites have so far successfully acted like a dictatorship, and no one has stopped them. There are ongoing investigations but they are painfully and perhaps fatally slow. The Bushites, the Rovians seek to establish the means for further dictatorship, and no one is preventing them. The U.S. is in deep trouble, and so is the future.

Valerie Plame Wilson. AP photo.

Exposing the Masters of Deceit

They lied us into the war that began four years ago today. They said Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and were collecting materials to build nuclear bombs. We now know that they knew there was little evidence that those weapons existed, and the one bit of supposed evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material was false. They not only insisted it was true--they went to treasonous lengths to keep their lie from being exposed.In an effort to destroy the credibility of the messenger--Joseph Wilson, who the CIA sent to track down the nuclear rumor--at the interfering insistence of VP Cheney--the White House exposed the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert CIA officer, and falsely accused her of sending her husband to Niger. (As if, by the way, that alone is enough to make the fiction of Iraq's nuclear attempts true.)

On Friday, Rep. Henry Waxman began his hearings into security breaches with a statement in which General Hayden, current head of the CIA, affirmed that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was published, having been distributed to the press no fewer than 20 times by multiple members of the Bush administration. In her testimony, Plame said under oath that she had been on covert status, that she had in fact travelled outside the U.S. as a covert agent within five years (a technicality in the law protecting the identity of covert operatives), and that her outing had destroyed her 20 year career investigating weapons of mass destruction programs that might threaten the U.S.

Despite President Bush's statements that he would investigate the leak of her name, and fire anyone involved, there was further testimony from the Director of the White House Office of Security that there was no investigation whatever. And Karl Rove, one of the leakers, is still an official force in the White House.

Plame said that she knew that her identity might be discovered and exposed by a foreign government. She never imagined it would be exposed by high officials of her own government.

Still, the supporters of Bush, the right wing TV and radio babbleheads, continue to insist that Plame was not covert, and that this is mere politics. Which leads to the question: if killing more than 3,000 American soldiers and maiming thousands more, as well as killing and maiming countless thousands in Iraq as well as destroying that society, all based on lies, and the outing of a U.S. covert agent for political purposes, and the continung defense of these acts by means of more lies--if all this is not treason, what is?

The Lies That Bind

It's a sad day in a sad time. With the Lewis Libby conviction on obstruction of justice and perjury, we have the spectre of a White House--most specifically, the Vice President's office but also others in the Administration-- that consciously lied to get the country to invade and occupy Iraq, then tried to suppress the truth, then tried to punish Joseph Wilson, the former Ambassador to Iraq under Bush Sr. who actually saved lives there, for exposing one of these lies, by revealing that his wife was a covert operative at the CIA, thus endangering her life and ending her career, as well as ending her decades-long work in uncovering weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the U.S.

President Bush said repeatedly that he would fire anyone who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. During Libby's trial, several other officials were implicated in doing so, including Rove and the VP. The statement about firing people who committed what some would call treason is currently inoperative.

Lewis Libby obstructed justice and lied to the Grand Jury to protect his boss, VP Cheney, and the White House. Some speculate he did so after being given assurances that he will receive a presidential pardon. A sad-eyed John Dean appeared on "Countdown" to say he expects that Bush will pardon Libby before Libby spends a single day in jail. The corruption of this White House was further revealed today in congressional hearings that are showing that several federal prosecutors were fired because they didn't play politics with their offices.

Other congressional hearings are detailing how this administration, after sending young Americans to Iraq on false pretenses, for brutally long tours of duty, with poor planning, confused mission, and insufficient resources, including insufficient armor and other protection that led to needless serious injuries, failed to provide the proper care to those who were so injured after they returned.

I've said here before that to confront the problems ahead, we need to get away from knee-jerk us/them, either/or responses. We need in many cases to understand the concerns that underlie the otherwise inexplicable positions and behavior. We need to listen to contrary evidence and arguments. We need to honor sincerity. We need to communicate and find common ground.But we also need to be clear. What this administration has done and is doing is evil. It is corrupt and corrupting, and it is dangerous.

It also goes hand in hand with practices and attitudes by those who identify themselves as conservatives or the Right, that are unacceptable in a civilized society, let alone a democratic one. Though the left is not without its vitriolics, its knee-jerk responses to opposition, I believe Kos was right today in noting that "Michael Savage is the third most popular talk radio host in the country, a hero to millions of conservatives" thanks to venomous rhetoric." Like Coulter, Savage knows what the conservative movement craves and delivers -- a steady diet of hate and rage." In an earlier post, Kos quotes another blogger, Glenn Greenwald on Ann Coulter: [T]he significance lies not just in this specific outburst on Friday but in the whole array of hate-mongering, violence-inciting remarks over all these years. Its significance lies in the critical fact that Malkin expressly acknowledged: "She's very popular among conservatives." The focus of these stories should not be Coulter, but instead, should be the conservative movement in which Ann Coulter -- precisely because of (not "despite") her history of making such comments -- is "very popular."

I heard Coulter herself on TV say that the lesson of this latest flap should be that conservatives need not restrain themselves, because she's done this many times and it hasn't damaged her career at all.

We have reached this point where baseless accusations, open bigotry, and expressions of hate and rage are normal discourse, and this is not unrelated to the ideological justifications for an us/them partisanship that knows no bounds--not the law, not the Constitution, not common decency, and certainly not accuracy or the truth.

Our leaders feel justified in doing anything they can get away with, and they are supported loudly by the most watched news network which routinely distorts for ideological effect (Fox's coverage of the Libby conviction was a screenful of "Libby Not Guilty," which applied to one of the five counts, and that, according to a juror, because a single juror voted against that particular count) and by an entrenched ideologically driven political force that has no respect for the truth, and traffics in hate, rage and venom. It's a sad day indeed.

