Rove Lied To The President?

Ken AshfordPlamegateLeave a Comment

Murray Waas:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors

During the same conversation in the White House two years ago-occurring just days after the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the unmasking of Plame as a covert agency operative-Rove also assured the president that he had not leaked any information to the media in an effort to discredit Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. Rove also did not tell the president about his July 2003 a phone call with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, a conversation that touched on the issue of Wilson and Plame.

But some 22 months later, Cooper’s testimony to the federal grand jury investigating the Plame leak has directly contradicted Rove’s assertions to the president. Cooper has testified that Rove was the person who first told him that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, although Rove did not name her. Cooper has also testified that Rove told him that Plame helped arrange for Wilson to make a fact-finding trip for the CIA to the African nation of Niger to investigate allegations that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium with which to build a nuclear bomb.

In his first interview with FBI agents working on the leak probe, Rove similarly did not disclose that he had spoken to Cooper, according to sources close to the investigation,

But in subsequent interviews with federal investigators and in his testimony to the grand jury, Rove changed his account, asserting that when the FBI first questioned him, he had simply forgotten about his phone conversation with Cooper. Rove also told prosecutors that he had forgotten about the Cooper conversation when he talked to the president about the matter in the fall of 2003.

In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president’s interview. Bush said that Rove never mentioned the conversation with Cooper. James E. Sharp, Bush’s private attorney, who was present at the president’s interview with prosecutors, declined to comment for this story.

Sources close to the leak investigation being run by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald say it was the discovery of one of Rove’s White House e-mails-in which the senior Bush adviser referred to his July 2003 conversation with Cooper-that prompted Rove to contact prosecutors and to revise his account to include the Cooper conversation.

The new disclosures concerning Rove’s personal assurances to the president about Plame arise as Fitzgerald is concluding his investigation and the federal grand jury is making final decisions on whether to bring charges against Rove; against I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney; or against others, in regard to the disclosure of Plame’s covert status at the CIA.

Rove on Thursday agreed to appear a fourth time before the federal grand jury, as federal prosecutors warned him that they could not guarantee that he would not be criminally charged, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

According to outside legal experts, it is rare for prosecutors to seek to question a witness before the grand jury so late in the course of a high-profile investigation and after the witness has already testified three times, unless criminal charges are being considered.

Sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation say that Rove’s personal assurances to the president and his initial interview with the FBI are central to whether the grand jury might charge Rove with making false statements to investigators or with obstruction of justice.

Read the whole thing.

Congress Channels English Parliament

Ken AshfordCongressLeave a Comment

Oh, I like this:

A controversial bill that offered abandoned U.S. military bases to private industry for the construction of oil refineries and granted federal insurance to refiners ensnared in litigation passed by a razor-thin margin in the House Friday afternoon 212-210 as Democrats chanted "shame, shame, shame."

"Harumph, harumph"

Now if we can only get Congress and the President to have "Question Time"….

Election 2006 Outlook

Ken AshfordElection 2006Leave a Comment

This is encouraging:

Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party’s recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects.

Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.

These setbacks have prompted grumbling. Some Republican operatives, including some who work closely with the White House, privately point to what they regard as a lackluster performance by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that heads fundraising and candidate recruitment for GOP senators.

However, I am on of those who think that Republican implosion doesn’t translate to Democratic victory.  The Dems need to get out front with a strong message and a plan.  In my view, it should be "fiscal responsibility".

Avian Flu Update

Ken AshfordAvian/Swine FluLeave a Comment

I think this is going to be a big story, so I am inventing a separate category for it:

WASHINGTON – In developing a plan to deal with any possible outbreak of pandemic flu, the Bush administration has concluded that the United States is woefully unprepared for what could become the worst disaster in the nation’s history.

A draft of the final plan, which has been years in the making and is expected to be released this month, says that a large outbreak that began in Asia would, because of modern travel patterns, likely reach the United States within "a few months or even weeks."

If such an outbreak occurred, hospitals would become overwhelmed, riots would engulf vaccination clinics, and even power and food would be in short supply, the plan says.

The plan, a 381-page document that was obtained by the New York Times, calls for quarantine and travel restrictions but concedes such measures "are unlikely to delay introduction of pandemic disease into the U.S. by more than a month or two."

The plan outlines a worst-case sequence of events in which 1.9 million Americans will die and nearly 9 million will be hospitalized with costs exceeding $450 billion.

