Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Senators to Probe Lobbyist's Activities

The Wall Street Journal

Senators to Probe Lobbyist's Activities
Hearing Will Focus on Whether Abramoff
Tried to Sway Decision About New Casino
By BRODY MULLINS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- A Senate investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff that has drawn attention to his ties to members of President Bush's inner circle of advisers is set to open a new line of inquiry in its hearing today.

A Senate committee will hear testimony on whether Mr. Abramoff sought to influence Interior Secretary Gale Norton by directing one of his clients to donate money to a nonprofit group Ms. Norton founded before joining the Bush administration. The panel also will look into whether Mr. Abramoff sought help for his clients from Ms. Norton's deputy at the Interior Department, Steven Griles, by offering Mr. Griles a lobbying job.



Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee that has conducted the yearlong inquiry into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes, emphasized that his panel has found "no connection" between Mr. Abramoff and Ms. Norton. He said the hearing will focus on two of her associates.

The Senate panel's inquiry has focused on Mr. Abramoff's lobbying for a handful of Native American tribes. Mr. Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, earned more than $80 million over four years from the tribes.

Today's hearing is set to look at how Mr. Abramoff may have sought to influence the Interior Department -- the Cabinet agency that handles matters affecting tribal affairs, such as recognizing tribes and approving gambling agreements between states and tribes.

At the hearing, the panel is expected to release copies of emails between Mr. Abramoff and his clients and administration officials. According to people who have read them, the emails document that the lobbyist sought to have his American Indian clients make donations to Ms. Norton's former organization in an attempt to influence the Interior Department. The emails are said to show how the current head of the organization -- the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy -- relayed information about decision-making on the proposed casino between Mr. Abramoff and senior Interior Department officials. The council is a business-backed Republican group that works on conservative solutions to environmental issues. The council once launched a pricey campaign to defeat legislation offered by Mr. McCain to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses.

The hearing comes at a time when Republicans are facing several probes. Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, stepped down after being indicted in the CIA-leak investigation. Securities regulators and the Justice Department are looking into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of HCA Corp. shares days before discouraging news for the company; House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas) has stepped aside as he faces money-laundering charges related to a political campaign in his home state.

Senators are expected to ask witnesses, including the current and former elected leaders of a former Abramoff client, the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana, if the lobbyist tried to use financial contributions and connections at the Interior Department in an attempt to block construction of another tribe's casino that would have competed with the Coushatta gambling operations. The Coushatta tribe paid Mr. Abramoff and his partner Mr. Scanlon $30 million over three years to block the rival casino.

To help persuade the Interior Department, Mr. Abramoff asked the Coushatta tribe to make donations to the council, which Ms. Norton, a conservative activist and former attorney general of Colorado, helped organize in 1997. The Coushatta tribe gave the group a total of $150,000, according to Jimmy R. Faircloth Jr., a lawyer for the tribe.

After initially siding with Mr. Abramoff's client in 2002, the Interior Department reversed course in December 2003 to endorse the new casino. Last year, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco blocked the rival casino because she is opposed to expanding gambling in Louisiana.

When asked this week by a reporter about Ms. Norton's interaction with the Abramoff investigation, a spokesman said, "the ultimate decision here was not favorable" to Mr. Abramoff and his client.

Ms. Norton has had no role in the council since she entered Mr. Bush's cabinet. The organization is run by Italia Federici, who worked on Ms. Norton's failed 1996 campaign for a Senate seat from Colorado.

Emails that will be released at the hearing indicate that Ms. Federici helped transmit information about the department's decisions on casinos between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Griles. When Mr. Abramoff helped stir up opposition to the new casino from conservative activists, for example, Ms. Federici warned Interior officials that influential Republicans opposed the plan.

Ms. Federici also helped arrange a meeting between the Coushatta chief and Ms. Norton after the Coushatta tribe donated $50,000 to the council. Sen. McCain asked Ms. Federici to appear at today's hearing, but she will be traveling. Ms. Federici declined to comment.

The Senate panel will also question Mr. Griles, Ms. Norton's former deputy at the Interior Department. In the past year, Mr. Griles left the administration to join the Washington firm of Lundquist, Nethercutt & Griles as a lobbyist.

According to lobbyists at Mr. Abramoff's former Washington firm, Greenberg Traurig, Mr. Abramoff offered Mr. Griles a job in late 2003 when Mr. Griles was still at the Interior Department. Lawyers for Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Griles declined to comment.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113089552683385879.html

Read More...

Let the Apologies Begin

The Huffington Post
Let the Apologies Begin
Michelle Pilecki

Or continue, as the case may be. The Milwaukee Journal has offered its own apology for "promulgating the administration's now patently false claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Editorial page editor O. Ricardo Pimentel notes that his 10-person editorial board didn't have the influence of The New York Times, the resources of the United Nations nor access to secret US intelligence.
His board believed the claims and wrote accordingly. "Like you, we read voraciously on the topic and made the best editorial decisions we thought we could. There was countervailing evidence even back then, of course, but the overwhelming weight of the evidence available to us [emphasis in original] was that Hussein did indeed have WMD."

Now, of course, we discover much evidence that the intelligence fed the public, including us, was "cooked" or "fixed" -- choose your favorite description -- around what the administration viewed as its most salable argument.... [C]ount us as among the many who were duped. We should have been more skeptical. For that lack of skepticism and the failure to include the proper caveats to the WMD claim, we apologize, though I would note that, ultimately, we didn't believe that the president's central WMD argument warranted war. Not then and especially not now.

Give Mr. Pimentel credit for not using the "everybody thought there were WMDs" excuse. Too many of the "watchdogs" of the press too easily accepted the claims of "weapons of mass destruction" and ignored the skeptics like Scott Ritter. The former chief weapons inspector wrote a July 20, 2002, op-ed in The Boston Globe -- months before the war -- "In direct contrast to [his inspection team's] findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Yes, there was a lot of "countervailing evidence" before the invasion, and the media ducked their responsibility to examine it.