The No Rove Blues

Karl Rove's lawyer dashed visions of Karl Rove frog-marched into prison when he announced that he'd received a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stating that there were no plans to indict Rove.The responses on the lefty sites were varied. Some questioned whether Rove was "cooperating," maybe to get Cheney. Some dissed those who had reported that Rove would be indicted, and those who believed them. An Associated Press report suggested that while Rove was lying to the press and public, he was telling the truth to the FBI:" The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public."

And some went after Fitzgerald, previously an unquestioned hero. Though Fitzgerald's office refused to confirm it had sent this letter, some of those who accepted his lawyer's veracity said Fitzgerald's decision didn't make sense. "Those of us who have dealt with Fitzgerald in Chicago know that he has been a political pawn of the Bush Administration since he was appointed," wrote Sheldon Drobny. He suggests the White House gave Libby up to limit the damage.

Frank Dwyer suggested the only reason so many believed Fitzgerald is an incorruptible hero who would bring Rove and others to justice was because they needed to believe somebody was going to save the country: "I suspect if you put your faith in Fitzgerald, you did it for the same reasons I did: because you wanted to, because you needed to.The point here (here and everywhere) is that no institutions in a democracy are safe if the party that holds power is ruthlessly determined to corrupt and subvert those institutions to keep that power, especially when the rest of us are too disorganized or demoralized or lazy or stupid or afraid to stop them.Our situation is very serious.

This country is in very great danger, more danger than it faced in 1861. (Even if it had split apart on Lincoln's watch, one part would still have been, potentially, honorable, good, just, faithful to the idea of the Constitution.)He calls for focus:We need to decide very specifically what we want and who can best lead us in achieving it; and then we need to fight as hard as we can one more time to persuade enough Americans to vote with us--against greed, meanness, and corruption; for the Constitution and the idea of democracy."

His hope, like that of others, is desperate. The only person he sees out there who can do this is Al Gore, and so far Gore is not running for anything. "We really shouldn't argue too much with each other: we need to unite and move quickly, boldly, the way we would if we were being attacked by an enemy from another planet--because, in a very real sense, we are. Make no mistake: it will be hard, even now, to defeat a party that believes it has a special dispensation from God to lie and cheat because God wants it to keep power. Losing to this party again is unthinkable--but it can't be. We have to think it, and let the thought of the meaning and consequences of that defeat inspire our greatest efforts. Otherwise, all we will be left with is a slim doomsday consolation: my apologies to the penguins and the polar bears, but an electorate so stupid as to be taken in again by these terminally greedy aliens among us will get what it deserves and deserve exactly what it gets. "

The worst thing about Rove not being indicted is that he'll be out there for the next election. He's already pumping up the Republican troops with his usual character assassination and bullshit rhetoric.But maybe it's good to realize just how hard it is going to be to reverse this flow, even with Bush bottoming out at 33% or so, and Democrats irrationally exuberant over their chances to retake Congress in November. Recent press treatment of moderate Democrats, let alone progressives, reverted to Clinton era form. They never gave Clinton a break, they hated Gore (and still do) and disdained Kerry. Here's Jonathan Schwartz on what we can expect from the trad media:

"Of all the things that drive me crazy about my progressive compatriots, it’s this belief that you can change the corporate media with accurate criticism of it. They believe at some point the people within the media will realize they’re wrong, and their behavior will improve.This is insane. The corporate media is the way it is because it exists to make as much money as possible. It doesn’t exist to give people an accurate picture of the world. It doesn’t exist to provide jobs for honest journalists. On rare occasions it will do both. But mostly it won’t, because the need to make as much money as possible usually conflicts with everything good.

Waiting for this to change is like waiting for Santa Claus to bring us presents. But Santa Claus won’t ever bring us presents, because THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS."

While we look for some space in that "usually," we also feel obligated to add AND NO SANITY CLAUSE EITHER.

Libby's Strained Pleas Turn Deadly?

It's not the smoking gun. But is it a mushroom cloud? Or just some Libby's mushroom soup?

At first Scooter Libby contended he was way too busy to remember who told who what about secret CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, or anything to do with her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, and his confirmation that Saddam wasn't buying uraninum to make nukes. But Libby's strained pleas went nowhere. In a court filing yesterday, he came up with a new one: Bush made me do it.

Sorting out the significance or even the meaning of Scooter Libby's allegation that Cheney told him that Bush told him to reveal classified information from CIA asssessments to the press (Judy Miller at the NYTimes) is just getting started. But on its first day it was played in the establishment media as the biggest challenge to the Bush administration so far.

The emphasis is on the selective leaking of only the part of the intelligence analysis that supported the Bushwar in Iraq, not the doubts that would have tempered an executive who hadn't already decided to invade, and was only looking for p.r. to silence actual or potential opposition. We've learned recently that Karl Rove was concerned about it in 2003 and 2004, specifically because it could hurt Bush's re-election.

This information in general has been available for awhile. Anyone who watched Bill Moyers on PBS in 2004 and probably before, for example, would know most of this already: that the most knowledgeable experts within State and Energy didn't believe the Saddam is going nuclear story. What's new recently is the proof that Bush himself was presented with these conflicting views, in a form that even he could be expected to understand: a one page memo. And what's new in this story is that these leaks Judy Miller of the NY Times used to write her stories supporting the Bushite view came to her from Libby as directed by Cheney, who claimed they were authorized by Bush.

Therefore Bush is exposed as not telling the truth about what his government knew and didn't know, believed and didn't believe, about Iraq. While this is hardly news to some of us, it is apparently news to the TV bobbleheads and solid enough for major news media to play it as news.

