Seems pretty clear based on Fitzgerald and Ken Starr, that the "special prosecuter" thing has been turned into a license to go on a fishing expedition and the individuals chosen become drunk with power and view themselves as some kind of crusader that needs to find someone or something to prosecute.
So many prosecutors go that way, even fairly ordinary criminal ones. I've heard of many cases where, even though they know someone is innocent, they will continue to push a case. Its not a matter of someone being guilty 'of' something, its just a matter of people being guilty period, and trying to prove that any way possible.
It is clear that Plame identity was classified. It is not clear that she was “covert.” The IIPA only applies to covert CIA agents. Since she probably did not meet the legal definition of covert, the IIPA probably did not apply. Since her identity was classified, leaking her identity would only be a crime if it was done with the intent to harm the United States.
There is no question that leaking Plame’s identity hurt US intelligence, and specifically WMD proliferation intelligence operations. Plame was operating a CIA front company that was used by covert CIA operatives. Exposing Plame’s identity also exposed the CIA front company and the other covert CIA operatives that worked for it. The CIA probably does not have a large numbers of these front companies, and probably cannot just easily switch to using another one. It takes years to set up one of these front companies.
I have heard people here suggesting that people who leak classified information to reporters should be charged with treason, even though the leaks were clearly not done to harm the United States. In the Plame case the leak was done purely in the interest of sliming someone who had criticized the administrations handling of intelligence that was used to justify a preemptive war.
While Libby, Rove, Armitage, and others clearly did not leak Plame’s identity to harm the US, it was still a reprehensible act to leak classified information that damages the CIA’s ability to collect WMD proliferation intelligence. At least this investigation and trial has shined some light into the dark corners of Washington. So far only Libby has lost his job for this. The fact that Rove and Armitage have been allowed to keep their jobs, even thought they leaked classified information that damaged US intelligence for the lowest of political reasons is a disgrace.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.
Emphasis added. What's really sick about this whole thing is the partisan froth. The tit-for-tat that seems to be going on. We're too busy fighting each other instead of fighting terrorists.
I mean, really. Which part of this plan sounds like a good way to keep a secret:
1. We in Valerie Plame's CIA WMD think Bush is screwing up on WMD.
2. Let's publically discredit him!
3. I'm classified, but I'll send my loose lipped husband on a junket with instructions to find out the President is wrong about Niger.
4. When he gets home, he'll hit the press circuit, big time!
5. The press will never notice that I drive to Langley every day.
6. The notoriously gossip hungry Washington D.C. press, living in the gossip capital of the nation, will never figure out my classified status.
It's like Gary Hart naming his boat Monkey Business.
Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House.
Richard Armitage told the FBI that he was the source of the leak in October 2003. Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor in December 2003. The DOJ was fully aware that Armitage was the source of the leak when they decided to appoint a special prosecutor. In fact Libby had already lied to the FBI and the FBI had already collected statements form other people contradicting Libby’s statements before Fitzgerald was appointed.
If the DOJ knew that Armitage was the source and therefore there was no crime in December 2003, why did they go ahead and appoint Fitzgerald?
The thing I find interesting is that all the administration water carriers repeat over and over that Joe Wilson is a liar and has no credibility with basically the thinnest of evidence that Joe Wilson ever tried to mislead anyone.
On the other hand, Libby, who was tasked with answering Joe Wilson’s criticism, has been convicted of perjury and lying to the FBI.
Now who do you think has a credibility problem here?
People seemed to think that perjury was a really really big deal back when Clinton was in office. But then, back then, Republicans were screaming about soldiers coming home in body bags and trying to cut war funding in order to force the President to pull out.
So Vic, if the Repubs were wrong then (which I think they were) does that mean that the Dems are wrong for engaging in the same behavior today?
OT - Vic, I always figured you to be a Libertarian, now that I've learned you are a Democrat (you mentioned it in another thread recently) I don't quite understand how you enjoy Landsburg's near absolute free market posistions in his writings.... but whatever, thanks for turning me on to him!
1. We in Valerie Plame's CIA WMD think Bush is screwing up on WMD.
2. Let's publically discredit him!
3. I'm classified, but I'll send my loose lipped husband on a junket with instructions to find out the President is wrong about Niger.
