October 2005
One might logically assume that Dick Cheney might suspend his more nefarious activities while there is an ongoing investigation into a leak which exposed a CIA operative for political reasons; a leak that may well have originated in his very office. It makes sense that when under investigation one acts as beatific as possible. But that would be projecting an image of rationality where none exists.
Cheney continues to demonstrate the applicability of the Bush administration’s simple good v. evil thinking. But I don’t think that it is in the way that he intends. Today the Washington Post has a report that Cheney has been personally pushing for a rider to be attached to the defense authorization bill that would exempt intelligence officers from the proposed provision that government operatives may not use inhumane treatment against any person anywhere. And it gets worse; Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss tried to get John McCain to introduce the legislation … three times. So let me summarize: the Vice President of the United States and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency have repeatedly tried to pressure a former torture victim to put forward the position that intelligence officers should be allowed to use torture.
The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by “an element of the United States government” other than the Defense Department.
Cheney’s meeting with McCain last week was his third attempt to persuade the lawmaker, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to accept a less broad legislative bar against inhumane treatment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment, saying, “the vice president does not discuss private conversations that he has with members [of Congress] . . . or information that may be exchanged with members.”
She added that the intent of such meetings is usually “to build consensus on legislative issues, still in the policymaking process.” CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former Cheney aide, said the agency does not comment on the director’s meetings.
I don’t know how it gets more unconscionable than that. I didn’t think that I could be shocked by this government any more, but I was wrong. This comes after the Senate virtually unanimously voted to hold the United States government to a higher moral standard in the treatment of prisoners. So much for attempting to “build consensus on legislative issues” – what a nice euphemism.
I don’t know how it gets more unconscionable than that. I didn’t think that I could be shocked by this government any more, but I was wrong. This comes after the Senate virtually unanimously voted to hold the United States government to a higher moral standard in the treatment of prisoners. So much for attempting to “build consensus on legislative issues” – what a nice euphemism.
The provision in question — which the Senate on Oct. 5 voted 90 to 9 to attach to its version of the pending defense appropriations bill over the administration’s opposition — essentially proscribes harsh treatment of any detainees in U.S. custody or control anywhere in the world. It was specifically drafted to close what its backers say is a loophole in the administration’s policy of generally barring torture, namely its legal contention that these constraints do not apply to treatment of foreigners on foreign soil.
At some point you just have to ask what it is all for. What is the point of going out of your way to promote torture? It has long been acknowledged that it isn’t a very effective means of intelligence gathering, because people will tell you whatever you want to alleviate physical pain. And under such duress people can make themselves believe just about anything as a psychological defense mechanism. Plus, it’s just plain evil.
Just in case you were wondering who the nine senators were that voted against this provision, I did some research and found the actual roll call vote. Senators voting against were: Allard (R-CO), Bond (R-MO), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Stevens (R-AK). When it came time to vote on the bill as a whole with the amendments, they all apparently changed their minds.
Memo to David Sirota:
Relax. There’s plenty of time to smear Paul Hackett by insinuation and innuendo before the primary, which is SIX MONTHS AWAY..
This evening, we’re treated to the following “update“:
The paper should have reported that Brown has been working to pass the reforms on the ballot, and that announcing your own campaign during the last few weeks of a bigger statewide campaign could be interpreted in some quarters as selfish…and that putting off your announcement until that campaign is over is being a team player…
Hmm…I wonder in whose quarters announcing would seem selfish? It’s just cheap and childish…if you want to call Hackett selfish for announcing his candidacy during the last few weeks of statewide initiatives, just do it. Could it be that announcing your intention to reverse your initial pledge not to run was also a distraction? Sure, but neither Brown’s decision, nor Hackett’s, were selfish. They’re both just trying to best position themselves for the race.
Nothing ‘selfish’ about that.
Both Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett are credits to the Democratic Party, and both deserve fair treatment in their quest to be elected. No one can fault someone for favoring one over the other, but let’s all be above board in our reasoning.
They just don’t have any shame, do they?
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson made the argument that perjruy really isn’t a crime, just a technicality:
I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.