Read More...

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

The True Cost of War

The Huffington Post

The True Cost of War
Cindy Sheehan

This immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost the world so much. George and his reckless war of choice have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars that could be better spent at home. Judging from Katrina, Iraq has cost our country much of its security. It has cost the US any good standing we enjoyed in the world community.

It cost America the post 9/11 good will from almost the entire world. We Americans are the laughingstock of the world community. Not only is our callous and careless leadership disdained, but we the people are scorned because we "re"-elected George for a 2nd term and not only that, we are allowing him to continue to mis-lead our country into ruin.

The price many of us are paying is so much costlier than the mere monetary expense or loss of reputation. Over 2,000 American families have paid the price of our dear loved ones to the insanity. Over 15,000 of our young people are wounded with 400 of those being amputees. The Veterans Administration estimates that over 1/4 of our children will come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I believe that number is higher, because I know of many cases where the military refuses to allow soldiers to seek treatment for PTSD. Many of them are sent back to battle if they even dare suggest they may be suffering from PTSD. Even if they are not wounded emotionally or physically, or killed, our soldiers will not come home entirely whole.

I was standing in front of the White House the other day when the indictments against Scooter were handed down. I was helping to hold a banner that said: Support our Troops: Bring Them Home Now.

When we received word of the indictments, many of us protestors outside the White House were cheering with happiness and relief. At last, someone could be held accountable for the lies that led our country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq. But I wasn't cheering. I put down my end of the banner and sat down on the curb and cried.

Scooter is just a lap dog for Cheney. He and this administration don't do anything unless the dirty deed is analyzed and planned for maximum damage to the offending party and minimum harm to Bush and Co. The criminals in power meant to hurt Joe Wilson and his family because Joe had the temerity and the audacity to call them liars: and to do it with such intelligence and alacrity was too much for the crooks to bear. If this crooked administration let Joe Wilson get away with telling the truth and calling them liars, then who would be next? Colin Powell? Judith Miller? The main stream media? (It could happen).

I cried because there are people in this world who have lied about smaller things and have been punished more harshly. I cried because there was a shill of the right near me holding a sign that read "Put Cindy in Abu Ghraib" when there are war criminals and immoral war profiteers running amok in our country. I cried because George, Dick, Condi, Colin, Alberto, Donald, Scooter, Paul, Karl, Judith, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and because of their lies, my son, who rarely told anything but the truth, is dead.

The liars and lies that led the US to invade Iraq are legion and well documented. (Once, just for giggles, I put George Bush/Lies in a Google search and 272,000 references came up). The lies to maintain the occupation are the same. The liars are now starting to beat the war drum for invading Syria.

A mom whose son committed "accidental" suicide in Iraq about 7 months ago called me this morning. She is beside herself with grief. I remember that the 7th month to the 9th month is the hardest. I think this is true because the profound shock is starting to wear off and the horrendous pain sets in. I so vividly remember the days where I ached so badly I didn't know what to do with my pain. I was afraid if I started screaming, I wouldn't be able to stop until every blood vessel in my brain burst open. I was afraid if I started to hit something, I wouldn't be able to stop until it was completely destroyed. I was afraid that I would have to live every single day with heartbreak so intense and overpowering that I would eventually wear myself out from it.

The ninth month after Casey was killed was the absolute most devastating for me. I remembered the first nine months of his existence in my womb all warm and protected. How his dad and I anticipated his birth with so much joy and expectation. In contrast, the first nine months he was in the cold, cold womb of our mother earth were so joyless, painful, dark and dismal. Having your child murdered for lies, mistakes, and betrayals is so dark and dismal: no one should have to endure what we are enduring.

I was able to reassure the mom in agony somewhat that if she could get through about two more months, she would be able to breathe a little and maybe smile a little and even mean it once in awhile.

We who have made the "ultimate sacrifice" know the true cost of war.

92 families found out in October, one of the bloodiest months of this war. Seven of our brave troops were killed today and their families will soon know how much pain the Bush administration's lies will cause them and how much peace, sleep, and joy these same lies cost.

For everyone else, this is the true cost of war:

Moms and Dads having their hearts and souls violently ripped out. Overwhelming guilt is felt in relentless and pounding waves.

Husbands and wives sorrowfully and prematurely burying their life partners. Days and nights ahead filled with loneliness and pain.

Brothers and sisters having integral parts of their history seized so cruelly from them. Holidays, birthdays, and other celebrations that will never be the same.

Sons and daughters unjustly denied the basic human right to grow up with both of their parents.

Other family members and friends mourning and missing someone too young to be killed in an occupation in which the war dead were sold the bill of goods that they would be greeted with chocolates and flowers from the Iraqi people as liberators.

A sovereign nation which was no threat to the United States of America lies in ruins and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens have been slaughtered just for the hell of it.

When are we going to stand up as a country and yell a collective: "bull-shit?!!" I have been screaming this until my voice is getting hoarse and people are getting sick of hearing it.

How much and how many more are we going to allow the serial liars to rob from us?

I say not one more.

Read More...

Here Comes the Judge -- Beyond Roe v. Wade

The Huffington Post

Here Comes the Judge -- Beyond Roe v. Wade
Larry Beinhart

The first question to ask the new nominee to the Supreme Court is: "Will you be an honest judge?"

This is not a question that is normally asked, straight up, to a Supreme Court nominee. But we are asking about something a little more subtle than "would you take a bribe to throw a case?"

In the year 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States stopped the recount of the Florida vote and threw the election to George Bush. This is old news. But judging from the Roberts' hearings and the punditry, the issues have been forgotten. They've faded into the fog.

Ignoring the fact that the man with fewer votes got to be president, what is most notable about the decision was that Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner did not vote according to what they believed the law to be. They voted for Bush because they wanted a Republican president.