Some stories are claiming that, if true, what Bush did is not illegal because the President does have the power to declassify. But is this the same thing? One of the statements on this that I did understand was by Rep. Jane Harman, ranking Dem on the House Intelligence Committee:

"The President has the legal authority to declassify information, but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document.

"I am stunned that the President won't tell the full the Intelligence Committee about the NSA program because he's allegedly concerned about leaks, when it turns out that he is the Leaker-in-Chief."

There are all kinds of possibilities opened up by this revelation, and it may yet pit Cheney's people against Bush's people. But apropos of a previous post, the press had not a single question on this topic for the White House in the morning press briefing after the story broke. Not one.

In the meantime, Senator John Kerry has called for the U.S. to withdraw troops beginning next month if the Iraqis don't form a government by then, and by the end of the year even if they do. He had a rhetorical battle on the Senate floor over it.

Iraq continues to disintegrate in violence and chaos. The Bushites claim more and more "authority" for their authoritarian wannabe dictatorship on domestic spying, and reports continue to say that the Bushites are preparing to attack Iran. Why? Because they are going nuclear. Or so the Bushites say. Experts estimate that Iran is from 5 to 10 years away from any nuclear weapons. But then, in the fine print, the experts were saying that about Iraq as well, even if Saddam had the nuclear program they said he did, but which he didn't.

Opening Today: The Winter of Our Discontent

Now is the winter of our discontent, not to be made glorious summer by the daughter of New York, its Senator. At least not yet.

Even with the first out-loud Impeachment talk in December, it's still very likely that the American people and the entire world are stuck with G.W. Bush as President for the next three years. A Republican Congress arranged a bogus impeachment of a Democratic President but since they've more than proven that their partisanship trumps their patriotism, this Congress will take the ship of state down before they'll permit a Bush Impeachment.Democrats have a chance to win a slim Senate majority in November, and with the likelihood of a major scandal affecting a score of GOPer House members, some possibility of taking both houses.

But even then we run into the major barrier: impeach Bush, get Cheney. Of course, Cheney might be forced to pull an Agnew and get out first to avoid jail...but that's a lot of ifs.

Still, the discontent starts ringing big time today, Monday, with the beginning of hearings on Samuel Alito for Supreme Court. Until recently this shaped up to be a fight over Roe v. Wade, but revelations of White House spying on Americans in defiance of law has changed the dynamic, though Roe is still a mighty factor.

Now, as the Nation summed it up, " The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito represent the first major battle in an emerging constitutional war over the authority of the President."Alito has left an alarming paper trail. For instance, he picked the perfect year--1984--to write a memo supporting the federal right to wiretap American peace activists without a warrant.

This also indicates a consistency with Bush's last attempted appointment, of Harriet Miers. Right wing fanatics were puzzled (and yes, admit it, a little hurt) that Bush appointed somebody without proven right wing fanaticism on key issues. Why on earth did he choose her? As he tried to rally support among fundie fanatics, GOP party chair Ken Mehlman was quoted as telling them of the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism.

That what Miers was all about: the loyalty to do the right thing if the court tried to restrict the President's power to do whatever he wants, as long as he says it's necessary to defend the U.S. (which may actually mean to him, his rich buddies, his church and a few of his favorite corporations.) Having failed at that, Bush chose somebody who'd shown evidence on the record of supporting such power, even if he didn't happen to be a proven personal toadie.

This of course is only the opening act of what is likely to be The Winter of Our Discontent--the Series. There are the unfolding scandals involving ace lobbyist Abramoff, the delayed justice to De Lay, as well as two other dubious snooping campaigns, by the Pentagon and FBI respectively. The White House National Security Agency buggings (if such an arcane term can be used for a whole new era of electronic spying) are the most clearly contrary to law, though the White House is aggressively asserting its Constitutional right to ignore the Constitution. This is going to be a matter for the courts first, and I suspect it's the reason for Bush taking this stance and doing what John Dean said was unprecedented: a President admitting an impeachable offense. Aggressive assertion of his presidential power would tend to make this a matter for the Supreme Court to decide (insulating Bush from congressional action), which would make sense if Alito wins confirmation, as so far is expected.

But that's not all. The Plame Game isn't over, and Rove is still a favorite to be indicted.In the meantime, Bush is taking the same damn the torpedoes full speed ahead rhetorical stance on Iraqnam, where the news is not changing American public opinion in Bushcorpse favor. Like more death and destruction, news of poor oil revenue, a Pentagon study that up to 80% of Marine casualities could have been prevented by the use of body armor which is available but the Pentagon won't use, and now, a study by a Nobel Prize winning economist and a Harvard budget expert that the real cost of the Iraqmire could eventually be over two TRILLION DOLLARS. This is more than ten times the official estimate.

As this news gets into the national bloodstream, discontent is likely to increase. Bushcorpse stopped its free fall to the bottom in opinion polls at least temporarily, but its much publicized "rebound" still has 60% against him. A month from now the free fall could be back.Especially as it sinks in: three more years...

Catching Up on the DC Soap (Can This Administration Be Saved?)

So what happens next in the tragic soap opera of the Bush administration? Will Rove go aroving, will Scooter scoot to the prosecutor with the goods on Cheney? What's Fitzgerald up to anyway?

Not knowing, can't say, but if reading the pack journalism pressgeist, and between the lines of unsourced or unnamed sourced stories of recent vintage is the equivalent of reading tea leaves, here's some idea of what people who think they know are thinking.

You'll recall that the conventional wisdom way back when Scooter was indicted 10 days or so ago was that Karl Rove had dodged a bullet and would escape indictment. By the end of this past week, the feeling was building that Rove was likely to be indicted after all. Maybe this week, maybe next week.