That’s an interesting argument, and one that Republicans, including Bill Kristol have been floating for a couple of days…almost as if they know that someone perjured him/herself. Unfortunately, it’s not a compelling argument, given that Hutchinson believed that perjury was sufficient grounds to impeach a President of the United States. In fact, according to her statement following her decision to vote for impeachment, Hutchinson argued that perjury was a high crime. From her statement:
The Supreme Court of the United States has observed that there is an occasional misunderstanding to the effect that the crime of `perjury’ is somehow distinct from `obstruction of justice.’ United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). They are not. While different elements make up each crime, each is calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system. Moreover, it is obvious that `witness tampering’ is simply another means employed to obstruct justice.
Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter.
The President’s Counsel and a number of Senators advance a `felony-plus’ interpretation of the Constitutional terms `high crimes and misdemeanors.’ They seem to agree that the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are `high crimes’ under the Constitution, but they argue that, even if guilt is admitted, nevertheless, a Senator should vote `not guilty,’ on any article of impeachment of a President, if the `economy is good,’ if the underlying facts in the case are `just about sex,’ or if the Senator simply feels for whatever personal reason that the President ought to stay in office despite having committed felonies while holding it.
To this Senator, this astounding application of the plain language of our Constitution strikes at the very heart of the rule of law in America.
Long passages, but important ones. Hutchinson and other Republicans are going to be hard-pressed to make the claim that perjury and obstruction of justice aren’t important when dealing with the outing of a CIA agent, when they believed those exact charges were important enough to impeach the President over a consensual sexual affair. It’s clear that Republicans are running scared on this issue; they know that Rove and Libby are going to face charges–and are trying to spin their way out of the issue by attacking Fitzgerald and the process.
Hold them accountable for their actions. Hold them accountable for their words. These charges are not about Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or even Judith Miller. They are about the requirement that our government follow the same rules as its citizens. Obstructing and lying to a grand jury investigation are criminal actions, not technicalities. Just ask the Republicans in 1998.
PS: Let Cheney get indicted. Please! 
Just when you thought the web of corruption couldn’t get any thicker, leave it to TIME magazine to point out one more strand. And as far as strands go, this may end up being the very center of the web. TIME is reporting that even the very well connected Abramoff needed help when he wanted to ensure the ear of the highest levels of the US government. Who did he turn to? That man was none other than former Christian Coalition leader Ralph “Right Hand of God” Reed. Now this may not be totally new, but what is new is that TIME has obtained their email correspondence, and it is amusing for the sheer familiarity with which the two address each other; one would think that the messages were the IMs of two particularly vapid adolescent girls, like whatev’s 
And it would be particularly amusing if it wasn’t for the realization that their relationship has been constantly corrupting the democratic process.
Ten days after 9/11, for instance, Abramoff was promoting a business venture to rent cruise ships to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to billet rescue workers off New York City. Reed assured Abramoff he had “put in a tag call to Karl to find out the best contact at FEMA.”
Four months later, Abramoff wrote Reed that he needed some “serious swat from Karl” to get the Justice Department to free $16.3 million for a jail that his Choctaw Indian clients were planning to build in Mississippi. As it happened, Abramoff had caught Reed at a ripe moment. “Am at a lunch with Rove at the [Republican National Committee] meeting and just talked to the AG [John Ashcroft],” he e-mailed Abramoff on his BlackBerry. “Will report the substance shortly.” Reed agreed to give Rove materials arguing the Choctaws’ case.
There are a few of things that make the revelation of this relationship especially damaging. First, Reed was a campaign strategist for and favorite of President Bush, and had frequent contact with the highest levels of the government, including most notably Karl Rove and John Ashcroft. Second, as far as mutually beneficial relationships of convenience go this one was very genial; Abramoff and Reed’s contacts are being described as “eager” and “obliging” and their contact goes back to the early 1980s where they were buddies in the College Republican national leadership. And third, this relationship threatens the Republican leadership because it draws a lot of strands together. Now we have a single web that seems to implicate Abramoff, Rove, Reed, Delay, and a number of other high level officials. I wouldn’t be surprised at this point if it came out that Frist contacted Abramoff to have Reed use his contacts to arrange to launder the money he got from the sale of his family’s company’s stock in his “blind” trust through a no-bid Haliburton contract to tap the last of the world’s petroleum reserves in the grand scheme of strengthening the case for Intelligent Design.
