Will 2006 be more of 2005? More Bush administration scandals, more furious posting and commenting, more forays to occasional protests?
Perhaps the first part of 2006. But by spring, we’ll be looking ’round our own neighborhoods and states, concentrating more and more on the critical 2006 political races. Through our blogs — which are our bistros and bars (perhaps moreso our 21st century grange halls) where we can find others who inspire us and make us think — we’ll be looking at each other’s neighborhoods and states, reaching out to each other. We’ll be asking each other for help, ideas, publicity, networking aid, and donations.
If we can control (well, at least influence) the news cycle through 2006, here are a couple stories I hope we exploit to keep the heat on Bushco and to stamp the label of “guilt by association” on every Republican candidate:
Iraqi Civil War? “Some Experts Say It’s Arrived” … (We’ve known that for a while, but we can still use it as a
frame, er, a hammer, along with no WMDs, and on and on.) …
Today’s Los Angeles Times today critiques the application of the term “civil war” to Iraq. One fascinating section:
James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist and an authority on modern conflicts, believes that Iraq’s civil war began almost as soon as Hussein was ousted, and that it is now obscured and partly held back by the presence of foreign forces.
“I think there is definitely a civil war that has been going on since we finished the major combat operations,” Fearon said. He rejects the position of many observers that a civil war is still only a possibility for Iraq.
“When people talk about ‘Will there be a civil war?’ they are really talking about a different type of civil war,” he said.
Pat Lang has repeatedly said that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war:
… Lang has visited Iraq some 20 times over the years. Less than a year after the U.S. invasion, “it became clear,” Lang said in a recent interview, that a civil-war-like conflict was under way. …
… Lang says, pre-invasion Baathist Iraq [was] “a pressure-cooker approach to forming national identity,” … and “we interrupted this process of amalgamation [by] taking the lid off this pressure cooker, [allowing] these various elements to resolve themselves into their basic form.” (From Pat Lang’s story here, which quotes his interview in the December 2005 National Journal.)
One more reason to “heart” James Comey … His appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald being the first …
‘member Johnny Ashcroft’s serious pancreatitis and hospitalization in intensive care? “James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in [Ashcroft’s] absence,” was “unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects” to the “the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight.” (“Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program,” New York Times, Jan. 1, 2006)
Andy Card (Chief of Staff) and Alberto Gonzales (then WH counsel) dashed to Ashcroft’s bedside, in intensive care, and got on their hands and knees — begging Johnny, who was fightin’ for his life and in a world of hurt, to approve the program. Ashcroft, say some, expressed reluctance. (WTF was so urgent about getting the program going that Andy and Al invaded an intensive care unit?)
It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.
Despite an enticingly cushy job offer at Lockheed Martin, I kinda wish that James Comey hadn’t cashed in just yet. I wish he’d stuck around Justice longer, to keep an eye on things, to say “Hell no!” to ‘berto once in a while, and to buffer Fitzgerald (if he needs it). During Comey’s DAG confirmation hearing in October 2003, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called Comey a “prosecutor’s prosecutor.” … continued below …
At its outset in 2002, the surveillance operation was so highly classified that even Larry Thompson, the deputy attorney general to Mr. Ashcroft, who was active in most of the government’s most classified counterterrorism operations, was not given access to the program.
That led to uncertainties about the chain of command in overseeing law enforcement activities connected to the program, officials said, and it appears to have spurred concerns within the Justice Department over its use. Mr. Thompson’s successor, Mr. Comey, was eventually authorized to take part in the program and to review intelligence material that grew out of it, and officials said he played a part in overseeing the reforms that were put in place in 2004. (NYT, Jan. 1, 2006)
At the outset of Comey’s DAG confirmation hearing in October 2003, Orrin Hatch lauded Bush’s choice of Comey as DAG.
The only two members of the Judiciary Committee to ask Comey about “civil rights” issues were senators Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.