It’s Over

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

Phfaagm236Let’s put a happy face on this.  From the Red Sox Blog:

Last year does make this year a bit more bearable. It’s not because we’re all still riding the high of a World Series victory though. Take a good listen. You hear that? That’s the sound of no one bringing up some asinine curse. It’s the sound of no one chanting 1918. It also makes next year a little brighter. Everybody who isn’t a complete jackass knows that there’s no such thing as curses and that the Red Sox weren’t cursed. But even those of us rational ones always had that lingering doubt. We always wondered if they would ever go all the way. And now we know that they can, they did, and they could easily do it again.

It was a great season. David Ortiz cemented his place in New England history as a legend. Tim Wakefield provided us with another season of leadership and another dozen reasons to love the guy. Manny…well, he was Manny. And Manny is an MVP candidate. Johnny Damon showed remarkable grit and toughness while Kevin Millar hit more foul ball home runs than anyone in the history of the game. Bill Mueller once again showed us how the game is played and Mike Timlin stepped up to carry the entire pitching staff on his 39 year old back. We all kinda knew that this team wasn’t as good as the one that was on the field last year, but it was still a great one and it was still filled with some great players.

To-do list for the off-season: GET SOME PITCHERS!!!

The Boys Next Door

Ken AshfordPersonal1 Comment

BoysSince I’ve broken precedent by plugging other local theatrical events, I really ought to plug my own.

Tonight is the opening night of "The Boys Next Door", a comedy by Tom Griffin.

"The Boys Next Door" is a play about four mentally handicapped men who live in a home together, and their social worker, Jackie, who is becoming burned out with her job, and her life.

The four men are as varied as they are comical.  Norman, who works in a doughnut shop and is unable to resist the lure of the sweet pastries, takes great pride in the huge bundle of keys which dangles from his waist; Lucien P. Smith has the mind of a 5-year-old, but imagines that he is able to read and comprehend the weighty books he lugs about; Arnold is the hyperactive ringleader and compulsive chatterer, who suffers from deep-seated insecurities and a persecution complex; while Barry, a brilliant schizophrenic who is devastated by the unfeeling rejection of his brutal father, fantasizes that he is a golf pro.

Mingled with scenes from the daily lives of these four, where "little things" sometimes become momentous (and often very funny), are moments of great poignancy when we are reminded with touching effectiveness that the handicapped, like the rest of us, want only to love and laugh and find some meaning and purpose in the brief time which they, like their more fortunate brothers, are allotted on this earth.

An off-Broadway success, this very funny yet very touching play focuses on the lives of four retarded men who live in a communal residence under the watchful eye of a sincere, but increasingly despairing, social worker. Filled with humor, the play is also marked by the compassion and understanding with which it peers into the half-lit world of its handicapped protagonists.

"THE BOYS NEXT DOOR is one of the most unusual…and one of the most rewarding plays in town." –Back Stage.

"Griffin’s play hits squarely on the truth of life with its constant interplays and shadings of triumphs and tears." –NY Daily News.

"THE BOYS NEXT DOOR moves the audience to an awareness of how many things in every day life we take for granted…." –NY Times.

I play the role of Arnold Wiggins.  It’s a really charming show, and a lot of hard work has gone into it.  I think it has paid off.  Come and see us!!

Presented by the Stained Glass Playhouse.   Showtimes are 8 p.m. on Oct. 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22, 2 p.m. Oct. 9, 16 and 23.  All performances at the Stained Glass Playhouse, 4401 Indiana Ave, Winston-Salem. Admission $10. Call 499-1010.

Kos: “Why The Right Is Pissed At Bush Re: Miers”

Ken AshfordSupreme CourtLeave a Comment

I think this is spot-on:

Nothing here that hasn’t been said in one form or another elsewhere, but this is the root of the problem with Miers:

Bush and Rove have spent the last five years doing everything in their power to hide the true conservative agenda from the American people. We get shit like "Clean Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forrest Initiative" and "Death Tax". Heck, Frank Luntz has written a whole manual on how to use language to hide the plain-English definition of their policies.

Furthermore, Bush has done everything to hide the costs of their conservative ideology — passing budgets that exclude budget items like the cost of the war and so on.

So after five years of sitting in the shadow, waiting for the president and Republicans to trumpet conservative principles to high heaven, he delivers, instead, two stealth candidates. This was supposed to be their "coming out" party, and yet Bush refuses to let them out of the closet. Republicans are losing ground with the American people, as the public becomes increasingly intimate with the side effects of Republican mis-governance. The last thing they need is the last fictions of the conservative agenda, masked by rhetorical devices and Friday-afternoon disclosures, trumpeted for all to see.

The conservative agenda is not a dominant ideology, otherwise they wouldn’t be so loath to give it to us unvarnished. It is a minority ideology. Yet the conservative yahoos don’t get it. They think they’re in the majority and can’t fathom why Bush won’t let them party out in the open.