4. When he gets home, he'll hit the press circuit, big time!
5. The press will never notice that I drive to Langley every day.
6. The notoriously gossip hungry Washington D.C. press, living in the gossip capital of the nation, will never figure out my classified status.
Nice try, but no.
You work on WMD proliferation for the CIA
There is a foreign intelligence service report of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger that sounds hard to believe, but administration wants it checked out.
In Feb 2002 you send your husband to Niger to check out credibility of report (Husband is former US ambassador to Iraq who faced down Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 and persuaded him to give up his American hostages before the 1991 Gulf War).
Husband reports no evidence that Iraq has purchased yellowcake from Niger. US ambassador to Niger also reports this. French government (mines are owned by French companies) also report that this is not credible report.
CIA WMD division indicates foreign intelligence report on Iraq purchase of yellowcake from Niger is not reliable.
Oct 2002 CIA gets copies of Niger-Iraq yellowcake contract. Never bothers to look closely at them. Still considers the report not credible.
In Jan 2003 in SOU address the president says Iraq trying to buy yellowcake from West Africa. CIA WMD division does not know how this claim got into speech because they thought they had reported this was not credible.
Feb 2003 US gives IAEA copies of Niger-Iraq yellowcake contracts. In a couple of days IAEA shows contracts are obvious forgeries. CIA WMD division cannot understand how US was so stupid as to give IAEA documents that CIA believed were fakes.
March 2003, US invaded Iraq in part to find WMDs.
May-June 2003 – can’t find WMDs in Iraq. Administration decides to blame CIA for no WMDs in Iraq.
Joe Wilson decides to go public and point out that there was good reason to believe the Niger-Iraq yellowcake story was not credible long before Jan 2003 SOU address and the administration should have known the actual contracts were forgeries before they turned them over to the IAEA.
CIA director publicly falls on his sword and takes the blame for allowing President to include Niger-Iraq yellowcake claim in SOU address when CIA knew it was not credible.
Administration mounts a campaign to label Joe Wilson as a liar and blame CIA for lack of WMDs in Iraq.
I think this closer to what really happened. The administration was mad at the CIA WMD division for insisting some the Iraq WMD claims were not credible before the war and thought this was for political reasons. After the WMDs could not be found, the administration decided to blame the CIA for it. The administration thought the CIA WMD division was using Joe Wilson to retaliate politically on the administration. The fact the Joe Wilson’s report on Niger was correct, and the Presidents SOU claim was false and the contracts given to the IAEA were obvious forgeries were irrelevant. This administration views everything, including intelligence used to justify going to war, as political, and they responded politically, i.e. they launched a smear campaign.
-- Valerie Plame never again will be employed by any US intelligence agency.
-- Joseph Wilson never again will be send on any diplomatic missions, overt or covert, to any foreign country.
- Lewis Libby never again will be employed by the US government in any capacity.
-- Vice president Cheney neither will be indicted nor resign from office.
-- President Bush will not ask Cheney to resign from office.
-- Patrick Fitzgerald either will write a well-selling book, get a job as district attorney of some major city or county, get a job with some prestigious law firm, or any combination of these likelihoods.
-- US forces and intelligence teams still shall be looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for whatever number of years our forces remain in that country. Probably fruitlessly.
-- Real weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear kind will be under development in neighboring Iran, and nobody will do anything about them except call for international conferences and look for signs of domestic dissatisfaction and street disturbances that might destabilize the present iranian government.
"Republicans thought perjury was a big deal when Clinton did it, but now they don't,"
vs.
"Democrats thought perjury was no big deal when Clinton did it, but now they think it's a big deal when a minor White House official does it."
Stop acting like children, please.
The fact is that it's in no way unethical to say, "this man has no credibility and only got his job through nepotism."
There is no significance to the fact that Fitz was posted after the Armitage news unless Fitz and others recognized that at the time. But sorting out such details is what special investigations are for.
The truth is that this special prosecutor should never have been appointed, because special prosecutors are an awful idea in the first place.
Clinton shouldn't have been impeached. He only GOT impeached because of the stupid special prosecutor statute.
In truth, once it was revealed that Clinton had, WITHOUT DOUBT, committed perjury, it would have been irresponsible to NOT consider impeachment. Because now you have a President CONFESSING to committing a felony. There was no doubt whatsoever. It was a confessed felony.