After warning that Fitzgerald might not indict anyone, John Dean changed his tune. "Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued," he wrote. " In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted."

The fickle finger of fate started pointing Rove's way with shadowy reports of vague prosecutorial activity in Rove's neighborhood. Then an inside story was leaked (apparently with press secretary Scott McClellan's fingerprints all over it) about growing opposition among White House staff to Rove sticking around.

Finally, Time wrote the obituary, in a story that looked to me to have Rove's pudgy digit tracks all over it, suggesting that Rove had accomplished what he set out to do, now he was tired and wanted to spend more time with his family. Time also predicted other personnel changes that last week everyone said Bush would never make. But they make sense covering for Rove's departure, like Lyndon Johnson eliminating his entire cabinet from consideration for vice president in 1964 so he wouldn't have to explain why he didn't pick Bobby Kennedy.

Scooter hobbled to court last week, his attorney loudly proclaiming his innocence. Some observers swear he will never go to trial, others think he'll just try to string it out long enough to get a pardon. But a name that kept appearing on every story of dastardly deeds last week was Dick Cheney.

John Dean wrote that "when one studies the indictment, and carefully reads the transcript of the press conference, it appears Libby's saga may be only Act Two in a three-act play. And in my view, the person who should be tossing and turning at night, in anticipation of the last act, is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney."

Cheney was also the chief target of some Republican attacks on the fake case for the Iraq war. He was the patsy in chief for spreading the lies of a known terrorist liar linking al Qeda and Iraq, even after the guy recanted, according to a New York Times story.

The Washington Post went after Cheney for creating and supporting US policies and practices using torture, and the lead story in today's Washington Post is: "Over the past year, Vice President Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects, according to defense, state, intelligence and congressional officials."

So does this mean Cheney is going to be indicted? Could be. But John Dean doesn't believe it will be because Libby falls for the alleged Fitzgerald strategy of big fish, bigger fish.

Dean wrote:Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. And Libby probably (and no doubt correctly) assumes that Cheney - a former boss with whom he has a close relationship - will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary.

Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections. So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should Republicans lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this administration), I predict Cheney will resign "for health reasons."

Perhaps the more interesting question at this point is why is Cheney suddenly so popular? Is he really the Satanic Machiavelli, or is there a campaign to give him up as the fall guy? (It wouldn't be a set up, exactly, since there's no doubt he's done all the awful things attributed to him, and more.)

By this past week only a few lonely voices were asking, where was Bush in all this? Did Rove really deceive him, or did he know all about the Plame outing? And what is his responsibility for lying us into war, and approving and defending torture?

Three polls came out last week, all with similiar and similiarly devastating numbers for Bushcorps. But two of them asked a couple of interesting questions, especially when you put them together. When asked if Congress should consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, about 53% said yes. And in another poll, when asked if they thought Bush did lie us into the Iraq war, about 53% said yes. You do the math.

Gotcha Day in the Senate

On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid organized and carried out a successful sneak attack on the Republican leadership. He used a parliamentary maneuver to force a closed session of the Senate to discuss why the Republicans won't investigate the breach in national security at high levels of the executive branch, namely the outing of a CIA operative.They came away with a commitment on the next steps in holding just such an investigation.

While it's silly to hold out much hope that Senate Republicans---particularly this integrity-challenged bunch--are going to really investigate their fellow GOPers, this manuever was a big win for Reid, Democrats and the nation that must know how and why it's ability to defend itself against terrorists with WMDs was compromised by the President's men.

I can't say I was a big Reid supporter when he was announced as the new leader, but he's shown some impressive moves. He's been out front and outspoken on important issues, more so than recent Senate leaders. He's a congressional pro, something the Dems have lacked perhaps since Tip O'Neill was running things in the House. That became clear with this manuever, in a couple of ways.

The context is important: it's the day after Rovebush announced a Supreme pick that the rabid right loved, a transparent attempt to change the subject from the White House inner circle indictment, and the whole subject of political corruption there. In the process, as Reid mentioned yesterday with a seemingly casual attitude, the usual consultation with Reid and other leaders didn't happen. Bushrove talked only to rabid rightists before naming Alito.

With his secret session manuever today, Reid served notice that he knows what he's doing in the Senate, and he'll find a way to make things very difficult there for Alito's confirmation. And that he understand payback. This might have been a little inside the Senate nudge, except that Repub leader Bill Frist announced it to the world, whining that he wasn't consulted about this, contrary to the usual procedure. What a dope.

It took Reid about 24 hours to get his. Not only that, but he has placed the Plame Game back on the big agenda, no matter what else Fitzgerald does or doesn't do. There are other benefits, too, enumerated in this dkos post by hunter.

The Big One

It's a Rove move, likely the first consequence of Official A's escape from indictment Friday. President Bush appointed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, a move that is at once bold and weak, outrageous and predictable, skillful and desperate, confrontational and a flanking maneuver.

Because Alito redefines the extreme right, he energizes the rabid right base that harried the Harriet back to the White House, where she is already busy instructing the press secretary not to talk to the press about anything having remotely to do with She Who Must Not Be Plamed. Because Alito is such an extreme and divisive choice, the resulting cacaphony is supposed to drown out any residual echoes from the indictments of White House honcho Scooted Libby, along with drowning out Democrats' calls for Rove's resignation heard Monday (but barely).

That this is an essential part of the strategy is clear from vp Cheney's actions in response to Libby being indicted for lying and obstructing justice in the Plame Game. As Think Progress among others point out, he replaced Libby with another staffer who is named in Libby's indictment as essentially a co-conspirator. He elevated a second staffer who is also named, and even more directly involved in the orchestrated campaign to publicize the name of a covert CIA agent. This is not exactly evidence of contrition and reform.