We can say that because they have a track record and their votes in Bush v. Gore went against their own established principles. If Gore had been ahead and he asked them to stop the recount, on the very same grounds, it is a virtual certainty that those same five judges would have voted the other way.

The justices violated a judicial principle that is even more profound and runs even deeper than the Constitution itself, that the law will be applied fairly.

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist and O'Connor stopped the recount on the grounds that because different counties would use different standards it would violate equal protection.

But that was already true of the original voting. Machines were different, their maintenance levels were different, the way they were set was different, and ballot designs were different. How could a recount -- a closer examination of flaws -- increase the inequality of protection?

To stop something, the court has to find that there will be harm in letting it go forward. That harm has to be greater than any harm created by stopping the procedure. Preferably, the harm should be otherwise irreparable. In this case the court held that Bush would be harmed because the recount would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election.

Huh?

Presuming he would have still won after the votes were recounted, that would make the vote seem doubly legitimate, not cast doubts on it. If the recount showed that he lost, surely the harm done to Al Gore, to the voters of Florida, and to the people of the United States -- to be governed by a man who lost the election -- would be greater harm than the doubts that exist anyway about George Bush's election.

It was a laughable decision on the face of it.

But that's not what is important in judging the justices. What is important is that these five had always interpreted the equal protection amendment as narrowly as possible. They were also on record as favoring the power of the individual states rather than extending the power of the federal government. This was a reversal of that stance as well.

As to their attitude about harm, these were justices who had refused to stay the executions of prisoners who had cases on appeal, who were then put to death before their cases could be heard. These are judges who did not consider death a harm irreparable enough to issue a stay.

This was not a situation in which they suddenly woke up and changed judicial philosophies, which might be legitimate. They were changing just for this decision and they intended to change back and they even said the decision was, "limited to the present circumstances ..."

The question to ask the new nominee is if he would give a liberal Democrat equal justice to a conservative Republican?

He will automatically say, "Of course."

The next question is, "The other conservative Republican appointees put party interests ahead of principle, how are you different than they are? Tell us how we are to know that you are better than Scalia?"

This is a very different question than "How will you vote on Roe v. Wade?" A fair portion of the American people -- and possibly even a Republican Senator -- might think fair justice and justice with integrity is more important than any single issue.

The next question is, "Do you believe that the Constitution applies to everyone?"

We now have a class of people -- anyone who is named as an "enemy combatant" or a terrorist -- who can be picked up, carted away, kept in confinement and tortured. They have no right to attorney or to face their accuser or to be a trial. This is fairly extreme given that the constitution says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

After that, we should ask, "Do you believe that everyone is equal before the law or are there people above the law?"

There is a reason this has to be asked. When this administration decided they wanted to torture people they understood that torture is a crime. It is a common crime and it is a crime in a state of war, both in international law and according to the United States code, specifically sections 2340 and 2340A.

Jay Bybee, when he was at the White House with Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, came up with the theory that when the president is wearing his commander-in-chief outfit, he is above the law. The law against torture doesn't apply to him because it would interfere with his "constitutional power to conduct a military campaign." If anyone committed a war crime under his orders, they too would be protected.

We figure that none of us would ever be called a terrorist or an "enemy combatant" and be stripped of our rights. We're too respectable. We assume that the president would never have one of us, personally, tortured, as he is too respectable. So we don't feel immediately threatened. But there is no technical difference between the way Jose Padilla was treated and the way you and I could be treated tomorrow.

Unless we remember that we had a revolution so that we would not have a king. Then we established a democracy. We wrote a constitution. We put in certain guarantees. We declared ourselves to be a nation of laws. In which no man was above the law. Or beneath it.

It is fair to ask if any judicial nominee understands that and agrees with it.

Read More...

Hutchison, DeLay Cases Have Parallels

Hutchison, DeLay Cases Have Parallels

By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The same judge, the same prosecutor, the same defense attorney, the same Republican complaints of political payback, and the same courtroom strategy. The case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is playing out like a rerun of a Lone Star court drama that unfolded in 1993-94.

Back then, it was Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison fighting for her political life against Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle. Ultimately, she was acquitted of misconduct charges with the help of defense attorney Dick DeGuerin.

DeLay, another Texas Republican, has hired DeGuerin to defend him as well, and DeGuerin is employing some of the same legal and media tactics that worked last time - accusing the district attorney of misconduct, branding the case a political vendetta and demanding the removal of a Democratic judge for alleged bias.

The parallels between the cases are striking.

"It's like `Twilight Zone.' You're seeing the same pattern," said Brian Berry, a GOP consultant who was Hutchison's campaign manager when she first ran for Senate.

Delay is under indictment on conspiracy and money-laundering charges for allegedly funneling illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates for the state Legislature. Texas law generally forbids the use of corporate money for campaigning.

Hutchison was charged with using state dollars, employees and computers for personal and campaign purposes when she was Texas treasurer in 1991 to 1993. She was also accused of tampering with state computer records to cover the alleged abuses.

In both cases, Earle brought charges against a prominent Republican after the GOP won a crucial Texas election. Both times, the district attorney was accused of trying to settle political scores.

When she was indicted, Hutchison had just won a Senate seat long held by Democrats, including Lyndon B. Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen. She joined Phil Gramm in the Senate, giving Texas two Republican senators for the first time since Reconstruction.

DeLay reached the highest levels of power in Congress as majority leader after the 2002 election. With his help, the GOP took control of the state Legislature and then pushed through a congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004.

"Kay changed the face of politics in Texas by becoming the second Republican senator. ... Tom DeLay changed the face of politics by taking over redistricting. It's not coincidence," DeGuerin said.

In both cases, Earle insisted the charges were not politically motivated; he was just doing his job.

In Hutchison's case, DeGuerin got state District Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, removed because Perkins had donated to Hutchison's political opponent. DeGuerin also got the trial moved to Fort Worth.

Now, DeGuerin is asking that Perkins be removed from the DeLay case for contributing to John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, the Democratic Party and the liberal group MoveOn.org.

