It is possible that in the near future there may be indictments of one or more White House officials (it may not happen, who knows, but still…). I for one do not want to hear any Democrats tut-tutting getting involved, saying they don’t want to “politicize” the investigation. Because if anything must be “politicized” it is criminal activity in the American people’s White House. If this happens I want wall-to-wall Democrats making demands – not requests – ranging from firings to resignation. I don’t want to turn on the tv or the radio without hearing a Democrat out for blood.
While the indicted Tom DeLay may not allow it to happen in the House, if any of this comes true, Senate Democrats must demand a bipartisan congressional investigation of criminal activity and leaks in the White House. The special prosecutor is limited to the Plame issue, but what about other possible leaks of sensitive information for political gain? We must be given full subpeona power and an open-ended mandate to rid our White House of the criminal element.
Unless Bush does something insane, like pull a Nixonian boner and fire the prosecutor, this whole thing will eviscerate the presidency on auto-pilot.
It will have a life of it’s own in the process of denuding Bush of all ‘trusted’ advisors, except Laura. She will keep him from competely shutting down.
Bush will probably eek out the remaining days of the second term on a psychic version of the Island of Elba, devoid of any real political influence.
I don’t think it will be wise for any opponent to be seen as ‘piling on’. The american people have an aversion to those who are seen as lacking compassion.
We don’t want him to have any undue sympathy.
No way, man. The White House gets indicted, you pounce. Like James Carville has said: “When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil”.
Hate to sound negative, but it’s never gonna happen. No matter how many Bushites are indicted and/or convicted, the Democrats will somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. How many opportunities have they had in the last 5 years to pick up a Republican fumble and run with it, and never did? How many times, when they should have put on the brass knuckles and come out swinging, did they hem and haw and softpedal? The Democratic party is moribund, it needs to be put out of its misery.
Piling on?
Worked really well when the Pubbies did it to Clinton, yes?
Quaker;
Judge for yourself.
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/printer.pat,local/30dabdc3.210,.html
I appreciate your bloodlust Oliver.
But there’s something to be said for letting one’s enemies hoist themselves by their own petard, don’t you think? Besides, if the only thing Democrats have to offer the American people is politically motivated prosecutions, then they really deserve to remain powerless carpers in perpetuity.
Between the NYT, LAT, WaPo, ABCCBSNBC, CNBCCNNMSNBC, and TimeandNewsweek, there will be more than enough screaming without Democratic Congressmen and Senators joining in. But should the situation call for it, scream they will, with John “Congressional Black Communists, er, um Caucus” Conyers and Ted “The Swimmer” Zeppelin leading the howling mob..
I find it interesting that when Clinton (blessed be his name) was getting “root canal” work in the Oval Office, it was “personal”, but somehow the Plame affair besmirches the “people’s White House.”
It is to laugh.
If there’s Presidential or Vice Presidential blood in the pool, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden and friends will insist that there isn’t all that much blood and whatever is there came from Michael Moore washing it off his hands. As much as I’d like the sharks to bite, the sharks don’t come with teeth. Well, most of them do not.
There are multiple good things for the Democrats in all of this. First off, Frank is right. Every day the MSM will politicize this issue (as they already have) on behalf of their ideological brethren. Democrats should now sit back and pretend they really care about the CIA and security and let the MSM carry their water here. Secondly, the timing of this thing is such that if there are indictments, that same MSM will blur the line between crimes and indictments (more toward the former) and that general air will overlay the election scene probably up onto the 2008 election. If the the indictees are innocent, that will be long forgotten. Thirdly, the process adds fake legitimacy to Earl’s corrupt shenanigans in Texas. Fitzgerald, as any special prosecutor, may be incentivized to indict, but a claim of partisanship obviously won’t stick. People will tend to view Earl’s partisan vendetta as part of the overall process. Thre are not too many ways the Democrats CAN screw this up.
Dugger, Realistic, Even When it Hurts
Frank_D,
You can’t be serious about not understanding the difference between Clinton and Monica’s tryst and leaking of classified information.
If George and Laura Bush want to bring Tony Blair to bed with them it is a private, personal decision by consensual private adults. The same the government doesn’t have a right to pry into my bedroom, the public doesn’t have the right to pry into the President’s bedroom.
