Bush nominates Alito to the Supreme Court.

This morning Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court. The Washington Post has a profile of Judge Alito which has links to his official White House bio and some of his judicial opinions.

From what I have seen so far (and I have not done a lot of looking), Alito is more of a right wing conservative than I would like as a replacement for O'Connor (see Miers withdraws her nomination. Now what?). If he were replacing Scalia or Thomas, I would have no real problem with his nomination. Right now my biggest concern with Alito involves the area of separation of church and state.

In terms of qualifications, Alito is at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum from Miers. He is like Roberts, only with 13 more years of experience as an appellate judge.

If Alito can show himself as capable of being fair in the way that Roberts did in his hearings, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to defeat this nomination.

And although this nomination does not thrill me, I am thrilled that Priscilla Owen did not get the nomination.

And I will close with a question for which I really do not have an answer. I have a tinfoil hat theory, but it is a real stretch. Anyway, here is the question: Why in the world did Bush not nominate Alito in the first place rather than Miers?

A few lawyer jokes

Tonight someone wanted to make sure I was "not too busy chasing ambulances or litigating some meritless ob/gyn case, or whatever it is you do," and that reminded me of some of my favorite lawyer jokes.

Since ambulances have already been mentioned, you might want to know the motto of the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe: "We don't chase ambulances...we get there before them!"

Here's a helpful explanation: the term "civil lawyer" is an oxymoron, and the term "criminal lawyer" is redundant.

And now for my absolute favorite lawyer joke...

Three men who recently left this mortal existence are standing at the Pearly Gates. One is a doctor, one is a preacher, and one is a lawyer. Saint Peter arrives and says, "Well, boys, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that each of you is entitled to enter Heaven. The bad news is that we have a problem with overcrowding, and there's room for only one of you. So I have devised a way to pick the one who gets to enter. Whichever one of you is in the profession which is the oldest will get in."

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Lawyers are whores, and that is the proverbial "oldest profession," but that is way too easy, so back to the joke...

The doctor confidently strides toward the Gates and declares, "It says in Genesis that God created Eve from a rib of Adam. That obviously required surgery, which means that the medical profession has been around the longest."

The doctor starts to walk through the Gates, but the preacher says, "Now wait just a minute, brother. Genesis also says that the earth was nothing but a void and God created order out of chaos. Since as a preacher I am a man of God, that means my profession has been around the longest."

As the smiling preacher moves toward the Pearly Gates, the lawyer speaks up: "Wait a minute, pal. Who do you think created the chaos?"

Democrats are not blameless on this issue.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall discusses a statement released today by Sen. John Rockefeller, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Rockefeller addresses an issue I raised in my previous post, namely the lack of an investigation into pre-war intelligence once the 2004 election was over. He rips the Republicans for the lack of action and raises the possibility of an outside independent investigation. While I agree with everything in Rockefeller's statement, he overlooks his own culpability and that of his fellow Democrats. Josh explains:

It's a strong statement. And the Congress has completely failed in its oversight responsibilities in this whole matter. But the question can't be avoided.

If that's all true, why did he and fellow Democrats on the intel committee sign off on last year's report?

Why has he said so little this year about the failure to pursue the promised second phase of the Senate investigation, which was supposed to look into the question of executive branch manipulation of WMD intelligence?

Why has he remained silent in the face of evidence, put before him more than a year ago, that the FBI investigation into the forgeries, which he himself requested, has never been pursued in earnest?

Accountability for the Congress's failure to pursue its oversight responsibilities in this case does not end on the Republican side of the aisle. Nor does it end with Rockefeller. He's the ranking member of the committee, with unique access and power. But he's not the only Democrat on the committee. Why stand up now when they didn't stand up before? The Republicans' behavior at least has the logic of self-interest behind it. That of the Democrats' is inscrutable.

I will go a step further. Any Democrat who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, which ceded all Congressional authority and control to Bush, should not be pointing a finger at others for Congress failing in its oversight duties when it comes to Iraq.

Scooter Libby is indicted--and resigns.

Libby has been indicted on five counts, including persjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators. And the latest reports say that he has resigned.

Good freakin' riddance.