Diverting attention may or may not work, but clearly this appointment is not just a little misdirection. Alito can be seen as the payoff of the Bush administration, from the moment that Justices Scalia and Thomas ignored their conflicts of interest and their own judicial records to appoint George Bush, the loser of the 2000 election, as President.

Scalia gets paid off, as do all the rabid right faithful, who outed themselves in the Miers mire as insisting on an unconstitutional religious test for one of the twelve judges charged with the ultimate interpretation and defense of the Constitution.

The stage is now set, and this is The Big One. If the Bushies prevail and Alito takes the oath, this long national nightmare will echo through the law for generations. If the Democrats can rouse themselves and fight a solid and judicious fight, they will not only defeat the antiConstitution but give voters the beginning of a rationale to return them to congressional majority in 06.

Last Best Guesses

In eight hours or so (or not) we will know (1) what special prosecutor Fitzgerald is going to do and/or (2) who won the third game of the World Series or (3) one of these or (4) neither.Here's my prediction (not about the game, except that it probably will end, someday, possibly before the 4th game starts.)

Fitzgerald will issue four sealed indictments, and will continue his investigation with a new grand jury. Rove and Libby will be told they are among the four, but this will not be announced to the public. In fairly short order, Rove and Libby will announce they are resigning and leaving the White House to spend more time with their lawyers.

In justifying further investigation, Fitzgerald will mention leads that point to vice president Cheney. While Fitzgerald quietly investigates, Cheney will resign and leave the White House to spend more time with his money.In a couple of years Fitzgerald will indict Cheney, but there will be no trial because on his last day of office, Bush will pardon him.

Bush will then leave the White House to become the new CEO of Halliburton, but will mostly be at his ranch where he will spend more time with his brush.

Whigging Out: What the New York Times Must Do Now

There were three important pieces on the Plame affair in Sunday's New York Times, though only two got a lot of attention: the staff story about Times reporter Judy Miller and her jailing, and Miller's own piece about her testimony.

But the third piece was Frank Rich's column, when he took a step back and zeroed in on the underlying crime, the campaign to sell the Iraq war to the American people, Congress and the world.It was a little-known group of insiders, Rich wrote, who engineered this campaign: known as the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Their cooked intelligence, spin and disinformation efforts were the real crime, Rich suggests.

The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took "responsibility" for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.

It was not until the war was supposedly over - with "Mission Accomplished," in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.

All the President's men lied in public about what they knew about the Plame affair, Rich says, because they thought Ashcroft's Justice Department would always be in charge of the non-investigation. But political pressure forced the appointment of an independent prosecutor, and their skillful manipulation in 2003 and 2004 became waiting for the consequences in 2005.

THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

Rich concludes: Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another "victory" for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.

That was Sunday. Wednesday the other shoe dropped, courtesy of the unlikely local rival, the New York Daily News. They ran a short article on WHIG--but it has a bomb attached. The last paragraphs are:

Besides Rove and Libby, the group included senior White House aides Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley.

WHIG also was doing more than just public relations, said a second former intel officer. "They were funneling information to [New York Times reporter] Judy Miller. Judy was a charter member," the source said. [emphasis mine.]

Among other things, this is a direct challenge to the Times. Rich often defended Judy Miller as a colleague who went to jail for a principle. Though his Sunday piece mentions her as a co-author of a piece that neatly expressed the WHIG point of view, he didn't actually name her as a member.

The Daily News story essentially challenges the Times to investigate just what Miller's involvement with WHIG really was. My guess is that they are already on it, and if they aren't, they really need to be.

They need to devote a team of their best investigative reporters to looking hard at every Miller story, correlating its content and timing with every WHIG meeting. They need to follow Miller's trial wherever it leads, with or without her cooperation (I'd guess without.)

It is a way for the Times to reclaim some integrity from this sorrow mess. Not doing it would be more damaging than anything so far.Eventually, people are going to be leaving their jobs and perhaps the Times because of how this was all mishandled. But right now, this is the story they must do.

As for the bigger picture, the Fitzgerald investigation needs to unravel the whole WHIG conspiracy, not only as it touched the Plame affair, but as Rich rightly emphasizes, the selling of the tragic war in Iraq. Rich sets a high but appropriate bar for Fitzgerald. But by implication he sets it as well for his own newspaper.

WATERGATE II?

Rumors are flying in Washington and across the Internet. Apparently begun from within the Bush administration and reported by such outlets as the Washington Post and US News, the speculation that Vice President Cheney is about to resign, because he is facing indictment in the Plame affair. As of close of business in Washington on Tuesday, other rumors (with sources claiming knowledge of the investigation) put the number of Bush administration figures who might be indicted as soon as tomorrow at 22. It could decimate the Bush administration more thoroughly and faster than the attrition of the Nixon administration in Watergate.

This time a single investigator working in secret could unleash this scandal on a relatively unsuspecting public. Though new media outlets have been involved, they have mostly been responding to subpoenas rather than leading with investigative reporting. The Washington Post gained credibility from its Watergate reporting. This time, the New York Times has suffered massive blows to its credibility because of the continuing involvement in the scandal itself of one of their reporters.

Like Watergate, it breaks while the administration is already reeling from an unpopular war and its imperious attitude. Nothing is certain yet, but when rumors like this are flying and given credence, something is up.

Meltdown

A number of fairly incredible things are happening in Washington---where it's hotter than hell in more ways than one. The Democrats held a forum on the Plame affair that revealed just how serious this is, the Bush administration has stopped release of new Iraqi prison torture photos and wants a law to prevent similar photos from Guantanamo and elsewhere, reports have surfaced of Cheney ordering a plan to attack Iran that includes use of nuclear weapons, and the Patriot Act is very close to being made permanent with virtually no public debate.