Perkins has been subpoenaed for a hearing on Tuesday to consider the request. On Monday, the judge filed a motion to throw out the subpoenaed. DeGuerin also wants the trial moved out of Austin.

In addition, DeGeurin has accused of Earle misconduct, arguing among other things that Earle shopped the DeLay case around to grand juries until he found one that would indict the congressman.

In Hutchison's case, the defense attorney contended that a raid by prosecutors in which they seized computer and phone records from her state treasurer office was conducted improperly, and that the evidence was inadmissible.

DeLay supporters say they expect his case will end like Hutchison's.

Hutchison was acquitted in 1994 after Earle decided not to go forward with his case. The district attorney cited the judge's refusal to rule on the admissibility of the evidence before trial. Those close to Hutchison say that was just an excuse.

"The case was shoddily conceived," Berry said. "And he lost it."

---

Associated Press writers Kelley Shannon in Austin and Suzanne Gamboa in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More...

W.House plays down shake-up calls after indictment

Reuters

W.House plays down shake-up calls after indictment

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday played down calls for a staff shake-up after the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, Lewis Libby, who will make his first court appearance this week on criminal charges stemming from a CIA-leak probe.

At his arraignment on Thursday, Libby, Cheney's longtime chief of staff, is expected to plead innocent to charges of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements.

Top White House aide Karl Rove, who remains under investigation in the probe, received a word of confidence from the White House amid Democratic calls for his resignation.

"He continues to do his duties," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Rove, Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff. When asked if Bush retained confidence in Rove, McClellan said: "People who work here at the White House have the confidence of the president."

Members of both parties have urged Bush to shake up his White House staff.

"There's no discussion of staff changes beyond the usual vacancies that occur, or beyond filling the vacancy that the vice president did," McClellan said. But he added: "It's always the president's prerogative to choose the team that best meets his needs for advancing his agenda."

Cheney on Monday named vice presidential counsel David Addington as his new chief of staff and John Hannah as his national security adviser. Libby held both positions before his indictment and resignation on Friday.

A brief conversation between Addington and Libby in July 2003 is cited as evidence in the indictment.

Libby is the only Cheney aide who has been charged in the two-year probe into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

But Cheney and others in the vice president's office, including Addington, talked with Libby about Plame's job and press strategy, the indictment alleges.

At Libby's arraignment, scheduled at 10:30 a.m. (1530 GMT) on Thursday, federal Judge Reggie Walton could set a schedule for the filing of motions and possibly a trial date.

Libby, who faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted, has promised a vigorous defense.

Libby is expected to argue that any misinformation he gave investigators or the grand jury was due to memory lapses rather than intentional lies, according to Libby's lawyer and other attorneys involved in the case.

DAMAGING BLOW

Libby's indictment was a damaging blow to the White House, already reeling from the mounting U.S. death toll in Iraq, the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina and the withdrawal of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media in July 2003 after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to support action against Iraq. Wilson called the leak a ploy to erode his credibility.

A public trial could expose the role played by Cheney's secretive office in the leak case, which has put a spotlight on how the administration sold the nation on the war in Iraq and aggressively countered its critics.

Lawyers involved in the case said Cheney himself and other top White House officials named in the indictment could be called as witnesses.

According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney himself that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division.

Addington is referred to in the indictment only as "Counsel to the Vice President." It says Libby met with Addington on July 8, 2003 and discussed "what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip."

Wilson took a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 to check out a claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. He says Cheney's office sought to discredit Wilson and his findings by suggesting the trip was arranged by his wife at the CIA.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Steve Holland)

Read More...

Monday, October 31, 2005

IRAQ: Two Years Later, U.S. Still Can't Keep the Lights On

ipsnews.net
IRAQ: Two Years Later, U.S. Still Can't Keep the Lights On

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - The reconstruction of Iraq is failing rapidly despite repeated claims of progress by the George W. Bush administration, according to a number of U.S. officials and reports released here this week.

Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman issued a report that found reconstruction efforts in the occupied Arab country have consistently fallen short of the objectives set by the administration two years ago.

This view was echoed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, in a congressional hearing Thursday.

Bowen, whose office issued several reports and audits in the past about Iraq, said that the security situation is sapping money and energy out of the reconstruction effort and that much less money than originally envisioned will be spent on Iraqi projects..

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, about 30 billion dollars was authorised through August 2005 to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and train and equip its security forces. But Bowen said Washington will have to be more realistic about what can actually be spent of that amount.

"We are going to provide something less than that," Bowen said pointing to a significant gap between the original plans and what is being achieved on the ground in Iraq.

The GAO itself says that only 13 billion dollars of the 30 billion dollars were actually disbursed so far.

"The existence of this gap may subject the U.S. to criticism for not fulfilling what was perceived as a promised number of projects," Bowen said.

The Waxman report assesses reconstruction work in three key sectors of the Iraqi economy -- oil, electricity and water. It found that the administration's actual results on the ground are far less than what is publicised.

"Oil production remains below pre-war levels, electricity production is unreliable and well below the goal of 6,000 megawatts of peak electricity output, and a third of Iraqis still lack access to potable water," says the report. "Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, but there is little to show for the expenditures in Iraq."

When the Bush administration asked Congress to appropriate over 20 billion dollars for reconstruction efforts in 2003, it promised to use the money to provide clean drinking water to 90 percent of Iraqis, boost power production significantly above pre-war levels, and restore oil production to pre-war levels.

But oversight agencies like the GAO and Inspectors General (IGs) have published more than 80 reports on Iraq reconstruction and other aspects of U.S. support for post-war Iraq, many of them critical.

This week, the GAO said that even in the case of completed projects, the Washington-backed Iraqi government has been unable to sustain rebuilt infrastructure due to shortages of power, trained staff and supplies.

As of July, water and sanitation projects worth 52 million dollars either were not operating or were operating at low capacity due to these problems, GAO said.

Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security in the U.S. House of Representatives, said that congress is witnessing a rise in the cost of projects even though many of them have not been completed.

"Electric and water projects are being scaled back, while estimates of the costs to complete the same projects continue to escalate," Shays said.

The difficult security situation in Iraq and the rising Iraqi resistance have been cited as the main reasons for the slow progress in the reconstruction efforts. Billions of dollars have been diverted away from rebuilding projects in order to pay private security contractors and to train and equip Iraqi forces more rapidly.

Initial estimates of security costs have nearly tripled from less than 10 percent of total project expenses to almost 30 percent.

A number of U.S. legislators who previously backed the war are now criticising the slow pace of progress in Iraq and have questioned whether it is fueling further discontent among Iraqis and providing more recruits to the Iraqi resistance.

The GAO says that initial estimates of Iraq's needs assumed that reconstruction would take place in a peacetime environment, and therefore did not include additional security costs.

Some of the official reports say that U.S. goals are not being achieved due to poor planning, lack of accurate costs estimates and operational constraints on top of the extra costs imposed by the lack of security.

Waxman also criticised what he called the administration's "flawed contracting approach".

He said that instead of encouraging competition, the administration awarded large no-bid contracts to favoured companies like Halliburton. Then it handed over major oversight responsibilities to private contractors with potential conflicts of interest.

Joseph Christoff of the GAO faulted the initial assessments of the state of Iraq's infrastructure, saying it was more severely degraded than originally estimated, and that widespread looting and sabotage compounded the problem.

But it appears that many U.S. politicians are finally taking note of the slow progress in the reconstruction effort and the political price-tag it may carry both at home and in Iraq.

"That cycle of rosy estimates and stunted outcomes exacts high political costs as well," Shays said. "Limited visible progress in improving basic services frustrates Iraqis, who wonder why a liberating coalition that conquered their nation in less than two months can't keep the lights lit after two years." (END/2005)

Read More...

Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito's America

progressreport.org
SUPREME COURT
Samuel Alito's America

The right wing demanded the withdrawal of Harriet Miers so she could be
replaced with a judge who met their rigid, ideological litmus test.
This morning, the conservatives got what they wanted. President Bush will
nominate Third Circuite Appeal Court Judge Samuel Alito as the
replacement for swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor. (In contrast, John Roberts
replaced the very conservative William Rehnquist.) On NBC's Today Show,
law professor Jonathan Turley said there "will be no one to the right of
Sam Alito" on the Supreme Court. Alito's record supports Turley's view.
His history of right-wing judicial activism will be a key issue during
his hearings.

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting
the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania
legislature in the late 1980s. Alito went further, however, saying the
majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their
spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected
Alito's view and also voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a
decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been
discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito
would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from
the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected
the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v.
Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v.
Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving
disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so
restrictive that "few if any.cases would survive summary judgment."
Summary judgment allows a case to be dismissed before it goes to trial.
[Nathanson v.Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling
upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000
decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the
law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development,
2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito
argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when
they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying
out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his
home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation
of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled
law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent
"guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee
v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted
"well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se
Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Read More...

ETHICS: Time To Get Out The Broom

progressreport.org
ETHICS: Time To Get Out The Broom

On Friday, Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney and
assistant to President Bush, was indicted for one count of obstruction
of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false
statements. Conservative David Brooks argued this was proof that "there is no
cancer on this presidency" and that people who suggested that the
problems ran deeper were "compulsively overheated." The White House and its
conservative allies need to take the law seriously. American Progress
CEO John Podesta said, "We now know that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald
believes that crimes were committed in an effort to cover up the White
House's involvement in the outing of an undercover CIA officer. ... It's
time to get out the broom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and clean house."

BUSH PROMISED TO FIRE ANYONE INVOLVED: Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid noted this weekend, "The president said anyone involved would be
gone." Now, "we now know that Official A is Karl Rove. He's still around.
He should be let go." But if Bush sticks to his word, Rove is just the
beginning. Podesta added, "we know that senior Presidential aides
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and White House Press Secretary
Scott McClellan were either complicit in the leak and the cover up, or
grossly negligent in their duties." Also, "Chief of Staff, Andrew Card has
presided over a White House staff that is guilty of a disservice to the
President and the country," and should also resign.

LIBBY OBSTRUCTED PROSECUTION OF UNDERLYING CRIME: The right attempted
to diminish the importance of Libby's indictment by emphasizing that he
was not charged with the underlying crime of outing a CIA agent. On Fox
News Sunday, Brit Hume said Libby was "accused of telling lies that he
apparently didn't need to tell about a crime he didn't commit." Here's
what they don't tell you: Libby's obstruction of the investigation
prevented prosecutors from charging anyone with the outing Valerie Plame.
Statutes like the Intelligence Identities Protection Act require the
prosecutor to prove intent. In his press conference Fitzgerald noted, "As
you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't
tell you; we haven't charged it. ... The harm in an obstruction
investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make."

CHENEY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN OR RESIGN:

A central character in the Libby indictment is Vice President Cheney. According to the indictment, Libby was "advised by" Cheney that "Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison." (Josh Marshall
explains, "The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's
Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the
branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the
spies, the 'operatives', come from," so Cheney and Libby knew that Plame
was covert.) On a July 12, 2003, flight from Norfolk, VA, Libby discussed
with Cheney and other officials "what Libby should say in response to
certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter
Matthew Cooper." Libby later covered for Cheney, telling investigators
that the source for his information was "a reporter rather than the
Vice-President." Columinst Nick Kristof says, "If Mr. Cheney can't address
the questions about his conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the
activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he
should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his
resignation."