That's what I don't get about the rabid partisans on either side.
Clinton shouldn't have been in a position where he was put on trial for something like that. But once he was, it would have been partisan bullshit not to at least consider impeachment.
The real solution is to do away with these unaccountable special prosecutors in the first place.
By the way, Mikeca is still wrong. The Washington Post is anything but a right-wing paper, and they and many other responsible voices on the left recognize that Joe Wilson is a credibility-free partisan hack and always has been.
By the way, Mikeca is still wrong. The Washington Post is anything but a right-wing paper, and they and many other responsible voices on the left recognize that Joe Wilson is a credibility-free partisan hack and always has been.
This is a Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post editorial policy has been tilting steadily to the right for a number of years. This editorial is basically a rewrite of White House or RNC talking points.
I still find it amazing that when the administration point man, Libby, who was suppose to work with the press and leak information to answer Wilson, is convicted by a jury of perjury and lying to the FBI, you can all still sit there and say, yep, Wilson is a liar and has no credibility. In my opinion this administration is the one that has no credibility left, but I guess the partisan dead-enders can never see past their own talking point.
There remains a rather massive elephant in the room. To my knowledge, no one has yet asked or answered these questions begging for an answer:
• Who authorized the waiver or order exempting Joe Wilson from the CIA requirement for a secrecy/confidentiality agreement between Joe Wilson and the Agency for the mission in question?
• Who asked for the waiver? By what procedure was it asked and granted? State all individuals involved in the process of selecting and sending Joe Wilson.
• What is the normal procedure of securing confidentiality, secrecy and non-disclosure agreements between the CIA and third-parties gathering information on CIAs behalf?
• What procedures, policies and good practice standard were violated, and by whom, when Joe Wilson was offered, chosen and sent on his Niger mission for the CIA. What policies and procedures of the CIA were violated or not followed which would have protected CIA’s ownership of the information gathered by Wilson on behalf of CIA?
The massive elephant in the room that no one talks about is the incorrect Italian intelligence reports that started this whole thing and the forged contracts that appeared later.
What was the source of incorrect Italian intelligence reports that Niger had signed a contract to sell yellowcake to Iraq?
Who forged the crude fake contracts that appeared many months later?
Although the CIA thought that the Iraq Niger yellowcake intelligence was not credible and that the contracts must be forgeries, why did no one examine the contracts carefully between Oct 2002 and Feb 2003 when the US gave them to the IAEA.
Who at the CIA and other intelligence organization had control of these contracts between Oct 2003 and Feb 2003?
What was the decision making process that lead the US to give contracts the CIA believed to be forgeries to the IAEA?
Why has there been no serious investigation of origin of forged contracts? (Hint: the Senate Intelligence Committee declined to look into this because the FBI was suppose to have a criminal investigation going on, but the man who is known to have been trying to sell the contracts to an Italian newsmagazine has entered the US under his own name a number of times since and the FBI has made no attempt to interview him.)
Those are the big questions no one ever talks about.
People are forgetting that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and Fitzgerald are all republicans. The Bush administration is fucked nine ways to Friday on the Iraq threat it would almost be comical if so many people hadn't died fighting the most worthless and wasteful wars in our nation's history. The worst part about it is that we had history's lessons to teach us, staring us right in the face. When Gen Shinseki, Sec of the Army Thomas White, and other top leaders stepped down due to the lunatic naivety in handling the conflict red flags should have been flying all over the place..well, they were, and were quickly labeled as unpatriotic and siding with the terrorists.
Bush Iraq war apologists are a joke to me. It's far worse than being a Michael Moore apologist. Far worse. Anyway, history will prove me and those on my side correct. In 20-30 years, (and I'll still be around posting on Drako's World) most Americans will say, "that stupid bastard Bush really screwed us on that Iraq war. What the hell was he thinking?!?"
Seems pretty clear based on Fitzgerald and Ken Starr, that the "special prosecuter" thing has . . .
Dean says:
Clinton shouldn't have been impeached. He only GOT impeached because of the stupid special prosecutor statute.
Not to split the hair too finely, but Kenneth Starr was NOT a special prosecutor, but an Independent Counsel, a different animal. Starr's predecessor was an SP, then Congress revived the IC statute and Starr was appointed IC. The IC statute has again lapsed.
