<p>What makes the story compelling is the commonality of the fired US Attornies. Carol Lam of San Diego had indicted an ex-US Congressman, the 3rd in command at the CIA under Porter Goss, and a defense contractor on bribery charges. The New Mexico US Attorney received calls from a sitting Republican Senator and Congresswoman expressing interest in whether indictments on political corruption against Democrats would occur before the November election. The Washington state US Attorney was pressured to fill voter fraud indictments in a closely contested governors race in which the Democrat won by a few hundred votes. The US Attorney in Arkansas was fired so that he could be replaced by Karl Rove’s assistant and was subsequently “warned”, “reminded” or “threatened” that any fired US Attorneys speaking publically about their firings or volunteering to testify before Congress should expect retribution from a Justice Department effort to smear their reputations.</p>
<p>Taken by itself, this story would probably only have moderate legs. However, it is being viewed in the context of a much larger effort to intimidate anyone in the government who disagreed. A perfect example is the outing of Valerie Plame, precisely the kind of intimidation tactics that silenced large segments of the intelligence community who were saying the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was flawed.</p>
<p>The investigation that is most likely to lead to indictments, IMO, is probably the breaking story on illegal Justice Department searches of phone records and other domestic spying. My strong suspicion is that the targets of these illegal searches will include political opponents as well as suspected terrorists. I watched Gonzales and other admininstration officials bob and weave on this topic in Senate hearings for the past two years…a degree of bobbing and weaving that suggested a significant cover-up.</p>
<p>Not to mention Gonzales apparently advising the President to take unprecedented action to block an investigation…into Gonzales.</p>
<p>One reason I think the US attorneys story has crystallized the issue and galvanized people into action is that it’s something we all can relate to: being fired without a reason and having someone tell lies about us.</p>
<p>Outing a CIA agent, illegal wiretapping, obstruction of justice, they’re all a lot more esoteric and hard to relate to.</p>
<p>I hope you’re right that justice will be served and indictments handed down, but I’m not holding my breath. Bush is a lot wilier than Nixon.</p>
<p>Hopefully, justice will be served at the electon polls in November 2008.</p>
<p>To all the Democratic armchair strategists out there: Has Obama boxed himself in a corner by promising not to go negative? He’s drawing big crowds, but the poll numbers are static. Since his initial announcement bump, he’s hasn’t put a dent in Clinton’s lead. Meanwhile, Clinton seems to have found her groove on the campaign trail. I don’t expect her to make a lot of mistakes and there aren’t any big “revelations” on the horizon. The projections I’m seeing are guessing that she’ll end the first quarter fundraising with a staggering $35 million in the kitty. She trotted out Bill for a $1 million NYC fundraiser this weekend.</p>
<p>So, if Obama doesn’t attack Clinton, how does he shake up the race? Or, is he really running for V-P? It’s a strange dynamic. If he really wants to be President, eight years as V-P would probably be the best thing he could do.</p>
<p>Maybe that backroom VP deal has been cut–although man, that would be some real barrier breaking. All fo Fox netwrok would be running for cover.</p>
<p>The Dems think they can walk on water in 2008 but that’s a lot to ask of a country which will probably be in a conservative voting mood come Nov 2008. Shows you that Bush has nothing to lose by leaving Iraq a bloody mess. Literally. </p>
<p>The only thing Obama could do to shake things up would be to make her seem like a shrew during the debate–which wouldn’t be difficult, IMO, due to her relative inexperience battling for her own power (versus say, Pelosi, who I don’t have any doubts about in a debate with Obama). Had Hillary stuck to her own career for thirty years, instead of Bily’s coat tails, she wouldn’t have that issue. The power would flow right out her mouth. As it is, she hesitates and puts aggression in the wrong spots. The botox doesn’t stop the fury crossing her brow.</p>
<p>I saw Dick Morris say that Obama is frustrating her desire to start the real politics. She wants to hit him but can’t really do it while he is playing nice. Morris wans’t sure if it was an Obama strategy or not. </p>
<p>Morris also says that in the Money is King game of 2008 politics, the losers are the voters who don’t get a chance to see the candidates sharpen themselves on the primary trail–in the way Billy did. He believes that the flawed system was responsible for delivering Kerry to the nomination–a candidate with feet of ‘clay’.</p>
<p>I can’t tell you how tiresome it is to be told repeatedly that just because one is a conservative, one’s views come from Fox and Rush Limbaugh only. Really, really tiresome. </p>
<p>“Wouldn’t you agree that the US Attorneys story is huge?”</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t. I think people are trying to make it huge; I think there are people who are intent on trying to equate it with Watergate, which is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Before the election of 1972 there were a few news stories that predicted the disaster that was Watergate was around the corner. I voted for McGovern for this reason. Nixon still won in a landslide; I think McGovern won Massachusetts if I remember correctly. If intimations of Watergate couldn’t get McGovern elected, people are dreaming if they think this Gonzalez nonstory is going to get Hillary/Barrack elected. </p>