INDICTMENT REVEALED WIDE-RANGING SMEAR CAMPAIGN: The Libby indictment
provided details of an extensive smear campaign against Joe Wilson.
Libby discussed how to discredit Wilson with Vice President Cheney, Karl
Rove, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, Ari Fleisher, and multiple
officials aboard the Vice President's plane. He also discussed Valerie
Wilson with multiple reporters including Matt Cooper and Judy Miller.
On Fox News, Kristol sarcastically argued that there wasn't a smear
campaign because "that's really an effective smear, not to bring it up with
Tim Russert." Of course, the content Libby's conversation with Russert
was invented by Libby to obstruct the investigation. It wasn't part of
the smear campaign, it was the red herring.

ROVE NOT OFF THE HOOK YET: Rove remains under investigation. But you
wouldn't know it from watching Fox News. Bill Kristol said, "Patrick
Fitzgerald investigated a crime, and there was one crime he discovered. ...
No conspiracy. No multiple indictments." Kristol and others are jumping
the gun. The Washington Post reports, "Two legal sources intimately
familiar with Fitzgerald's tactics in this inquiry said they believe Rove
remains in significant danger. They described Fitzgerald as being
relentlessly thorough but also conservative throughout this prosecution --
and his willingness to consider Rove's eleventh-hour pleading of a
memory lapse is merely a sign of Fitzgerald's caution."

Read More...

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Dear Mr. President-

Read More...

"We found the yellowcake"

Read More...

Foreign Policy Goals

Read More...

When "no" is an eloquent word

Read More...

Blind Justice

Read More...

What Halloween Decorations?

Read More...

Good News, Bad News

Read More...

Night of the Living Indictments

Read More...

Recused

Read More...

White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned

washingtonpost.com
White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers

A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.

"One thing you can't ever, ever do even if you're a regular person is lie to a grand jury," said Brad Morris, 48, a registered independent and a field representative for a lumber company who lives in Nashua, N.H. "But multiply that by a thousand times if you have power like [Libby had]. And if anybody wants to know why, ask Scooter. He's financially ruined; he'll be paying lawyers for the rest of his life."

Taken together, the findings represent a serious blow to a White House already reeling from the politically damaging effects of the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, the ongoing criticism of its since-repudiated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the bungled nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

The ethics findings may be particularly upsetting to a president who came to office in 2000 vowing to restore integrity and honor to a White House that he said had been tainted by the recurring scandals of the Clinton years.

On Friday, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, on two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice in the course of Fitzgerald's investigation into the disclosure of the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, has accused the Bush administration of going to war in Iraq based on intelligence officials knew was untrue.

The survey of 600 randomly selected Americans represents a snapshot of initial reactions to the Libby indictment. Those views could quickly change as the public learns more about the charges and as Republicans and Democrats mount competing campaigns to shape public attitudes. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus four percentage points.

Those campaigns may play an influential role in the public's final conclusions about the leak investigation. In the 24 hours after Fitzgerald's news conference, the survey and follow-up interviews found many Americans confused as to what, if anything, to make of the complicated indictment.

Ellen Mulligan, 34, a Republican and part-time art teacher who lives in Hamden, Conn., was one of these. "If I understood what happened, Vice President Cheney's adviser spoke to his wife and then she leaked the secret," Mulligan said.

That is not an allegation in the indictment, but though Mulligan may not know exactly what happened, the scandal for her is both typical Washington and part of a broader pattern of ethical challenges in this administration. "My actual opinion is more, 'Here we go again.' Every administration has their secrets and has some corruption," she said. But she is disappointed with Bush on the ethics front. "I think Bush's actions in certain situations are pretty much unethical, [though] not illegal. . . . He's definitely not his father. His father seemed more wholesome, more down-to-earth."

The survey found some areas of general agreement. Most Republicans, 57 percent, said that the obstruction of justice and perjury charges are serious, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.

But once past the specifics of the charges against Libby, Republicans and Democrats differed dramatically. While a large majority of Democrats (76 percent) said the case is a sign of broader ethical problems in the administration, an equally large majority of Republicans (69 percent) said it was an isolated matter. Most Republicans continued to give Bush high marks for his handling of ethics in government, while Democrats overwhelmingly graded him poorly.

The survey also suggests the emergence of an appealing fresh face in public life: special prosecutor Fitzgerald. Fifty-five percent said Fitzgerald brought the charges against Libby based on the facts of the case and not for partisan political reasons. Less than a third -- 30 percent -- said Fitzgerald was politically motivated.

"I was very impressed by him," said Dorothy Harper, 56, an immigration lawyer and a St. Louis Democrat, who watched portions of Fitzgerald's news conference. "He was very impressive. He obviously knew what he was doing."

Many Americans believe that others may be involved in the disclosure of Plame's identity to the news media. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- believe that senior White House adviser Karl Rove did something wrong in connection with the case, including nearly a fifth who believe that Rove acted illegally.

On Friday, Rove was not indicted, though Fitzgerald's investigation is continuing.

A smaller but still significant proportion -- 41 percent -- believe Cheney did something wrong, while 44 percent believe he did not.

Most Americans believe Bush had nothing to do with the incidents that resulted in the indictment brought against Libby: 55 percent said the president was not at fault, while 12 percent said he probably did something illegal, and 21 percent said he did something "unethical but not illegal."

Read More...

The week Bush got whacked

timesonline.co.uk
The Sunday Times
Focus: The week Bush got whacked

His second term was already floundering when, on Friday, a top aide was charged with perjury. Sarah Baxter, in Washington, reports on a bad few days for the president

Nerves were jangling at the White House last week. President George W Bush, never the easiest character to work for, was growing tetchy and was lashing out at junior staff. When he was re-elected last November he said that he had political capital and was going to spend it. A year later the coffers of goodwill and trust were near-empty and he was angry.

"This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the staff," said one source. "This is the president of the United States and it is not a pretty sight."

Bush’s mood had already soured during Hurricane Katrina, when he was accused of being indifferent to the misery of New Orleans. It darkened further when Harriet Miers, his White House legal adviser and nominee for the Supreme Court, was scorned by his own conservative supporters as a hapless crony, forcing her to withdraw her candidature last week.