One of their more interesting exchanges:
In December 2001 the lobbyist was eager to prevent Angela Williams from being appointed head of the Interior Department’s Office of Insular Affairs, which oversees the government’s dealings with the Northern Mariana Islands, an important Abramoff client. Williams is married to former Federal Trade Commissioner Orson Swindle, who was a Vietnam pow with Senator John McCain. The subject header of Abramoff and Reed’s e-mail exchange (it is unclear who initiated it) contained a misstatement about Williams that is practically Freudian in what it reveals about their animosity toward McCain: “Were you able to whack McCain’s wife yet?” Reed assured Abramoff he had “weighed in heavily” with the White House personnel office to block her appointment but had received no commitment. “Any ideas on how we can make sure she does not get it?” Abramoff asked. “Can you ping Karl on this? I can’t believe they just don’t get this done?” Reed replied, “I am seeing him tomorrow at the WH and plan to discuss it with him as well.” Baron says, “Ralph passed the information on to the White House. He is confident the Administration’s decision was based on the merit.” As for Rove, White House spokeswoman Erin Healy tells TIME, “It is my understanding that Mr. Rove does not recall any of these incidents.”
Or this cute little exchange:
When Abramoff pleaded by e-mail in February 2003 for her [Susan Ralston, former assistant to Reed and current assistant to Karl Rove] to help arrange a “quiet message” from Rove to the Interior Department on behalf of a tribal client, Ralston rebuffed him: “Karl and others are aware, but the WH is not going to get involved.” So Abramoff sent a copy of Ralston’s curt e-mail to Reed, who replied, “this is ridiculous. want any help …?”
I am betting that Reed is really wishing that his email correspondence hadn’t been made public for two reasons: first, because it implicates him and a lot of others in a massive government/corporate conspiracy the likes of which have never before been paralleled, and second and more importantly, it makes him seem a little pubescent which can’t be good for his street cred’ with his Christian Coalition peeps.
I’ve been following the blog debate between supporters of Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett with a great deal of interest lately, because I think it illustrates one of the ways that the Democratic Party is willing to tear itself apart when it smells victory. The louder voices on the left seem to be calling for Hackett’s withdrawal, because they see Brown as a better candidate. They are also critical of Hackett, because an advisor suggested Hackett’s campaign would be negative.
In context of these comments, the Akron Beacon-Journal posted an interesting article on Thursday, suggesting that bloggers are leading the attack for Brown. A quick look suggests that might be the case:
Matt, over at Left in the West writes:
Let me spell this out again, when Paul Hackett realized he would have a primary, he issued the signal to his team to rip Sherrod Brown apart. And so his staff and his supporters decided to destroy a good progressive Democrat who has spent his time in Washington, DC standing up repeatedly for working families…If he came to the party planning to haul it into the mud, he better not bitch about getting a little crap on his uniform.
But what is more troubling – a candidate that changed their mind about running for office, or a candidate who hasn’t talked straight about their own position on Iraq?
That’s right – in the fulminating over Hackett as the supposedly populist champion of anti-war sentiment, it seems many have forgotten that Hackett continues to change his position on the Iraq War whenever it appears politically opportune.
The Cincinati Black Blog calls Hackett a crybaby:
Hackett is a crybaby who had his shot to go to Washington and blew it. In the process, he pissed a lot of people like me off because he showed his willingness to sit silently as people (his opponents) were being mistreated. That’s why I think Hackett is a greedy, selfish, coward.
Democracy Guy attacks Hackett and Bob Brigham.
I always love it when some guy from San Francisco, writing from a decidedly un-swing state for the increasingly moronic Swing State Project, decides it’s time to urinate all over Ohio’s politics…Bobby supports Paul Hackett for US Senate. Bobby’s a self appointed grand poobah of the liberal blogosphere. Put those two things together, and you get Bobby’s unified theory of life, i.e., anyone who doesn’t support Hackett must be a traitorous egomaniac, including Ted Strickland, who is running for governor in the Democratic primary, and who has been in Congress with Sherrod Brown for years. I’ve never met Bobby, I don’t know if he’s ever set foot in Ohio, but read the comments in Bobby’s post…he is immediately and almost universally derided for it.
I think it’s definitely time for Brown supporters to step back. Thus far, I’ve seem a lot more negativity from them than from the Hackett campaign.