The SP's are accountable: They serve at the pleasure of the President. Remember the Saturday Night Massacre? The IC's could only be fired for cause.
In truth, once it was revealed that Clinton had, WITHOUT DOUBT, committed perjury. . .
I am so unable to get past the accusation that the Washington Post has been "tilting right" in recent years that I find it hard to find the rest of your comments seriously, Mike.
I am so unable to get past the accusation that the Washington Post has been "tilting right" in recent years that I find it hard to find the rest of your comments seriously, Mike.
I was referring to the editorial policy, not the news or columnists, although it looks like the right tilt is starting to work its way into the news reporting as well. The Washington Post has recently hired the controversial AP reporter John Solomon. Solomon seems to specialize in writing stories about Democrats that blow up minor events and suggest they are serious scandals. Since joining the WP he has written the Edwards article that reveals that Edwards sold his Washington area home for substantially less than his asking price to businessman that has a history of anti-union activity and is undoubtedly a Republican, as if it would be legal for Edwards to refuse to sell his house to someone because he didn’t like his politics. Then there was the recent Clinton charity story. Both of these might qualify as news stories buried someplace in the WP, but they were both WP front-page stories. No one, including the WP’s own ombudsman, can figure out how these stories got on the front page, since there just is no substance to them. They are written to suggest that there is some scandal, but you keep reading and reading, and just never get to the scandal.
3.10.2007 1:19am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
The statute needs to be re-written.
There is no question that leaking Plame’s identity hurt US intelligence, and specifically WMD proliferation intelligence operations. Plame was operating a CIA front company that was used by covert CIA operatives. Exposing Plame’s identity also exposed the CIA front company and the other covert CIA operatives that worked for it. The CIA probably does not have a large numbers of these front companies, and probably cannot just easily switch to using another one. It takes years to set up one of these front companies.
I have heard people here suggesting that people who leak classified information to reporters should be charged with treason, even though the leaks were clearly not done to harm the United States. In the Plame case the leak was done purely in the interest of sliming someone who had criticized the administrations handling of intelligence that was used to justify a preemptive war.
While Libby, Rove, Armitage, and others clearly did not leak Plame’s identity to harm the US, it was still a reprehensible act to leak classified information that damages the CIA’s ability to collect WMD proliferation intelligence. At least this investigation and trial has shined some light into the dark corners of Washington. So far only Libby has lost his job for this. The fact that Rove and Armitage have been allowed to keep their jobs, even thought they leaked classified information that damaged US intelligence for the lowest of political reasons is a disgrace.
Nah. It was Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson who are the most to blame.
But Libby should not have perjured himself and deserves his punishment.
Yours,
Wince
I suggest you read this article in the WaPo.
Emphasis added. What's really sick about this whole thing is the partisan froth. The tit-for-tat that seems to be going on. We're too busy fighting each other instead of fighting terrorists.
1. We in Valerie Plame's CIA WMD think Bush is screwing up on WMD.
2. Let's publically discredit him!
3. I'm classified, but I'll send my loose lipped husband on a junket with instructions to find out the President is wrong about Niger.
4. When he gets home, he'll hit the press circuit, big time!
5. The press will never notice that I drive to Langley every day.
6. The notoriously gossip hungry Washington D.C. press, living in the gossip capital of the nation, will never figure out my classified status.
It's like Gary Hart naming his boat Monkey Business.
Yours,
Wince
Richard Armitage told the FBI that he was the source of the leak in October 2003. Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor in December 2003. The DOJ was fully aware that Armitage was the source of the leak when they decided to appoint a special prosecutor. In fact Libby had already lied to the FBI and the FBI had already collected statements form other people contradicting Libby’s statements before Fitzgerald was appointed.
If the DOJ knew that Armitage was the source and therefore there was no crime in December 2003, why did they go ahead and appoint Fitzgerald?
On the other hand, Libby, who was tasked with answering Joe Wilson’s criticism, has been convicted of perjury and lying to the FBI.
Now who do you think has a credibility problem here?
Umm both. It's a nonexclusive relationship.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
OT - Vic, I always figured you to be a Libertarian, now that I've learned you are a Democrat (you mentioned it in another thread recently) I don't quite understand how you enjoy Landsburg's near absolute free market posistions in his writings.... but whatever, thanks for turning me on to him!