Even though this hearing took place in October 2003 — approximately two years after the NSA domestic surveillance program was authorized by Bush — I couldn’t find a single question of DAG nominee Comey about citizens’ rights to privacy or constraints on domestic surveillance. That’s because those senators did not know about the program, right?
++++++++++++
Adds Jane at FireDogLake blog:
Comey announced his resignation from the Justice Department in March 2005. And when BushCo. tried to appoint a Skull & Bones crony to oversee Fitzgerald, Comey did an end run around them and appointed the extremely ethical David Margolis to the task as his parting shot out the door.
++++++++++++
James Comey, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you. You, not ‘berto, should have become AG. Maybe someday, some sensible, ethical president will appoint you to the nation’s top legal beagle post.
By the way, several bloggers — here and here — are writing rather assumptive titles, in my opinion. I don’t think the NYT piece gives us enough to declare, for example: “Even Bush’s Justice Dept. wouldn’t approve the spying program.” We don’t yet know enough about what went down inside Justice, or the White House.
Did Ashcroft stand up to Andy and Al? Jesus. The man was in intensive care, surely drugged heavily for his pain, and feeling incredibly weakened. It’s perhaps more likely that he didn’t want to override his stand-in, Comey.
++++++++++++
More on this, via Memeorandum:
WHEN JOHN ASHCROFT THINKS YOU HAVE A CIVIL LIBERTIES PROBLEM, you just might. — Amygdala blog
… I’m still thinking there’s at least a 2% chance of the I word coming into play, and I’m easily persuaded to go to 3%. I’m almost wondering if the WH has a taping system. They’ve been bound and determined to repeat almost every other criminally stupid thing their true previous White House incarnation did. (If they thought they could get away with “secret bombing” of Iran and Syria in this day and age, now, really, is there the faintest doubt that they’d have been doing it by 2004?)
If one prefers another lesson, and doesn’t remember it well, or wasn’t around, and you have a lot of reading time set aside, this [ED: Iran-Contra report], I’m sure, would be educational reading for many. Of course, that outcome remains, unfortunately, the most likely for this case, as well. But we shall see. I make no predictions as of yet. Things change, day by day, week by week, month by month, and events, as always, control. …
See also:
NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance,” at the WaPo today — by Pincus
When I saw that article on Comey early this morning it gave me renewed faith and answered many questions. The article’s information should place several events in perspective for timing and decisions for Fitz’appt/Comey leaving, NYTimes learning of the program and Ashcroft stepping down.
L-M is one of the major data-aggregators for the government and hearing this about Comey lets me think his position there respects the law and basic rights.
timing
Timing is everything, they say.
I’m hopin’ that BooMan or Larry or Jerry will pick up this ball and nail down some more of the dates that I hinted at above …
…
I’m still trying to figure out Comey’s departure. Was it because he couldn’t stomach Gonzales? (That’s very likely.) Was it that “they” gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse — and a salary to boot? Maybe he was just tired of Justice, and wanted to do something different?
I think he was stuck between a rock and a hard place in having knowledge in all matters and witnessing the power of BushCo to destroy through the media. Any attempt to bring out any truth would have ended many good careers and ultimately failed.
The chance came when the investigation into the Plame case arose and he could enable the special counsel to act as AG in power but also to do it unobstructed by media-political-leak influence. The best thing to do at that point was to remove himself as a target of misdirection or bias.
Would we, the American people, be better off had he stayed? Or would Al have made him irrelevant?
Something that Orrin Hatch said in Comey’s confirmation hearing: The DAG position has gotten more and more important in recent years.
Would a Comey/Gonzales conflict have weakened the DAG’s role?
just wondering … speculating …
There were several confrontations that I wasn’t sure who was more credible to believe but that article helped convince me. There are career professionals, like Comey, who were coming onto evidence that was manipulated and that the Bush administration in general was abusing their positions. The overwhelming secrecy that Bush invoked made it impossible to legally disclose these doubts without getting themselves in trouble. Look at the list of whistleblowers who have been damaged.