<p>I think the Democrats, by pandering to the far left (as they are so prone to doing) are very apt to pull a McGovern in 2008. Hillary can try to move to the center all she wants, but people realize how she has calculated this over the years, and she’s not fooling anyone. A Hillary/Barrack ticket? Disaster. Especially up against Rudy. Cheers is right: the country will be in a conservative voting mood come Nov. 2008. </p>
<p>Democrats are so mired in all their “hearings” that, as usual, they’ll take their eye off the ball. Rudy will destroy Hillary and/or Barrack in debate. There are many people out there who won’t vote for a woman, let along Hillary, or an African-American (thought they won’t admit it). No one is offering up great candidates, but if people can get past Rudy’s three wives, he’s got it locked up. (And there goes the notion that fundamentalists control the GOP, ha.)</p>
<p>P.S. I thought this up all by myself, so if it’s nonsense you have only me to blame. :)</p>
<p>I think Giuliani’s nomination is about inevitable as Howard Dean’s. As for the conservative mood of the country, gmafb. Iraq is the anchor hauling down the GOP’s prospects. According to Rasmussen, the true believers in Bush are down to about one in six, though they sure do spend a lot of time talking to each other in their echo chamber with Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush, the freepers, and the whacked out crowd at NR and The Weekly Standard. </p>
<p>There is no way that a Republican can get the nomination while repudiating Bush. Bush appearing at the Republican convention will be a defining moment for the electorate: more of the same versus get the drunks away from the steering wheel. </p>
<p>The Democrats have gained a net of five points in party I.D. in the past two years and independents are now breaking Democratic in their “lean” by 60-40. </p>
<p>I’ll take the cards on our side of the table, thanks.</p>
<p>Btw, anyone who thinks the AG firings are a non-story should get out more. Folks who don’t ordinarily pay much attention to politics are following this story closely and it’s having the effect of just one more searing indictment of the Republican administration. I believe the word is hubris. The Republicans thought they had a winner in Iraq, thought they’d never lose their legislative majority, and now still think they won’t lose the White House.</p>
<p>Compare the poll numbers, HH. There were protests against Vietnam but there wasn’t anywhere near a 60 percent disapproval. Those who hope for history to repeat based upon false premises are doomed to disappointment.</p>
<p>I wish your party’s leader’s were of the same blissful outlook but they’re not: they’re panicked and scrambling for answers. Losing six Senate seats, 30 House seats despite GOP tricks like inter-census GOP gerrymandering in Texas and Georgia, and watching Democratic inroads in places like Ohio, Colorado, and the suburban and independent vote while accompanied by GOP devastation in the Northeast will do that to you.</p>
<p>I think there was more of an uproar to actually totally pull out of Vietnam at that time than there is to totally pull out of Iraq now. Even your leaders won’t go that far. 60% “disapproval” is very vague.</p>
<p>Diane Feinstein dropped the bombshell yesterday, as reported in the Wash. Post. The real target was Carol Lam, the US Attorney in San Diego who had put Republican Congressman Randy Cunningham in jail on defense contractor bribery corruption charges.</p>
<p>She continued to investigate the defense contractor Brent Wilkes and #3 at the CIA Dusty Foggio. On May 10th, she notified her superiors at the Justice Department that she had obtained search warrants for both men. The next day, Alberto Gonzales’ Chief of Staff Kyle Samspon sent an e-mail to the White House cousel’s office:</p>
<p>We are now very close to obstruction of justice in order to stop an investigation of Republican hacks and defense contractor croanies.</p>
<p>Of course, Lam went on to indict both men the day before she left office after being fired! Good for her.</p>
<p>I’d say that it is an almost certainty that the White House involkes Executive Priviledge to prevent appearances under oath before Senate Committee. From there, we’ve all seen this play before.</p>
<p>Gonzales will resign this week, being the designated fall guy.</p>
<p>Clinton’s “relative inexperience” compared to whom? Obama? I would say that debates present a real challenge for him because he doesn’t have any positions and Clinton’s strength is that she knows her stuff inside, out, and backwards. I don’t think Pelosi would be all that effective in a debate setting. Clinton is more “likeable” and more skillful at connecting with voters, IMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would Clinton want to attack Obama? She’s got the biggest war chest, she owns the Democratic organizations in all 50 states, and she has a steady double-digit lead in the polls. She’s not the candidate that needs to move the dynamics of the race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. There have been “feet of clay” candidates under the old Iowa, NH retail system. Does the name Mike Dukakis ring a bell? I think the real reason the Dems ended up with a stiff like Kerry in 2004 was no good candidates wanted to run in a race they were destined to lose from the outset. That’s not the case this year, which is why you’ve got heavyweights flocking to the Democratic race from all directions.</p>
<p>But what about the other big story–Sandy Berger stuffing 911 documents down the front of his trousers–not once but three times. What the double heck was going on there?</p>