Nice try, but no.
You work on WMD proliferation for the CIA
There is a foreign intelligence service report of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger that sounds hard to believe, but administration wants it checked out.
In Feb 2002 you send your husband to Niger to check out credibility of report (Husband is former US ambassador to Iraq who faced down Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 and persuaded him to give up his American hostages before the 1991 Gulf War).
Husband reports no evidence that Iraq has purchased yellowcake from Niger. US ambassador to Niger also reports this. French government (mines are owned by French companies) also report that this is not credible report.
CIA WMD division indicates foreign intelligence report on Iraq purchase of yellowcake from Niger is not reliable.
Oct 2002 CIA gets copies of Niger-Iraq yellowcake contract. Never bothers to look closely at them. Still considers the report not credible.
In Jan 2003 in SOU address the president says Iraq trying to buy yellowcake from West Africa. CIA WMD division does not know how this claim got into speech because they thought they had reported this was not credible.
Feb 2003 US gives IAEA copies of Niger-Iraq yellowcake contracts. In a couple of days IAEA shows contracts are obvious forgeries. CIA WMD division cannot understand how US was so stupid as to give IAEA documents that CIA believed were fakes.
March 2003, US invaded Iraq in part to find WMDs.
May-June 2003 – can’t find WMDs in Iraq. Administration decides to blame CIA for no WMDs in Iraq.
Joe Wilson decides to go public and point out that there was good reason to believe the Niger-Iraq yellowcake story was not credible long before Jan 2003 SOU address and the administration should have known the actual contracts were forgeries before they turned them over to the IAEA.
CIA director publicly falls on his sword and takes the blame for allowing President to include Niger-Iraq yellowcake claim in SOU address when CIA knew it was not credible.
Administration mounts a campaign to label Joe Wilson as a liar and blame CIA for lack of WMDs in Iraq.
I think this closer to what really happened. The administration was mad at the CIA WMD division for insisting some the Iraq WMD claims were not credible before the war and thought this was for political reasons. After the WMDs could not be found, the administration decided to blame the CIA for it. The administration thought the CIA WMD division was using Joe Wilson to retaliate politically on the administration. The fact the Joe Wilson’s report on Niger was correct, and the Presidents SOU claim was false and the contracts given to the IAEA were obvious forgeries were irrelevant. This administration views everything, including intelligence used to justify going to war, as political, and they responded politically, i.e. they launched a smear campaign.
-- Valerie Plame never again will be employed by any US intelligence agency.
-- Joseph Wilson never again will be send on any diplomatic missions, overt or covert, to any foreign country.
- Lewis Libby never again will be employed by the US government in any capacity.
-- Vice president Cheney neither will be indicted nor resign from office.
-- President Bush will not ask Cheney to resign from office.
-- Patrick Fitzgerald either will write a well-selling book, get a job as district attorney of some major city or county, get a job with some prestigious law firm, or any combination of these likelihoods.
-- US forces and intelligence teams still shall be looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for whatever number of years our forces remain in that country. Probably fruitlessly.
-- Real weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear kind will be under development in neighboring Iran, and nobody will do anything about them except call for international conferences and look for signs of domestic dissatisfaction and street disturbances that might destabilize the present iranian government.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"Republicans thought perjury was a big deal when Clinton did it, but now they don't,"
vs.
"Democrats thought perjury was no big deal when Clinton did it, but now they think it's a big deal when a minor White House official does it."
Stop acting like children, please.
The fact is that it's in no way unethical to say, "this man has no credibility and only got his job through nepotism."
There is no significance to the fact that Fitz was posted after the Armitage news unless Fitz and others recognized that at the time. But sorting out such details is what special investigations are for.
The truth is that this special prosecutor should never have been appointed, because special prosecutors are an awful idea in the first place.
Clinton shouldn't have been impeached. He only GOT impeached because of the stupid special prosecutor statute.
In truth, once it was revealed that Clinton had, WITHOUT DOUBT, committed perjury, it would have been irresponsible to NOT consider impeachment. Because now you have a President CONFESSING to committing a felony. There was no doubt whatsoever. It was a confessed felony.
That's what I don't get about the rabid partisans on either side.
Clinton shouldn't have been in a position where he was put on trial for something like that. But once he was, it would have been partisan bullshit not to at least consider impeachment.