So therein is Bush’s dilemma. Sabotage the conservative movement by announcing its principles with a bullhorn (precisely what a Prescilla Owens would’ve done), or suffer conservative discontent by keeping them locked up in the basement.

Bush chose the latter.

Nobel Peace Prize

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

What?!?  Bush didn’t get it?  I thought he was making the world a safer place blah blah blah!

To add insult to injury, the Peace Prize went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei.  And ElBaradei was on the opposite side of Bush on this whole Iraq thing.

From Think Progress, April 27, 2005:

He Was Right About Nuclear Weapons: IAEA Director ElBaradei told the United Nations that nuclear experts had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In February 2003, he warned the White House “We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” President Bush’s nomination to the U.N., John Bolton, attacked him, saying that was “impossible to believe.” (Today, two years after the invasion of Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and, in fact, the “intelligence” provided by Bolton’s Office of Special Plans turned out to be “dead wrong.”)

He Was Right About Uranium: In March 2003, El Baradei said the “documents which formed the basis for [the White House’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Vice President Cheney, asked about this a week later, said, “Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.” (The documents turned out to be fakes. Cheney, frankly, was wrong.)

He Was Right About Aluminum Tubes: In March 2003, ElBaradei said nuclear experts found “no indication” that Iraq tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for a centrifuge to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ignored that finding and claimed in July 2003 that “the consensus view” in the intelligence community was that the tubes “were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons.” (The tubes, in fact, were not for use for weaponizing uranium. They were the wrong size — “too narrow, too heavy, too long” for a centrifuge. They had a special coating to protect them from the weather, which was “not consistent” with use in a centrifuge, as it could cause bad reactions with uranium.)

Culture Of Life Update

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Sex/Morality/Family Values, Women's IssuesLeave a Comment

Several months ago, I wrote this:

"It’s really cute that the citizens of Wingnuttia, who truly should be given their own homeland somewhere (they can call it the Christian States of America, or whatever, I don’t care), would prefer women to die of cancer if the alternative is maybe, just maybe, increasing the likelihood of them engaging in any sexual activity", says Atrios.

He’s referring to the religious right, who is gearing up to oppose vaccinations for sexually-active women — vaccinations which might give them a chance against the growing problem of cervical cancer (the death rate worldwide is expected to reach 1,000,000 per year by 2050 — four times the death rate now). 

Dobson’s Family Research Council is opposed to the vaccine because young women "may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex".

Dobson followers, who argued that the vaccination would not be 100% effective (and therefore abstience is the best course), might be interested to know that the vaccination is 100% effective.

Who Will Be Indicted?

Ken AshfordPlamegateLeave a Comment

Lawrence O’Donnell, who seems to have pretty good sources on the CIA leak story, predicts the following: "At least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators."

In a subsequent post, O’Donnell says Karl Rove’s agreement to testify again before the grand jury is a solid indication his lawyer thinks he’ll be indicted.

The Washington Post reports a "source close to Rove said Bush’s chief political adviser and his legal team are now genuinely concerned he could face charges."

The New York Times adds to the speculation: "In recent days, Mr. Rove has been less visible than usual at the White House, fueling speculation that he is distancing himself from Mr. Bush or has been sidelined."

Captain’s Ship Sailed Off The Edge Of The Flat Earth

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

When I read sentences like this, from a supposedly prominent conservative blogger, I just want to bang my head against the wall:

When members of the Democratic caucus used religion, disguising it as they did, to filibuster people like John Roberts and Janice Rogers Brown for their staunch Catholocism, everyone knew it — and we Republicans rightly called them out for conducting religious tests for office.

Does anyone recall a Democratic filibuster of John Roberts and Janice Brown?

Does anyone recall a Democratic filibuster of John Roberts and Janice Brown based on their religion?

Does anyone recall Republicans calling out Democrats for said filibusters?

What has Captain Ed been smoking?

Miers: Not Off To A Good Start

Ken AshfordSupreme CourtLeave a Comment

Yeah.  She needs to do some serious studying.  From Volokh:

Oh my; this, if true, could be devastating to her chances:

Her relatively thin paper trail adds greater importance to her personal meetings with senators and to the committee hearing that is expected to begin in about three weeks. While generally well received, Miers has had a few awkward moments, including one during her Wednesday session with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" — which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.

Who refers to a justice by his first name? It appears that she either: a) actually likes Earl Warren but then realized that stating such would be deadly to her cause and quickly backtracked (probability: low), b) actually likes some other justice and got this justice’s name confused, in which case she still doesn’t look well informed (probability: high), or c) actually likes Warren Burger and was on intimate terms with him (probability: nil). Even if Burger really is whom she meant, right-wingers are likely to be unhappy with the answer.