1 Boring Old Man

Prosecutor’s Firing Was Urged During Probe

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA’s top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel’s office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

"Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following," Sampson wrote, referring to "[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

The FBI raided Foggo’s home and former CIA office on May 12. He was indicted along with Wilkes on fraud and money-laundering charges on Feb. 13 — two days before Lam left as U.S. attorney.

The revelation that Lam took a major step in the Foggo probe one day before Sampson’s e-mail message was sent to the White House raises further questions about the decision to fire her, Feinstein suggested.

A Justice spokesman yesterday referred questions about the meaning of the "real problem" e-mail to Sampson’s attorney, Bradford Berenson, who declined to comment.

"We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution," Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "This remains the case, and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise."

The Dilemma:

• If we stay [surge][do what Bush says], we are going along with his obvious initial goal – the occupation of Iraq to:
  • set up an American-friendly puppet government
  • maintain a military presence in the Middle East
  • control the development of the Iraqi Oil Fields
  • some or all of the above
• If we leave, we are abandoning Iraq to the political mess we created by invading them in the first place.

I don’t like either answer. I don’t actually think any of us do, whether we support or oppose the Bush Administration. This is called a "double bind," or an "impossible situation," or the "horns of a dilemma." While there are a number of strategies for dealing with such things, the crux of the matter is that there is no real choice to make in such a "quagmire." The Bush Administration put us into this situation, and set it up to be like this, a situation we "can’t leave."

This dilemma does have a solution, however, unlike many. Step one is to remove Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office. They want to "win" an unwinnable war, and occupy a country. We don’t do that. It’s not what Americans do. I suspect that a lot of the violence in Iraq is because they know what Bush wants. With Bush and Cheney out of the picture and someone in control whose true goals are to stop the violence and to guarantee American withdrawal and to negotiate, I expect that a solution would be within easy reach.

The solution to an insoluable problem is always to reformulate the problem.  In this case, the actual problem is Mr. Bush and his Administration, not the war itself. How does one do this? Bring them up for impeachment, both of them. In the House, do a thorough and detailed investigation of the prewar intelligence with wide publicity. Do a thorough and detailed investigation of conduct of the war with wide publicity. Do a thorough and detailed investigation of the NSA and FBI abuse of the Patriot Act with wide publicity. The Impeachment will pass in the House. By the time it gets to the Senate, hopefully there will be enough truth on the table to either have the Senate convict, or to render the Administration impotent. But there is no solution to Iraq with Bush and Cheney in charge. It is our only possible course at this point. It’s called "going between the horns of the dilemma" in classical logic…

And as the recent editorial in The Nation points out, in case there’s any question about who is charged with the responsibility for war, re-read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which covers the responsibilities of the Congress:

It’s not just the right of Congress to fire the Commander in Chief, it is their duty… 

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 8:01 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again — because we are not dealing with peaceful men. Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. … Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. … As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

…

President Bush Addresses the Nation The Oval Office March 19, 2003 10:16 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support — from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense. To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed. The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military — a final atrocity against his people. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done. Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail. May God bless our country and all who defend her.

Lessons of War
The fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year.

Unfortunately, none of this provides bright guidelines to make the next decisions easier — not even those facing the nation right now in Iraq. It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

The sentence, "It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in" is where all of us are stuck. And this editorial concludes, "A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction." I think this conclusion is falling into a trap – a trap set by our own government.

What trap? The options are laid out in this format: Stay in, Get out. We all now know we should never have gone there in the first place. But when Bush talks about it, he says we must win, stay the course, support the troops, etc. What I think he means is occupy Iraq. My point is that we cannot answer this question while George W. Bush is in charge. We cannot trust him [period] to be acting in good faith. I think he wants us to occupy Iraq. The Iraqis think he wants to occupy Iraq. Many Americans think he wants to occupy Iraq. The rest of the world thinks he wants to occupy Iraq.

• Follow Bush and occupy Iraq.
• Leave them with the mess we created.

Last night I was at a dinner, in a conversation, or at least listening to a conversation at the table. Something came up about George Bush. The guy to my left said, "Those [explitive deleted] Liberals think…" in a tone of voice that transcended the words – disdain, contempt, snarl, words aren’t good enough to describe that kind of music. Later, the guy across the table was talking about all the building in our rural area. He said smiling, "Ever since you know who inherited Atlanta…" You know who was referring to African-Americans, implying the building was to get away from said you know who. I was sort of zoning out on the conversation for obvious reasons, but later "towel-heads" floated by.

I found myself wondering on the way home if I do that – that being depersonalize, hate, make sweeping generalizations about groups. I wondered if it’s something about the Right Wing that generates that kind of talk. I know it’s not. One can read any of the bloglines I follow, and read things like "wingnuts," "fascists," "tweety," "pumpkin-head," "Darth Cheney," and worse. I expect you can find such things here too.