We’ll try to deal with each of these separately, so for now, some highlights of the Plame hearings.

This was an unofficial forum assembled on Friday morning by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), co-chaired by Dorgan and Congressman Henry Waxman. Some eloquent testimony was given and some action was proposed, but perhaps the quote of the day is this one, from former CIA operations officer Jim Marcinkowski:" Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

Representative Henry Waxman provided context. "The disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as an undercover CIA agent is indefensible on many levels. It was an indefensible betrayal of her and her family. It was an indefensible affront to the men and women who are on the front lines of defending America. And it was an indefensible breach of our national security."

He then related the case directly to the Iraq war.

"And it is an issue deeply personal to me. One of the hardest votes that I cast was to authorize the war in Iraq. Like many others, I was torn. But in the end, I sided with the president because of the administration's insistence that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability. Today, we know the truth. I was misled, as were the American people. And it was Valerie Plame Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who helped expose what really happened."

"Well, today's New York Times fills in another piece of the puzzle," Waxman continued."In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet personally called the deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to stop President Bush from using the uranium claim in his speech in Cincinnati. Around the same time, the CIA sent the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, a memo warning her not to rely on the uranium evidence."

He indicated (as did others later) that this contradicts claims that the Bush White House did not know the claim about Niger and uranium was false before the State of the Union.

In speaking about accountability for the leak, Waxman said, "There is an executive order -- Executive Order 12958 -- that governs protection of national security information. Under this executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to take appropriate and prompt corrective action to address the leaks of classified information."

"There's a special standard for Karl Rove: There will be no questions asked and no accountability," Waxman observed. Then he zeroed in on another action that needs to be taken: a full congressional inquiry.

Not only is the president ignoring his obligation, but Congress is refusing to do its job." Waxman said. "There is a simple way to get to the bottom of this scandal: The Republican Congress can hold a hearing as early as next week with Mr. Rove. For the sake of all the men and women who are defending America's freedom, Republicans in Congress should join us in asking questions and getting answers for the American people.”

“They have refused to hold these hearings, and that is why we're doing what we can today, but we can't subpoena Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, and they would refuse to come to appear before us. They would have to come if Congress did its job as a separate and independent branch of government and exercised its oversight responsibility for the protection our nation."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)asked her own questions about the extent of this act:

"Aside from Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer, who else in the White House had access to the classified memo?"

"Given that so many of the president's men had access to the memo, it is incumbent upon Congress, the special prosecutor and the American people to ask the following difficult question: What did President Bush know about the Valerie Plame leak and when did he know it?

Is it possible that he and Vice President Cheney, along with most of Bush's inner circle, could have known about this plot to exact retribution on Ambassador Wilson at the expense of national security?

Is it possible that President Bush or Vice President Cheney could have been involved themselves?

These are tough, serious questions that must be addressed."


Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) was equally pointed:

"Nobody died in Watergate. And over 1,750 of our sons and daughters are dead in the sands of Iraq. And I have come here to show my respect for our intelligence covert agents and Foreign Service officers who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people."

Senator Dorgan then asked the panel before him for their statements. Larry Johnson had introduced Colonel Patrick Lang as his mentor, and Senator Dorgan added more of his resume.

Col. Patrick Lang--retired senior officer of U.S. military intelligence, Vietnam veteran, a Middle East specialist--spoke of the gathering of intelligence from individuals (so-called human intelligence, or HUMINT) as especially crucial in stopping terrorists, for they offer few opportunities for other kinds of surveillance---they have no missile silos to photograph from satellites, etc. Speaking of human intelligence he said, "it is a peculiarity of this kind of war that that is exactly the kind of intelligence that you have to have. "He suggested the U.S. hasn't done very well in that area so far, but its this area of intelligence that the Plame outing has directly damaged. He called it "an assault on the ability of the United States" to perform human intelligence.

"Why would that be? It's because HUMINT is about human beings. It's about one person, an American person, a case officer in the parlance of the trade, causing some foreign person to trust him enough and to trust his unit and to trust the United States enough to put his life, his fortune and, indeed, his sacred honor in many cases into the hands of this case officer and the American intelligence unit that stands behind this case officer."

Lang was highly persuasive in talking about the reality of what human intelligence gathering means. He even gave it a religious dimension.

“It's all about trust; it's completely about trust. It's about -- I happen to have done a good deal of this kind of work in my life. And the moment in which some person, whether he's an ambassador or a Montagnard in the hills of Vietnam with filed teeth, decides that he's going to trust you enough so that he's going to believe that you will protect him in every way in doing what he is doing, which is extremely dangerous to him and his family and to everyone else, is a magic moment, indeed. It's almost sacramental in a lot of ways, really.

And it imposes on the case officer and the unit behind him in the United States the kind of obligations that are as serious in some ways as the seal of the confessional, really. I mean, I'm a Catholic; I understand exactly what that means."

"And the obligation to protect this person is absolute, in fact. And it's not only absolute from the point of view of morality; it's absolute from the point of view of practicality as well, because if within a practicing clandestine intelligence unit the case officers believe that their superiors will not protect the identity of their sources or their own identity, in fact, in doing things which are dangerous and difficult, then a, kind of, circle of doubt begins to spread, like throwing a rock into the water.

And it spreads in such a way so that if an intelligence service that belongs to a particular country comes to be thought generally in the world as an organization that does not protect its own, does not protect its foreign assets, then the obvious is true in that people are not going to accept recruitment, are not going to work for you. And the smarter they are, the better placed they are, the better educated they are, the less likely they are to accept recruitment and to work for you if they believe that you are not going to fight in the last ditch to protect their identities. And so, this is all completely about trust."

