Month: October 2005

Crossposted on Dailykos

It’s a fight that crops up repeatedly on liberal blogs, and – if you’re like me – in discussions with your Democratic friends and neighbors, with potential volunteers, and with voters.  How much do we compromise with people and movements who don’t support ideals that are important to us? To what degree do we support candidates who don’t stand for the same things we do, in order to get some of what we want? There are those who say that we progressives ought to stop supporting Democrats and form a third party.  There are those discourage any political activity whatsoever outside of electing Democrats, on the grounds that it is self-sabotage.

The interesting thing about this debate is – no matter what pioneers we may think we are – we are not the first progressives or radicals or leftists or liberals to engage in it.

After the flip, I’ve copied excerpts from an exchange of letters between Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the early 20th century radical anarchists, on just this topic: to what extent should activists cooperate with other activists who have some goals in common, but not all?

Large administration: check
A lot of senior officials: check
Instructed the staff to cooperate fully: huh?

So, on day one, Dick Cheney could have told the President that he was the source of the information on Valerie Plame, and that his chief-of-staff was leaking her name to Judith Miller and other reporters. Libby and Hadley could have told the President that Karl Rove was in on the game. Karl Rove could have told the President that he was leaking to Cooper and other reporters. Well, either they told the truth to the President and he signed off on an extensive stonewalling campaign, or they lied to the President and launched an extensive stonewalling campaign.

In the former case, the President and Vice-President must be impeached. In the latter case, the Vice-President must resign or face impeachment, and the administration must be purged of all the people that have engaged in a cover-up.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Dick Cheney broke any laws when he passed on information about Valerie Wilson to Scooter Libby. He obviously did not offer that information voluntarily to the prosecutor, or Scooter Libby would not have told the prosecutor that he first learned of Valerie Wilson from reporter Tim Russert.

As for Cheney’s legal liability? Judge for yourself:

Meanwhile (below the flip) Cheney is doing his best to assure that torture remains an instrumental tool in the War on Phantoms…er…I mean the war on al-Qaeda’s number three and Zarqawi’s number two…er…the perpetual war on everyone anywhere who doesn’t appreciate being tortured.

Mr. Dick “The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight” Cheney is a liar:

–> MSNBC’s David Shuster just reported that George Tenet denies that he ever told Dick Cheney about Valerie Plame Wilson. Then there’s this:

OPEN THREAD:

… and the complicit MSM.

The Republican spin machine is at it again.  They have launched a coordinated, preemptive strike against Patrick Fitzgerald and any pending indictments.  Basically, the strategy is: describing the prosecutor, the media, and any D’s who ‘dare’ impugn the reputation of the Cheney/Rove/Libby/WHIG cabal or express sympathy for Joe and Valerie Wilson, as bleeding-heart wimps who don’t understand how the “real world” of politics works.  They excuse the leak and any attempt to hide it as simply being “aggressive politics” and that anyone who complains is just being a baby.  

Unfortunately, and dare I say inevitably, they are good at this stuff.  It starts to seep in, even into the SCLM.  Most notable disappointments include Tim Russert, who basically gave Kay Bailey Hutchison free time on MTP this weekend to expound on the Republican talking points, and now Nicholas Kristof in today’s NYT, who opines that:

“Before dragging any Bush administration officials off to jail, we should pause and take a long, deep breath…  We don’t know what evidence has been uncovered by Patrick Fitzgerald, but we should be uneasy that he is said to be mulling indictments that aren’t based on his prime mandate, investigation of possible breaches of the 1982 law prohibiting officials from revealing the names of spies.  Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or revealing classified information.  [NOTE:  this is HOOK-LINE-AND-SINKER what the R fog machine wants us to think).

There is, of course, plenty of evidence that White House officials behaved abominably in this affair. I’m offended by the idea of a government official secretly using the news media – under the guise of a “former Hill staffer” – to attack former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. That’s sleazy and outrageous. But a crime?  I’m skeptical, even though there seems to have been a coordinated White House campaign against Mr. Wilson.  To me, the whisper campaign against Mr. Wilson amounts to back-stabbing politics, but not to obvious criminality.  [Note:  Did Sen. Hutchison write this for him?  This is EXACTLY what the R strategy says].

So I find myself repulsed by the glee that some Democrats show at the possibility of Karl Rove and Mr. Libby being dragged off in handcuffs. It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline and technical indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong today. Absent very clear evidence of law-breaking, the White House ideologues should be ousted by voters, not by prosecutors.”

Aaarrggghhh!!!  Where can I start?  Not only does this column make Kristof look like an (unwitting?) supporter of the Republican spin-control team, but it makes the cardinal mistake throughout (in some passages that I didn’t quote, as well as the concluding passage above) of comparing Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton and the ultimate perjury charges there–over a BLOWJOB–to this investigation of a rogue White House cabal that successfully fogged the nation into WAR!!!  It is as outrageous as Sen. Hutchison’s comparison (which Russert failed to challenge!)  of this investigation with the MARTHA STEWART prosecution!

Well, they hopefully have started to rouse a sleeping lion.  A friend of mine who worked in the Clinton White House forwarded me an email that is making the rounds among Clinton alumni.  It is a GREAT collection of quotes from a long list of R stalwarts, including Hutchison herself, about the seriousness, severity, and impeachable character of a perjury charge.  Hopefully these quotes, gathered by the DSCC, can start to make the rounds (beginning here?) and some members of the SCLM can question these Senators about their shameful double-standard and hypocrisy.

Freedom is on the march to Syria.

Disclaimer – I am not on Syria’s side if they did murder the Lebanese PM, but I find this all a little too convenient as a case for war by the neocons. Take it for what it is, but we seem to have heard all of this before.

… about 3 years ago actually.