But my point is that on hearing those kinds of words last night, my mind turned off. There was not going to be any discussion at that table I might engage with. Such talk is only for the faithful. I tried to think back to the last time I took the bait in such a situation. It was a long time ago, fourteen years maybe, and it was a time when too much liquor had been flowing around. Since then, I’ve carried that lesson with me. In those situations, keep your mouth shut. Look around for others who’ve gone dumb. Talk to them later.

I tried to think back. Has it always been this way? Hateful polarization? I think so. I grew up in a segregated South, and came into political being in the early sixties. There was racism and anti-Communism everywhere. Later it was about the Viet Nam War – "gooks,"  "hippies." I’ve worn my hair long since those days, I think as a way of warding off having to hear such things, as a way of deflecting being mistaken for someone who will enter those conversations. It doesn’t work so well any more. As I found out last night, long hair is kind of in for country boys.

My wife had gone over to talk to a friend. When I brought it up on the way home, she said she was sorry she left me there in that conversation. I was glad she left! She gets that conflict feeling in these situations, guilty for not responding. If she had stayed, I would have been cringing, waiting for her to react and make things worse. I’m going to have to think up a new, unoffensive, subtle signal to wear to such gatherings.

It’s different this time – very different. Back in 1967, it was another place in history. Some of us were mad at War itself. Some of us were mad at our System. Some of us were mad at the Warriors. Some of us were mad at our Parents. And some of us were mad at the Administration.

This time, we’re not mad at War itself. We’re not mad at the Warriors. If anything, we’re fighting to get our System back. For many of us, our Parents are either dead or marching with us. We’re mad that our Government has been taken over by a group of people who have taken us into the Wrong War – not a war against our enemies, al Qaeda,  but a war of conquest.

And, we’re going to put a stop to it. We can’t fix the harm we’ve already caused, but we can stop doing more of it.

I. U.S. Attorney Firings

More Smoke From White House On Attorney Firings

Don’t be surprised if the new narrative on the United States attorney (USA) firings is that it was the Justice Department that was culpable for misleading Congress, not the White House. A story in tomorrow’s New York Times [see below] indicates that the attorney for former Alberto Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson said late Friday that others in the Justice Department knew full well about the ongoing discussions since the 2004 election between DOJ and the White House, and that those senior DOJ officials were also responsible for preparing the misleading testimony to Congress. His attorney also said Sampson isn’t shouldering any blame for misleading Congress. Note that Sampson’s attorney formerly worked for Gonzales in the White House counsel’s office.

Of course this line of argument is utter bullshit, since it was the White House that fingered Harriet Miers for this mess without mentioning that Rove and Gonzales had worked on this right after the 2004 election. Sampson’s attorney is simply an administration hack trying to spin that his client is blameless while other DOJ senior staffers are at fault, and doesn’t want anyone to focus on his former boss or the White House. Before long Gonzales will be blaming his staff, in the hope that he saves his own skin.

…

Former Justice Dept. Official Defends Actions

D. Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department official who resigned this week after bipartisan criticism of the firing of several federal prosecutors, said he bore no more responsibility than several others in the department for misleading statements that its top officials made to Congress about the firings.

“Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. attorneys,” Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Brad Berenson, said in a statement late Friday. “The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department’s testimony to Congress.”

There’s no brass plaque on the various restaurants where Richard Hohlt‘s Off the Record Club meets periodically for food and a chance to chat and rant with each other over a nice meal. According to Michael Isakoff, the only known rule is that the meetings stay off the record. They’re just a group of very heavy hitting Republican lobbyists, former government officials who get together for dinner, occasionally joined by current Republican Staffers. In a small Southern town, it would be called a good old boy network in every sense of the phrase. Of the known members, Vin Weber is the most obviously political member – a former Minnessota Congressman, Newt’s best buddy back then. He left Congress and spent the Clinton years building a powerful lobbying business and was a signee of the P.N.A.C. letter to Cinton in 1998. Charles Black, like Weber is involved as a political strategist in Republican campaigns and a big fan of Tom Delay. Richard Hohlt is a big money raiser with connections to the Press, particularly Robert Novak. Ken Duberstein is another Washington Lobbyist – a Republican operative who has been a part of the inner circle of Bush Political Stategists working closely with Karl Rove. Apparently, the meeting Richard Armitage had with Robert Novak on July 8th was set up by Armitage as a favor to Duberstein, in turn as a favor he was doing for Powell, though it’s not clear Novak knew that. All are connected with the Republican Presidential campaigns as advisor’s. They started meeting around the time Clinton got elected.

So how did the Off the Record Club make it on the record? At the end of his testimony in the Libby Trial, Novak was asked by one of Libby’s lawyers who else he spoke to about the story. He mentioned his friend, Richard Hohlt, one of his daily contacts. When Hohlt learned that Novak was onto this story, he emailed Karl Rove. When the story was finished, Novak gave Hohlt a copy. He alerted Rove immediately, and faxed him the whole article, three days before it came out. But he was not the only Off the Record Club member who became a player in the story. According to Elizabeth De La Varga, Ken Duberstein is a friend and advisor to Richard Armitage [and Colin Powell]. Recall Robert Novak’s testimony in the Libby Trial that he’d been trying to meet with Richard Armitage for several years, but had been directly rebuffed. Then, "out of the blue," he got a call from Armitage [around June 22nd to set up a meeting for July 8th, the meeting where Plame was "outed." Apparently the meeting was brokered by Ken Duberstein. Duberstein later apparently said that he "may have" arranged the Armitage/Novak meeting as a favor to Colin Powell. Duberstein continued to advise Armitage and may have been involved in getting him his post-Administration job.