After ex-CIA Larry Johnson was Jim Marcinkowski, who had a rich and varied background in both intelligence (working at different times for the CIA and FBI) and in law enforcement, as a prosecutor and defense attorney. He also was once the president of the Michigan Young Republicans.

He explained how exposing Valerie Plame sent a message that U.S. promises can’t be trusted, heard loud and clear by those overseas who might otherwise help American efforts. That message is made even louder by continued inaction.

“The problem with a refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing, causes greater damage to our national security as well as our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem of inaction by the government lies not only with government officials, but also with the media, the commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community."

"Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

"Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere paper pusher or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it's a disservice to this country."

He addressed what should have been done.

"Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security. When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of those persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine across the country in every police department, and every American citizen understands that."

There was a surreal moment later when Senator Dorgan was asking Larry Johnson a question about the effect of this affair on the operation Valerie Plame was part of, which was to gather information on possible chemical, biological and nuclear weapons threats to the U.S. Johnson’s answer was interrupted by Dorgan trying to find out from security whether in fact the building was being evacuated, for an apparent bomb threat.

It wasn't, but Johnson's answer may have been lost in the shuffle. But it was on point: "This problem almost certainly damaged intelligence assets that were connected with providing the United States information about rogue states and terrorist organizations trying to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear material. And that goes to the very heart of some of the threats that we face today."

White Hot House News

Earth is not the only planet that’s getting hot: Bushworld is getting scorched around the edges, and the flames may be making their way towards the center.

The latest shoe to drop is the report, first from a blog reporter and now from Bloomberg News, that because the Grand Jury testimony of Karl Rove and Lewis Libby (v.p. Cheney’s chief of staff) on how they learned the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson (they said from reporters) was contradicted by the testimony of the reporters, they may be facing perjury charges.

Other reports suggest perjury may be the least of their worries. A number of stories in the Washington Post and elsewhere quote sources saying that Valerie Plame’s name was contained in a classified State Department document that White House aides were seen reading on Air Force One, that the mention of her name was annotated with the word “secret,” and that the entire document may have been classified “Top Secret,” which would make revealing its contents a serious federal crime. Since neither Rove nor Libby was on the plane for the trip in question, there may be other names of interest to the Grand Jury.

Republican majorities in the House and Senate are ignoring all of this, and refusing to hold hearings. Democrats are holding their own informal inquiry, but this is becoming a National Security issue. It's going to be more and more difficult for Republicans to continue ignoring their constitutional responsibilities, especially if constituents start to remind them.

Rove v Rove

The action was intense inside the Beltway and its media all weekend: columnists and anti-Bush partisans screaming scandal and infamy, pundits and pro-Bushers screaming that the real villain is the supposed victim, the outed CIA agent and her husband.

But all that happened at the White House Monday was Bush making inoperative his previous pledge, or (if you're a Busher) clarifying it, by saying he'd fire anyone who was convicted of criminal leaking of classified information.

Some of those who've been obsessed with nothing else in the political game expressed surprise that Rove still had a job as of Monday. But that quick an exit really shouldn't have been expected.

The Bushers had to make various calculations. How close is the prosecutor and Grand Jury to actually indicting anyone? That's a timeline they have to watch very carefully. Another calculation is: how is this going over with the public? Who is winning the spin wars?

They got some answers to that second question, and from their point of view, it ain't pretty.

The first poll, from ABC News came out. On the question of whether Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information, two-thirds of those surveyed said Yes. That's 83% of the Democrats, 74% of the Independents, and 71% of Republicans.

On the question of whether the Bushers are sincerely cooperating with the investigation, only 47% of Republicans think so. 90% of Democrats and 75% of Independents think they aren't.

So it's now pretty likely that Rove will resign. What we don't know is how they're choosing up sides in the White House. If they're still all on the same page, they'll be working on the timing of Rove's resignation. That will partly depend on what the Grand Jury is doing. But it wouldn't be too surprising if on a late Friday afternoon sometime in the next three weeks, Rove announces that he's leaving to spend more time with his family. Or he might even say it's to take pressure off the Prez and prove his own innocence.

But what if there's civil war going on in there? Cheney people against Bush people, and are there Rove people? One sure sign of serious conflict is if Bush actually fires Rove. That would be like the first shot of a political war, and maybe an insurgency...And if nothing happens, that could also mean pitched battles in the White House.

But as Frank Rich and others said over the weekend, and as you've read here before that, Rove V. Rove is a sideshow. There is much more at stake.

Some of that is signaled by the New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh which says that the Bushers poured money into their favored candidate to fix the Iraq election. The kind of activities alleged---voter intimidation, fraud, etc.---sounds quite familiar. From Ohio in 2004. The hand of Rove is everywhere.

UNRAVELGATE

A third rate burglary. A bungled leak to discredit a political enemy.

All the pieces may not tumble this time, but it's becoming clearer how they might. And how this may not be as big as Watergate---it may be bigger, and deeper.

Because for all the threats and wounds to the Constitution, and all the daunting abuses of power in Watergate, no one died as a direct result.

This time, people are dying all over the world. Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. Londoners in London. People in Turkey, in Afghanistan, and no one knows where next.

Justin Raimondo writes in anti-war.com: This isn't about Rove. It's about a cabal of war hawks inside the administration

He suggest Rove may even have been an unwitting accomplice, though just as involved in the stench.