Clinton’s mistake was using the office of the President as the backdrop for an sexual misconduct. This blurs the line between the office and the man. Had he chosen and unofficial location it wouldn’t have been embarrassing for the US. In fact in world view I think the only one’s really embarrassed were religious conservatives inside the US.
Bush’s major political teammates and possibly his own VP leaked classified information to the US public either for no reason at all [it wasn't like Plame was using her covert status to do something illegal] or to politically damage Wilson [which is even worse.] This is just plain illegal, immoral, and frankly treasonous.
If you can’t see the difference between a difference in opinion on the value of monogamy and treasonous disclosure of classified information then God help you.
Yes I know Clinton’s “crime” was purgery and if he was guilty of lying under oath he should have gotten punished, but he would have never been in that position if republicans didn’t attack him for having a mistress in the first place.
Yes I know Plame wasn’t the most secret operative in the world, but she wasn’t made public. My girlfriend has clearance for her job and if she confirms something I guess from current events that’s classified she can [and most likely would] lose her job, her clearance, and be tried for treason. So why should she and not cheney/rove/libby/whomever?
If you can t see the difference between a difference in opinion on the value of monogamy and treasonous disclosure of classified information then God help you.
I certainly can see the difference … However, whatever Clinton had done to the prestige of the Presidency, and the dignity of the White House was ignored, in the main, because what he did was “personal.” (Try using that one with your boss, if you’re caught boinking a secretary in a corner of a warehouse: “Oh, we’re consenting adults.” “Oh, really? Well, now your unemployed consenting adults.”)
Oh, and God already helps me, thank you.
Yes, Leo. My point exactly.
According to Frank and Dugger, it seems, simply reporting the fact of Fitzgerald’s investigation is to “politicize” the investigation because they begin with the assumption that Fitzgerald is some kind of political operative.
Of course, that’s absurd. So they have tomove quickly on to their next inane defense: Its the MSM, wah, wah. Dugger is just taking up Bill Kristol’s stupid idea that Republican leaders are being target simply for being conservatives. No one’s buying that but the Kool Aid drinkers. In the meantime, who freaking cares if the Republicans have to trash the judicial process, in general, to save the party? It’s sad really. The Republicans only defense from Frist to Delay to Rove is to convince the public that the American system of jurisprudence, you know, the third branch of government, enshrined in the Consitution, is rotten and corrupted. Way to go guys.
But the idea that the MSM is working on behalf of Democrats on this is also ludicrous on its face. To begin with major players and institutions of the MSM have been implicated in STALLING the investigation on behalf of the Administration: Judy Miller, anyone? Indeed, Dugger, have you seen the list of MSM reporters and punidts who are caught up in this: Miller and the NY Times, Cooper and Time magazine, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Robert Novak et. al. Anyone of these people could have come forward and told the American public everything they knew about the situation and none of them did. Not one felt that the public interest outweighed their precious access to power. Ya, the MSM has been carrying a lot of water but it hasn’t been for the Dems. Wake up, Dugger, the old MSM canard is a laughable defense in this case. The MSM is a major part of the case because its major players were doing the bidding of the White House. The White House revealed classified information in a desperate attempt to defend itself and the MSM went along until well after it became clear that a crime may have been committed in the process. Miller still “can’t remember” where she got the name Valerie Flame. Ya, right.
The complicity of the MSM in this is all the more reason why the Dems need to come out swinging the second after an indictment is handed down.
Are you kidding me, Frank? Ignored? The MSM that you and Dugger seem to think are working in lock step with some kind of liberal cabal were all over Clinton. Some of the very same people hsuhing themsevles for Rove/Libby etc. now, such as Chris Matthews, were on the airwaves decrying the fact that Clinton had lied, not because he lied to the American people, but because he lied to THEM. Matthews, Mitchell, Russert, Novak, Miller Cooper, all members of the MSM who sat on their hands while a criminal investigation was underway while a Republican sits in the White House. Give it up.