One of the reasons to focus on all this shadowy business is that Armitage and Noval present very different views of their meeting. Armitage says he mentioned Plame in passing at the end of their meeting. Novak tells a different story:

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘‘thought’’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

….As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column — implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.

And who called Novak when Armitage wanted to find out if he was the "source?" Kenneth Duberstein. The story that Armitage is just a gossip never held much water. He tells Bob Woodward about Plame on June 13th, 2007 "out of the blue" and calls in Robert Novak "out of the blue" a week or so later and brings it up to Novak. Then he’s shocked to find out he’s the "source?" Excuse me, but that sounds like Libby’s "surprise" about relearning about Plame anew from Tim Russert.

The Summer of 2003 wasn’t going so well for the Bush Administration. They’d fudged the intelligence to get us into war with Iraq, gambling that they’d find enough stuff to justify their prewar claims, and the evidence just wasn’t there. And they were beginning to put together the political strategizing for the upcoming 2004 Presidential election. Rove and his Republican allies [including the boys from the Off the Record Club] were thinking about getting Bush re-elected. In the midst of all of this, there were articles and phone calls from another shadow that said that some former ambassador was going around town questioning their prewar campaign to go to war. This wouldn’t look so good, period, but would look especially bad in the coming election plan. So when someone [say Karl Rove for the purposes of argument] found out about Joseph Wilson and his wife’s employment at the C.I.A., maybe a plan was hatched to head Wilson off at the pass, working with people who weren’t in the Administration [people like the guys in the Off the Record Club for example] something like a strong, covert, unilateral, pre-emptive strike [like, for example, the Bush Doctrine].

So, Ken Duberstein works with Richard Armitage to set up a leak to Bob Woodward and Robert Novak. But then Joseph Wilson breaks the rules and publishes his Oped before this pre-emptive strike bears any fruit – so all the later stuff [Miller, Cooper, etc.] was a damage control plan because the pre-emptive strike got interrupted on July 6th by Wilson’s article. While Duberstein was working Armitage, Richard Hohlt was working the Robert Novak side of the equation and reporting in to Karl Rove.

What would such a theory explain? First, where is Karl Rove in all of this. He’s got to be somewhere. This theory would have him off pulling strings in the background. That is definitely his M.O. It would explain Armitage’s Leaks in a much more reasonable way than as just a gossip. It would place Richard Armitage and Robert Novak as pawns in a higher stakes game than they knew. It would use operatives who were not central figures in the game and much harder to trace. And it would explain why this confusing story still has so many loose ends – because some of the main players are still "off the chart."

I personally spent a year trying to construct this chart – reading everything anyone wrote on the subject, crosschecking various timelines, making charts and diagrams. And now there it is. Mine were much prettier; I had dates; I had graphics. I had everything it takes except information.

So, now we have it it seems we should linger over it for a while. Maybe I should redraw it:

Why redraw it? I don’t accept that we know who told either Rove or Cheney. I see that as two unknowns. I certainly do not accept that there are no acknowledged connections or conversations among Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Karl Rove. Nor do I accept the conspicuous absence of Condoleeza Rice and her then Assistant, Stephen Hadley. I also wonder about Donald Rumsfeld. The White House isn’t that large and this was a very big deal. Libby admitted to two conversations about Valerie Plame Wilson, one of which didn’t occur. I count nine. That’s why he was found guilty. I see Ari Fleischer’s leaks as part of alibi production, setting up the reporters to feel that everyone knew it and preparing Libby and Rove’s original alibi that they heard it from reporters. There was nothing in the testimony that explains when Fleischer decided [or was told] to do this between July 7th when he was told and July 12th when he leaked.

1. Ari Fleischer:

   • Why did you tell the reporters?
   • Were you asked/told to do this?
   • By whom?
2. Karl Rove:

   • Who told you Valerie Plame’s identity?
   • Who did you tell or talk to about it?
3. Dick Cheney:

   • Who told you Valerie Plame’s identity?
   • Who did you tell or talk to about it?
   • Oh yeah – why did you lie to the American people and involve us in a war under false pretenses?
4. George Bush:

   • Who told you Valerie Plame’s identity?
   • Who did you tell or talk to about it?
   • You said you would fire anyone involved. There were four leakers. Three are out of government. Why is Karl Rove still there?
   • Do you feel that you owe Valerie Plame Wilson an apology?
   • Oh yeah – why did you lie to the American people and involve us in a war under false pretenses?