Now Frank Rich in the New York Times adds this:
...we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

Follow the Uranium - New York Times

This scandal is about Dick Cheney and the neocons, it's about President Bush and all who led America into war under false pretenses, which included lying and covering up those lies, and subverting the very institutions of government they are sworn to uphold and protect.

The lies that the Administration told to invade Iraq and create the chaos that now makes that country a violent incubator for terror all over the world. The violence is growing worse.

Ten suicide bombings in a single day in Iraq. The total number of suicide bombings in the world over the past twenty years was fewer than 400, until this year. In this year, there have been more than 500 in Iraq alone.

This was a war to bring democracy to Iraq. Now a poll in Iraq taken for coalition forces shows this bit of democratic sentiment:

Those who strongly support U.S. and coalition forces: 15%
those who support the insurgents 45%

Watergate was a test of American institutions and the courage of those who understood the stakes. Will they---will we-- step up this time? Who will take responsibility?

Trusted No More

President Bush's personal credibility appears to be eroding at a time when Iraq has become the top public priority and the White House is engulfed in controversy over senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, a poll released on Wednesday suggested.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is "honest and straightforward" fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January, while those who say they doubt his veracity climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent.


Print Story: Poll suggests drop in Bush's personal credibility on Yahoo! News

Blood in the water

The Rove affair continues to obsess Washington and the political blogosphere, where it is becoming mortal political combat.

There is a certain blood lust in the glee with which anti-Bushites are going after Rove, and there is the give-no-quarter distortions and lies of the GOPer defenders. The result is a lot of ugly noise, a little light, and it seems to me a short-sighted strategy ending with getting rid of Rove, while indications accumulate that everybody may be missing the true dimensions of the situation.

Having outrageously slandered war heroes who happened to be Democrats running for office, and gained advantage by doing so, the GOPers are now defaming a CIA undercover agent and a number of unknown people who worked with her, all of whom risked their lives believing it to be in service of their country. In short, these GOPers are cowards and liars, and the Democrats are treating Rove a bit too much as an opportunity for vengeance.

Rove certainly deserves to be taken down, although to get him for this offense is a lot like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

But in the "fire Rove" campaign, besides vengeance and some temporary political gain, what is the point? Of course, Bush should fire Rove, but he won't. And "getting rid of Rove" alone will accomplish little.

The White House is stonewalling and absent anything more substantive but this noisy frenzy, they can keep it up long enough for Rove to resign. If things quiet a bit, he will resign "to pursue opportunities in the private sector" or "to spend more time with his family," and the apologists will point out that presidential aides often resign in the last couple of years of a second term.

If the frenzy continues, Rove will resign "to spare the president the distraction of this controversy."

Then what? That's what I wish some folks would be thinking about, but at the moment it seems everybody's thinking with their glands.

The savagery of this conflict is a pale but apt reflection of the savagery in Iraq. The whole idea of civilization is unraveling before our eyes.

In the meantime, some observers are suggesting that there is more to the ongoing investigation than the naming of an undercover CIA agent. There may be widespread violation of the Espionage Act in the Bush White House, as asserted in this summary from dkos.

This could get bigger than Watergate, and it could bring down the Bush White House. But the key will be the criminal investigation, not the Washington political bloodsport.

Rove, Rove, Rove your Boat

The plot thickens in the latest Washington drama. It's a bit of Greek theatre, and a lot of a Wahington novel of intrigue.

Last week the New York Times "reporter" Judith Miller, a well-documented apologist and mouthpiece for Bushcorp, went to jail for refusing to turn over notes to the federal prosecutor trying to find out who in the White House told the press that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, and whether a crime was committed---either the crime of knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent, or lying to a grand jury about it.

That was the Greek drama part. Everyone acted their role exactly as they should. The prosecutor prosecuted. The judge judged according to the law. The reporter nobly refused to give up her source. Her newspaper wrote a noble editorial about it.

Now comes the novel of intrigue. What did who know and when did they know it? And who knows what now?

All eyes (the one's that are watching that is) are on Karl Rove. Several reporters have publicly named him as the source for the Plame info, and the source for the Time Magazine reporter who had also been threatened with jail, until Time took his notes away from him so their stock wouldn't tumble, and his source gave him permission to name him.

(If you haven't read the earlier chapters, Plame was outed to try to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who blew the whistle on Bushcorps phony assertion that Saddam was collecting the makings of nuclear weapons.)

There's still some key information missing. But if I were plotting this for a novel, I'd see the silence of J. Miller as the key.

If Rove started this whole thing off with Miller, or if in fact it was Miller who came up with the info on Plame, then Rove now knows what the prosecutor can prove, and he can play the legalisms. No, he didn't name her (just called her Wilson's wife.) No, he didn't know she was covert, just a CIA analyst.

What the recent relevations indicate is how closely key members of the press listen to Rove. He felt perfectly comfortable "advising" the Time reporter.

So now a key question is: If Miller doesn't have anything on Rove, why wouldn't he do for her what he did for the Time reporter, and give her permission to name him and turn over notes, so she could avoid jail?

As it is, Miller in jail is a winner for both Rove and Miller. Rove gets her silence, and she gets to be the hero and martyr of the fourth estate. So if Rove is confident that she won't talk, he can play it as it lays now.

Can't wait for the next chapter. Maybe a new character comes on the scene?

UPDATE : In court papers, the prosecutor reveals that Miller has received permission from her source to name this person, but she still refuses. Speculation now is that Miller has something to hide, and several stories (including one in the Washington Post) suggest the prosecutor is looking at the possibility of a journalist being indicted for revealing the covert agent's name.

Under repeated questioning at an afternoon press conference, White House press secretary refused to comment or answer any question about Rove's role, even refusing to repeat past statements that Rove is blameless, or that the President believes anyone leaking this information should be fired.