"Why wouldn’t he be irritable?" said Bill Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard. Everything for Bush had gone from bad to worse and, as fate would have it, the number of American deaths in Iraq passed 2,000 on Tuesday, promoting yet another media blitz on his performance in that country.

"He is like the lion in winter," said an ally. "He’s frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made, but this is a guy who wanted to do big things in his second term. Given his nature, there is no way he would be happy about the way things have gone."

Things were about to get worse. Having promised to restore "dignity" to the White House after the bimbo eruptions of the Clinton era, on Friday Bush became the first American president in more than 30 years to see one of his most senior aides indicted on criminal charges.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, right-hand man to Dick Cheney — the most powerful vice-president in American history — was charged on five counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.

Patrick Fitzgerald, an apparently fearless and politically independent prosecutor who had earned his spurs taking down Chicago mobsters, had brought the indictment which concerned the unmasking of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative.

Her outing by an as yet unnamed White House official came only months after her husband, a former US ambassador, had embarrassed Bush, Cheney and Libby by accusing them of misrepresenting the intelligence case of the war on Iraq.

After Fitzgerald had served his indictment on Friday, Libby immediately resigned and now has to report to the FBI for arrest and fingerprinting. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in jail and a fine of up to $1.25m. So much, then, for dignity.

At first glance the Libby affair is a confusing — almost academic — tale of internecine Washington politics with little obvious explosive potential. Yet it is one that has struck at the core of one of Bush’s proudest and most controversial achievements: the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Worse, perhaps, so far as middle America is concerned, it raises a question mark over the one thing that the Bush administration has always been strongest on — its apparently unwavering sense of patriotism.

THE story dates back to the early years of Bush’s presidency and the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Cheney and Libby were at the vanguard of the hardcore group of "neocon" advisers who believed that Saddam’s regime in Iraq should be toppled in the wake of the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The two men, who were called the "commissars" behind their backs, became obsessed with rooting out evidence that Saddam was still seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In regular meetings with the CIA they would press officials to turn over every scrap of evidence that came their way relating to Iraq.

In February 2002, Cheney was given a CIA briefing which mentioned the curious case of Saddam’s attempted purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger — a crucial ingredient in any nuclear programme. What more could the agency tell him, Cheney demanded.

When vice-presidents bark, officials jump to it and in this case the CIA quickly dispatched Joseph Wilson, a one-time Californian surf dude and diplomat in Baghdad at the time of the first Gulf war, to Niger to find out more. But far from confirming a plot to buy uranium, Wilson reported after an eight-day trip that the allegations were bogus.

The CIA, it seems, did not report this bad news directly back to the vice-president. Cheney claims that he was never told about Wilson’s departure, nor his findings.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the vice-president might well have dismissed Wilson’s report in any event as he had long regarded the CIA with suspicion. He had first clashed with the agency when he was defence secretary under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Then he had accused its risk-averse bureaucrats of failing to foresee the break-up of the Soviet Union.

He also felt that it had not prepared adequately for the possible use of biological weapons by Saddam in the first Gulf war, when Scud missiles were launched at Israel. After the September 11 attacks, the CIA was once again in the doghouse for missing the signs that Al-Qaeda was preparing to crash planes into New York and Washington.

As the build-up to the war in Iraq grew nearer, Cheney and Libby effectively cut the CIA out of the loop, forming their own "Iraq monitoring group" with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz (Libby’s original mentor) and Douglas Feith, another hawkish defence official. Together they built the case for the invasion and overthrow of Saddam.

For nearly a year Wilson kept quiet about his mission but then — in January 2003 — came the president’s state of the union address and the 16 words that drove the proud, some say vain, man to distraction.

"The British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the president told the nation and the world.

Not surprisingly perhaps, Wilson felt ignored and started talking quietly to the press about his mission of a year earlier. His frustration turned to outright anger several months later when Condoleezza Rice asserted on television that no senior person in the administration had been told that the documents relating to Saddam’s alleged uranium purchase were forged. "Maybe somebody in the bowels of the agency knew something about this," she said airily, "but nobody in my circles."

Wilson went ballistic and public. In an article in The New York Times in July 2003, he publicly accused the Bush government of "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war".

As for Rice, "She was saying, ‘F*** you Washington, we don’t care’. Or rather, ‘F*** you, America’," Wilson later added.

Precisely what happened next within the administration is still the subject of conjecture and criminal investigation. What is in no doubt, however, is that the occupation of Plame, Wilson’s wife, was leaked to the press and her identity as an undercover operative in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA was blown.

The story was broken by Robert Novak, the right-wing columnist, and was widely seen as an attempt to discredit Wilson and rubbish his story. By linking him so closely with the CIA, critics said, the Bush administration was letting people know that he was just another tool of a discredited agency that had long been at loggerheads with Cheney and his neocon advisers.

In Wilson’s eyes it was a straightforward case of revenge by the government. It is a criminal offence in America for an official knowingly to leak the identity of an undercover operative. Wilson — with the backing of his wife and the CIA — demanded that a full criminal investigation be launched to establish who in the administration had leaked Plame’s occupation.

It was Fitzgerald, the 44- year-old prosecutor at the heart of the leak inquiry, who was brought in to sift through the evidence of wrongdoing. It should have been immediately obvious to Cheney and friends that the White House could not simply bluff its way out of trouble.

The clean-cut, bright-eyed prosecutor has the incorruptible air of Kevin Costner in the film The Untouchables, based on lawman Eliot Ness’s account of how he brought down Al Capone, Chicago’s most notorious gangster in the 1930s.

Fittingly, Fitzgerald also lives in Chicago where he runs the justice department. He, too, has had run-ins with the mob and secured the convictions of members of the Gambino crime family as well as terrorists such as Omar Abdul Rahman.