A while ago, I saw the mention of a judge tearing into several Bush ex-officials over the Arar case. They tried to claim they had nothing to do with it and he let them know that L Thompson’s signature on Arar’s papers said otherwise. So, yeah, the DAG has become more critical of a position.
Another doubt in all of this is the long running obstruction that Peter Fitzgerald encountered in trying to hold Lay and Enron others accountable. That always looked like it could be a suspicious part of moving Fitz to the Chicago district. That cast doubt on some of Comey’s moves but with everything being classified, there’s no way to know for sure. This why I said that the small piece in that article answered many questions for me.
Just to add, if Comey had stayed, he would have been drug back into this from the normal business of all sides. This would’ve opened him up to media misinformation for any small detail. By empowering Fitz with all powers of the AG, Fitz had nobody to answer to in any move he made. Leap and the net will appear, eh?
The million dollar question is were there expanded “aspects” in 2004 in the program that Comey wouldn’t approve? Something new that hadn’t been approved since 2002? Or was this his first exposure to it & he balked?
Did you see the Dana Priest story on Friday? I wish it were in today’s Sunday spread.
Perhaps results from ‘enhanced’ interrogations were being used to initiate surveillance? Pure speculation, but here’s a curious coincidence of dates:
Though on second thought, I wonder if Comey would even have been aware of such debates at CIA.
Priest claims that Bush’s covert programs have become the largest in history:
I wonder if COmey was forced out, & offered the job at Lockheed to keep him in line, or at least indebted & quiet?
The questions you ask are the same ones I’ve been struggling with. Several sources in the news confirm the existence of rendition, surveillance of some sort and the use of FISA wiretaps back into the nineties.
Within days of 9/11 the Bush admin moved to expand those powers that were already in place.
The only logical explanation I can see is that these career folks were split on how far to take the govt power of surveillance but balance it with the new GWoT after 9/11. It looks like the cases the BushCo people were bringing forth didn’t stand up in court too well, from the beginning. My guess is that the credibility of the justification Bush officials used kept failing the test and the more it failed, the more Bush wanted greater power. Bush did not like Comey because Comey challenged Bush from early points on.
Comey was not confirmed until Dec 2003, so the “expansions” of 2004 may have been his first introduction… but he’s worked for years in positions at almost this level…
And why did he get more oversight than his predecessor?
Check this article out when you have a chance
For Next Attorney General, Don’t Look to Deputy
here’s hoping he needed some distance, so he could do some quiet chatting with family and friends (Fitz being godfather to one of his children)… here’s hoping, anyway
There is one thing I am fairly sure of and that is Fitz is not what they (WH) wanted in this position. He really took them by surprise and he has done his job and this is what they are not accustomed to. They just do not know how to do him in without being of a suspicious nature for all of the world now! God, they really must be having nightmares all the time….:O)
The silence of the WH as of this last few weeks has been something to behold. Where are they in their framing and mindset????? This is what I want to know. Are they spending their holidays ploting again to do something to someone someplace. Knowing thier ways, I am very supicious of them.
Besides, if Ascroft signed anything while he was under the infuluence of narcotics of pain medicine and the like. He is not to be signing any thing legal while in this state of mind. Remember he was still in ICU at the hospital from surgery. Probably on a narcotic pain medicine pump. This is the law..or was, anyhow…
A little description of Ashcroft at that time from D Corn
Here’s another situation from December 2003
More background for anyone unfamiliar with the influence of Rove to get Ashcroft’s original appointment as AG.
Ashcroft was in a position to protect his friends and also others he wasn’t as loyal to. When he continually refused to appoint a special counsel, hoping the noise would settle down and be forgotten, the pressure finally forced him to recuse himself. Conyers played a big role in this. The conflicts of interest with career DOJ believing that Ashcroft was actually keeping the WH updated as to what developments were happening. Not just Rove, but Gonzales and Card were in doubt about the way they handled the notice to preserve evidence.
between indictments looming and George declaring himself king.