Dugger –
For me, or anyone, to buy into your conspiracy claim I’d have to believe that simply reporting on Fitzgerald’s invevstigataion is evidence of liberal bias. Where, oh where, in any of the coverage of the Plame investigation has the media carried water for Dems? “Maybe we’ll get …”? Sound like a little wild speculation on your part. Let’s not forget that fact that by and large leading Dems have been largely silent about the Plame refusing the make political hay of it. Which is exactly the reason for Oliver’s initial post. Judith Miller, a central figure in this whole affair, went to jail to defend people in the Bush administration. And the New York Times through its institutional weight behind here. How on earth does that constitute carrying water for the Dems? What abotu Chris Matthews, Tim Russert or Andrea Mitchell? That’s some pretty big players in the MSNBC news department. They have all been interviewed by Fitzgerald and have done nothing to illuminate their roles in the case for their audiences. Does that constitute carrying water for the Dems? Please. You have not one single, specific instance of MSM liberal bias on this issue aside from complaining that they are covering it all. During the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal the cable news channels, including that liberal bastion, CNN, gave us round the clock, 24/7 coverage of stained dresses, cigars and, yes, presidential dissembling. The media hasn’t even come close to that circus with this investigation. Not even close. You can site all the vague, generalities eminating from your gut about the media’s biases all you like but hour for hour in comparison to the coverage of Whitewater or Lewinsky, the media has given the Bush administration a pass on Plame — while liberal activists have been going apeshit over it. Now you tell me where the media gets its marching orders from? Howard Dean? No fucking way.
And Frank, you should just give it all up. All of it. Just stop while your behind. What information have you been talking about? The media has largely been reporting anonymous tips from the lawyers involved making themselves, once again, tools of the very people at the heart of this case. Rove’s lawyer has been leaking like a sieve even to the point of contradicting himself in a desperate attempt to spin the investigation. The New York Times has so far allowed one of its own reporters to get away with the “I can’t recall” defense in its own pages. I mean, shit goddamn, a reporter who can’t remember where she got a crucial piece of information? Please.
frame,
Still believe that a special prosecutor won’t give members of his own party a hard time? Well, here’s a scoop for you. The MSM media is liberal. They vote liberal and opine liberal. No one expects you to believe that, because you are liberal, maybe even beyond liberal. After all, certain leftists here have opined that the NYTimes is conservative. I make up my own mind about liberal bias. I know it when I see it and hear it. But if not me, I give you this from the liberal ABC’s ‘The Note’ :
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are “conservative positions.”
SO yes. The MSM will carry the Democrats water for them on this and I expect very little intelligent discusion about actual harm done. Maybe we will get a sobbing Joe Wilson trying to recover whats left of his shattered life or some pictures of CIA corpses juxtaposed with Rove/Libby . After all, if they would fake documents to get Bush, you think they would stop at a little warped coverage?
Dugger
I’ll be glad to “give up” whatever it is you’re talking about, but I have a question (mostly rhetorical): If the MSM were sitting on their hands all this time, where has all this information been coming from? Oliver’s blog?
Where did you get the idea that Joe Wilson’s life has been “shattered” by this, Dugger? This seems like gross hyperbole on your own part, especially considering the thousands of people from New Orleans and Pakistan and various other places in the world that know what it truly means to have one’s life “shattered.”
I don’t recall Wilson ever complaining about his life being “shattered.” If you can recall and show it to me, I’ll stand corrected.
The idea that Joe Wilson would show up on TV News weeping over this situation is completely at odds with the public face Wilson has worn for years. You can slander him all you like as an opportunistic liar, but he’s never proven himself to be a crybaby.
Regardless, if it were just about a Big Mean Political Hack beating up on Joe Wilson, there wouldn’t be an investigation at all. After all, they’ve beat up people before this–see also McCain, John–and sometimes for even more specious reasons.
frame,
You continue with your . uhh . confusion (deleted harsher word). Please show where I spoke of a conspiracy. Is a lynch mob a conspiracy or just shared hate? And yes, when I said “maybe we’ll get…” I meant that as speculation. Brilliant of you to catch it, though.
BD, That rushing noise over your head was my point. Whats your guess as to what “Maybe we’ll get…” means?
Dugger
It means you’re hedging your bets. You know what you implied, but you’re hiding behind syntax.
Maybe we’ll get Dugger to admit he’s a bank robber.
Frameone: Once again, Google tells the tale:
I Googled +Plame +Rove +”FOX News”, and got (in Google News only) 267 hits. And they’re supposed to be on Bush’s side. That’s a hell of a lot of anonymous tips.
Amen!!!!!!! Oliver.
BD, Perhaps it means your also a little humor deprived.
Dugger