Fitzgerald launched his inquiry by demanding the names of all the reporters whom Libby and other senior White House officials had talked to. It was Novak who broke the story but last summer Fitzgerald was ruthless enough to send Judith Miller, a controversial Pulitzer prizewinning reporter for The New York Times, to prison for 85 days until she agreed to reveal the source of her information on the matter.

The fact that Miller never wrote the story — which turned out to have been supplied to her by Libby — did not spare her from incarceration. "If you’re not zealous, you shouldn’t have the job," Fitzgerald once said of his own role in the investigation.

The White House has tried to fight back. Wilson and his wife, insiders like to point out, are no clear-cut heroes. In Washington circles, they say, Wilson was known to introduce Plame proudly at parties as "my CIA wife" and thus could be said to have broken her cover himself.

Unfortunately for the White House, there is no rule against whistleblowers being vain and self-important. Unlike the right, which has eagerly dissected Wilson’s character and motives, Fitzgerald has shown no interest in his alleged defects.

Early on in the inquiry, one White House ally also took a swipe at Fitzgerald himself: "He’s a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he has been tapped by God to do very important things."

That line of attack, too, was dropped — and not only because Bush’s opponents say much the same thing about the president. Fitzgerald, the workaholic, Harvard-educated son of an Irish immigrant New York doorman, is transparently honest and for many Americans represents what is best about their upwardly mobile nation.


YET when Fitzgerald finally served his indictment last week there was no charge levelled for the actual crime of blowing Plame’s identity. Instead Libby was charged with lying. In short he was charged not with the crime but with the cover-up.

Fitzgerald made it plain that he believed that the charges were serious. "When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth," he said. "In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s testimony, it is especially important."

For a moment it was as if the prosecutor rather than the president was standing up for the integrity of the nation and behaving as a patriot.

Moreover, Fitzgerald made it clear that his inquiry was not yet over. His indictment reveals that it was not Libby — but a mysterious "Official A" — who gave Plame’s name to Novak. Libby, it transpired, had passed it to three other journalists, including Miller who had failed to make use of the information in print.

Official A is widely believed to be Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser and a man widely known as "Bush’s brain". Experts now believe that Fitzgerald, having charged Libby, could push him to expose Rove’s role in exchange for a more lenient sentence. That, say some, could open the door to Cheney being charged.

If Libby comes to trial, Cheney is bound to have to take the stand as a witness. At the very least he will have to answer embarrassing questions about why he let Libby claim throughout the 22- month inquiry that he learnt of Plame’s identity only through reporters when Cheney himself had told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.

Whatever the deal, Libby now finds himself, at 55, facing serious jail time.

The Democrats, meanwhile, can hardly believe their luck. "This is going to consume the rest of the Bush presidency," said Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton.

Wilson has certainly got his own back for the perceived smears against him and his wife. "When an indictment is delivered to the front door of the White House, the office of the president is defiled," Wilson said on Friday.

For defenders of the president, the fact that it is only Libby and not Rove who was charged is important. In Kristol’s view, the charges are "a personal blow for Libby and embarrassing for the White House" but they are focused on only one person: "It’s not so bad for Bush. There was no conspiracy, which limits the damage."

Indeed, Washington conservatives were far less despondent this weekend than might have been expected. Buoyed up by their success in getting Miers to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, many talk as if Bush now has a unprecedented opportunity to move forward.

"We have reached the bottom of the Bush bear market," said Kristol emphatically. Others note that there are still three years to go before the next election.

There are signs that the economy is improving and Ben Bernanke, Bush’s nominee for the chairman of the Federal Reserve last week, has been widely praised.

"What they’ve decided to do is have the world’s worst Thursday and Friday, see if they can get through the weekend and start all over again on Monday," said Byron York, a conservative commentator.

It could work if the public has a short-term memory

Cast list of the CIA scandal

DICK CHENEY

The combative Cheney saw Iraq as a serious threat after 9/11. Learning of documents purporting to show that Iraq was trying to buy uranium “yellow cake” —- a potential ingredient for nuclear weapons — from Niger, he ordered further investigations. He pressed CIA analysts sceptical about Iraq having WMD.

JOSEPH WILSON

Former US ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to authenticate the claims. He found no evidence and was dismayed when President Bush referred to the claims in a 2003 speech. To the fury of Cheney’s office, Wilson told journalists that the White House had “twisted” evidence on Iraq’s WMD.

VALERIE PLAME

Wilson’s wife, she was a covert CIA operative and WMD expert. According to allegations this week, her identity became known among senior White House figures after Wilson criticised the administration. Her CIA links were revealed by a right-wing newspaper columnist with White House connections. Whoever first “outed” her committed a serious offence.

PATRICK FITZGERALD

A tough prosecutor, Fitzgerald launched an investigation into the Plame leak. He examined the roles of senior White House staff, including Karl Rove, the political adviser known as “Bush’s brain”. Last week Fitzgerald left open the possibility of further investigations into Rove, but did not indict him.

LEWIS ‘SCOOTER’ LIBBY

Arch neoconservative Libby has resigned as Cheney’s chief of staff. Last week he was indicted by Fitzgerald. Although not directly accused of leaking Plame’s name, he was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI and committing perjury before a grand jury. Libby denies the charges.

The second term curse has hit every two-term president since the second world war. Recent victims include:

Bill Clinton
On January 26, 1998, he denied on national television having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Found to have lied, he was impeached although the Senate did not convict him.

Ronald Reagan
Cursed by the Iran-Contra affair, in which missiles were sold to Iran and Tehran’s money illegally funded Contras fighting Nicaragua’s socialist government.

Richard Nixon
Brought down by Watergate scandal and on August 8, 1974, announced his resignation.

Lyndon Johnson
Despite earnest pledges, in the first year of his second term American troop numbers in Vietnam rose from 15,000 to 200,000.

Dwight Eisenhower
In 1960 he denied Gary Powers’s spy plane had been shot down in Soviet air space. After Powers was jailed in Russia, Eisenhower then denied he had authorised the mission.

Read More...