<p>Historically, war has made voters more conservative. As I said, it is in Bush’s Wag-the-Dog interest to keep Iraq as messy as possible now–to put Dems in the uneviable position of trying to state solutions–when there are none. According to the returning soliders I know, we built our bases out of massive concrete. they are permanent. We aren’t withdrawing anytime soon.</p>
<p>Saw a good BBC Hardtalk interview with Gen Jay Garner yesterday. He made the interesting point that the ‘country’ is not at war–300,000 soldiers and their families are at war–but the country is not–and that is part of the problem and the failure in Iraq. He also said that the marines and Army are spent–in manpower and equipment. He said both forces need a substantial infusion of capital to rebuild.</p>
<p>I don’t happen to think Hillary is likeable on television. I know she is very-well liked among colleagues on Capital Hill–but disliked among staff. She’s a screamer when it comes to staff. So are a lot of male senators but the rep sticks to her–as it does most females in power. I think Pelosi has good television charisma–and a better plastic surgeon. As she would. California. </p>
<p>‘Knowing your stuff’ isn’t the biggest asset in televised debates. Ask Al Gore. Televised debates are all about televised charisma. She ain’t got that–in my Dem opinion. Obama has it in triplicate. Your opinion may vary.</p>
<p>Baloney. The blame for the mess in Iraq can’t be laid at the feet of the American public or the media. That’s pure BS. The blame lies at the feet of a flawed strategy by the current Administration.</p>
<p>You say that Bush has no incentive to find solutions. I don’t know. As it stands right now, he’s a legitimate contender for worst President in US History. I can’t imagine that he relishes those accolades. But, he’s calling the shots (or at least calling the shots Cheney tells him to call). With the Republicans voting in lockstep, there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop the long-term escalation of US troops in Iraq (aka “the surge”). So, Bush’s escalation is the horse that Republicans will have to ride through the 2008 elections.</p>
<p>Garner is right about one thing. The US military is in dire straits from a readiness standpoint. There is total agreement about the seriousness of the problem in the Pentagon. The military leadership is clearly undertaking a PR effort to get that story out and exert pressure on the civilian leadership. It is perfectly obvious that there is only one solution to the military being stretched to the breaking point. The civilian leadership doesn’t want to hear it.</p>
<p>Sorry. Garner does place the blame on the administration–with a brick bat–but he also says that it is difficult to fight a ‘sanitary’ war that is not felt at home. In his mind, I think, the Iraq War I was a success–partly becuase it was so short and the whole country was ‘with’ the troops for the short duration of that war.</p>
<p>Interesting that the senior military are getting out that message right before elections. Says something about the strength of their distaste for the current admin since I don’t believe that the masters of logistics are as short as they say–or as surprised by the shortages as they indicate.</p>
<p>Bush is completely deluded about his position in history. Case in point–that comedy tour of South America–with Chavez doing a SNL routine on his heels. Bush is blind to the criticism and pure hatred in S America–and blind to it in the US. It’s hard for a Sun God to take criticism on board. Bush acts as though he is on a divine mission. IMO.</p>
<p>Good Garner interview if you get the chance to catch it on the BBC. Not on their website yet.</p>
<p>“Baloney. The blame for the mess in Iraq can’t be laid at the feet of the American public or the media. That’s pure BS. The blame lies at the feet of a flawed strategy by the current Administration.”</p>
<p>And the lies of the previous one, that predisposed the our astute, intelligent, and experienced elected leaders toward it.</p>
<p>The administration smeared some very capable (and very Republican) US Attornies because they were, or were not, pursuing political cases as aggrressively as the White House wanted.</p>
<p>Read about fired US Attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias. A staunch Republican, Marine reservist, and model for the military prosecutor played by Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men”.</p>
<p>He got a phone call at home from Senator Pete Dominiche asking him if charges of Democratic voter fraud would be filed before election day. Iglesias told him that he didn’t think so and Dominiche hung up on him. Here’s the NYTIMES capsule summary from Saturday’s paper:</p>
<p>BTW, Iglesias had reviewed the evidence in the voter fraud case with the expert attornies in the political corruption division of the Justice Department and all had concluded that they simply didn’t have sufficient evidence to prove their case…a necessary prerequisite for indictments.</p>
<p>There were no elected leaders of the Clinton Administration (astute, intellignent, experienced or otherwise) advocating for a ground invasion of Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein. That wasn’t even on the radar screen. To link the two administrations in that fundamental policy issue is a distortion.</p>
<p>Cheers, I’ll flip the “solutions” question to the Republicans: define “victory” in terms of “who controls Iraq” and “Under what circumstances?”</p>
<p>Your choices are: </p>
<p>a) SCIRI and the Badr Corps
b) Dawa and the Mahdi Army (Muktada & friends)
c) Sunni insurgents
d) Al Qaeda and fellow travelers
e) Other</p>
<p>If you choose e) Other, please describe 1) who, 2) how they attain power, 3) what their basis of support would be, and 4) how they maintain power.</p>
<p>For bonus points, if the US attacks Iran, please indicate the effect on the stability of the Iraqi government and the attitudes of factions a) and b) above with a eye to the particular consequences on US forces in Iraq.</p>