The real solution is to do away with these unaccountable special prosecutors in the first place.
By the way, Mikeca is still wrong. The Washington Post is anything but a right-wing paper, and they and many other responsible voices on the left recognize that Joe Wilson is a credibility-free partisan hack and always has been.
This is a Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post editorial policy has been tilting steadily to the right for a number of years. This editorial is basically a rewrite of White House or RNC talking points.
I still find it amazing that when the administration point man, Libby, who was suppose to work with the press and leak information to answer Wilson, is convicted by a jury of perjury and lying to the FBI, you can all still sit there and say, yep, Wilson is a liar and has no credibility. In my opinion this administration is the one that has no credibility left, but I guess the partisan dead-enders can never see past their own talking point.
• Who authorized the waiver or order exempting Joe Wilson from the CIA requirement for a secrecy/confidentiality agreement between Joe Wilson and the Agency for the mission in question?
• Who asked for the waiver? By what procedure was it asked and granted? State all individuals involved in the process of selecting and sending Joe Wilson.
• What is the normal procedure of securing confidentiality, secrecy and non-disclosure agreements between the CIA and third-parties gathering information on CIAs behalf?
• What procedures, policies and good practice standard were violated, and by whom, when Joe Wilson was offered, chosen and sent on his Niger mission for the CIA. What policies and procedures of the CIA were violated or not followed which would have protected CIA’s ownership of the information gathered by Wilson on behalf of CIA?
The massive elephant in the room that no one talks about is the incorrect Italian intelligence reports that started this whole thing and the forged contracts that appeared later.
What was the source of incorrect Italian intelligence reports that Niger had signed a contract to sell yellowcake to Iraq?
Who forged the crude fake contracts that appeared many months later?
Although the CIA thought that the Iraq Niger yellowcake intelligence was not credible and that the contracts must be forgeries, why did no one examine the contracts carefully between Oct 2002 and Feb 2003 when the US gave them to the IAEA.
Who at the CIA and other intelligence organization had control of these contracts between Oct 2003 and Feb 2003?
What was the decision making process that lead the US to give contracts the CIA believed to be forgeries to the IAEA?
Why has there been no serious investigation of origin of forged contracts? (Hint: the Senate Intelligence Committee declined to look into this because the FBI was suppose to have a criminal investigation going on, but the man who is known to have been trying to sell the contracts to an Italian newsmagazine has entered the US under his own name a number of times since and the FBI has made no attempt to interview him.)
Those are the big questions no one ever talks about.
Who or what was Libby trying to protect by lying to the FBI and grand jury?
Bush Iraq war apologists are a joke to me. It's far worse than being a Michael Moore apologist. Far worse. Anyway, history will prove me and those on my side correct. In 20-30 years, (and I'll still be around posting on Drako's World) most Americans will say, "that stupid bastard Bush really screwed us on that Iraq war. What the hell was he thinking?!?"
Maybe Drako's World will be asking: "What was the hell he was thinking?"
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Dean says:
Not to split the hair too finely, but Kenneth Starr was NOT a special prosecutor, but an Independent Counsel, a different animal. Starr's predecessor was an SP, then Congress revived the IC statute and Starr was appointed IC. The IC statute has again lapsed.
The SP's are accountable: They serve at the pleasure of the President. Remember the Saturday Night Massacre? The IC's could only be fired for cause.
Do I want to open up that box again? BTDT.
I was referring to the editorial policy, not the news or columnists, although it looks like the right tilt is starting to work its way into the news reporting as well. The Washington Post has recently hired the controversial AP reporter John Solomon. Solomon seems to specialize in writing stories about Democrats that blow up minor events and suggest they are serious scandals. Since joining the WP he has written the Edwards article that reveals that Edwards sold his Washington area home for substantially less than his asking price to businessman that has a history of anti-union activity and is undoubtedly a Republican, as if it would be legal for Edwards to refuse to sell his house to someone because he didn’t like his politics. Then there was the recent Clinton charity story. Both of these might qualify as news stories buried someplace in the WP, but they were both WP front-page stories. No one, including the WP’s own ombudsman, can figure out how these stories got on the front page, since there just is no substance to them. They are written to suggest that there is some scandal, but you keep reading and reading, and just never get to the scandal.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.