I know that all the wingers are going to say that none of the indictments concern the original alleged crime, or, stated differently, that there was no violation of law until after Fitzgerald started his investigation. Next will come cries that this is just a political witch hunt, that Fitzgerald is out of control, that this has taken two years and not turned up anything, and on and on...

Anyone who wants to take up that argument on this blog is hereby forewarned of the distinct possibility of getting shredded and utterly ridiculed.

Here's a preview of what to expect...

First, the argument that two years has been long enough and since Fitzgerald has not brought indictments on the outing of Valerie Plame, he should close up shop is, as the Bush administration would say, a non-starter. The investigation has taken this long in part because Judy "Shiller" Miller refused to testify until recently. It was not until her testimony that many of the pieces started to fall into place. Also, having people at the highest level of government, in this case Libby--and don't even try to claim he is not at the highest level of government--lie, mislead, and obstruct the investigation is prima facie evidence that the investigation could not have been completed by this time.

Second, two words: Ken Starr. Starr's investigation of Clinton started with Whitewater--and found nothing, went to campaign finance--and found nothing, and eventually ended up with an extra-marital blow job. I have news for everybody. The fact that Clinton lied under oath about that blow job did not in any way affect national security. Nor did it in any way threaten the physical well being of even one person (except maybe Bill having to face Hillary after that). Anyone who wants to argue that Ken Starr's actions were O.K. but Fitzgerald is merely on some sort of political witch hunt is seriously misguided, to say the least.

Third, Starr's investigation led to nothing substantive about government and its performance. Fitzgerald's investigation is definitely all about that. I submit that this is just the start, and it could very well expose all the lies and bullshit that this administration has delivered that have directly and significantly harmed this country.

Perhaps Fitzgerald should not be the one to carry out such task. As others (Josh Marshall and Laura Rozen among them) have said recently, Sen. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Seante Intelligence Committee, promised that there would be a Congressional investigation after the 2004 election into the issue of the forged documents that were at the very core of the administration's claim that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger--and that issue is also at the very core of Wilson's investigation, meaning it is also essential to his wife status being leaked. Has anything been done by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Hell no. Is the Republican Congress likely to ever do any more investigation into anything that could harm the Bush White House? I pretty much doubt it.

And I repeat that this is just a preview.

UPDATE: I wrote this before watching Fitzgerald's press conference. As David Gergen just said on MSNBC (at 2:28 PM CST), that was one of the most impressive press conferences by a special prosecutor.

UPDATE 2: Get a copy of the indictment here.

UPDATE 3: Transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference here.

Back to conservatives finally becoming disenchanted with Bush...

In A possible reason why it took so long for some conservatives to become disenchanted with Bush, I theorized that Republicans have become far more interested in getting and keeping power than pursuing true conservative policies. Today, on the second hour of "The Glenn Mitchell Show" I heard a great description of that theory. Glenn's guest was Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine. Lapham noted that in the 70's many of the great liberal ideas had lost momentum and that the insightful analysis and commentary was coming from conservatives.

When Glenn asked about the "conservatives" of today, Lapham said, "I think they gave up the excitement of thought for the pleasure of power."

A prediction on the Supreme Court nominee from an expert

I listened intently to the first half of "The Glenn Mitchell Show" on KERA out of Dallas, as one of the guests was Dr. Joe Kobylka of SMU. I was a senior political science major at SMU when Kobylka joined the Poli Sci department, and although I took only two classes from him, he remains one of my all time favorite teachers. He specializes in the judicial process and Constitutional law, and he is damn good at what he does.

Anyhoo, his prediction for the nomination is Maureen Mahoney, a Constitutional law specialist whose resume is very similar to that of John Roberts.

Still proud to be an Astros fan

In spite of getting swept in the World Series, the Astros have many reasons to be proud, as do Astros fans everywhere. It was a season of great achievement and milestones. The Astros became the first team in history to come from 15 games below .500 and make the playoffs. The team was a true team as it battled through injuries and other deficiencies through the season. For instance, when the bats were not hitting, the pitching picked up the team and vice versa. The Astros won the longest playoff game in history, came back to clinch the pennant after a rip-out-your-heart loss, and played in the longest World Series game in history.

A big Texas-sized THANKS! to the players, staff, and management for a great season.

And despite the World Series defeat, the franchise has made great gains in the last two years. Last year, they finally won a playoff series and came within one game of going to the World Series. This year they went one step further. There are many young players on this team, and next time, they will be so much better prepared to play on this stage.

The team could nonetheless look different next season. I have to think this was Clemens's last go round. Thanks, Rocket, for coming home and giving it your all. This could be the end for Jeff Bagwell, too, depending on how his surgery and rehab go. I hope he is back. I figure Biggio will be back. If he and Bagwell do not return, that will be a mournful time for Astros fans. I just cannot say enough good things about both of them.

Just wait 'til next year, baby...

Miers withdraws her nomination. Now what?

I got up this morning, let the dog out, toasted a bagel, brewed some coffee, and tuned my TV to MSNBC, and the first thing I see is "Harriet Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination." That was just what I needed the morning after the less than satisfying end to the World Series.

So, now what? The last thing I want to see is a Scalia or Thomas clone get nominated. However, I want to stress again my philosophy as to the Supremes. As I explained the day O'Connor resigned,

My view of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution is that it should not be dominated by one group. There must be a balance of some sort. For instance, three conservatives, three liberals, and three that are somewhere in the middle constitutes a balance. O'Connor became one of the voices in the middle, and what concerns me--and scares me--is that Bush has no interest in appointing someone in the middle. He is not at all interested in maintining any kind of balance. He wants someone who will carry out the winger agenda, and that is a bad thing. See, if Scalia had resigned, I would not have a problem with Bush appointing someone like Scalia. As much as I dislike him as a judge (and boy, do I ever), Scalia nonetheless fulfills an important role on the Court as a balance to the sure enough liberals. Thus, I would like to see O'Connor replaced by someone closer to the center, but I have little hope Bush will do that.

The problem now is that there is at least a 95% probability Bush will absolutely lose his base if he does not appoint a hard core right winger. On the other hand, if he appoints an ideologue (even a very qualified one), there is at least a 95% probabilty there will be an all out war with the Democrats (and at this point, there is no way to predict how that would turn out).

I will say again that I hope the nominee is not Priscilla Owen. For those who need an explanation on this matter, read The Senate should reject Priscilla Owen and Priscilla Owen: compassionate conservative or...?

I also hope that Janice Rogers Brown does not get the nomination.

Before making a initial analysis of who the nominee might be, I want to talk about Harry Reid. Overall, I, as a Democrat, think Reid has done a good job as Minority Leader in the Senate. However, his actions in the Miers nomination--including his comments this morning--have made me unhappy. For him to have recommended that someone as utterly unqualified as Miers be nominated either shows he is a very wily politician (trying to set up Bush to make a mistake) or he is a dumbass. And this morning he attributed the failure of the nomination to the "radical right wing" of the GOP. As much as I love to ridicule the "radical right wing," the truth is that many groups opposed this nomination, and the overwhelming reason for that opposition was Miers's glaringly obvious lack of qualifications for the job.

So, who's next? Here is a short discussion. Edith Jones is a good bet. She is very conservative, highly qualified, and she is a woman. However, she will certainly cause much consternation among the Democrats. Ted Olson is another good possibility, as he is very much like John Roberts. But will Olson satisfy the conservative base? Michael Luttig is another good possibility-- conservative, young, former clerk for Scalia. Samuel Alito is known as "Scalito." Enough said. Michael McConnell is a current judge and big time Constitutional scholar who is anti-abortion, but he is also a free-thinker who might be viewed by conservatives as another possible Souter.

The problem for Bush is that he has no good will and political capital among his conservative base. That means he cannot play the "trust me" card. That raises problems for Bush on both sides of the aisle, for the more he satisfies his base, the more he risks huge opposition from the Democrats.

Looking for a darkhorse candidate? Keep an eye on John Cornyn. If Bush personally asks Cornyn to leave the Senate to go to the Supremes, Cornyn would likely do so.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has an excellent post describing the problems Bush faces now.

Congrats to the White Sox!

All hail the World Champion White Sox!

The Astros ended the game with yet another leadoff runner in scoring position and a weak grounder.

As a baseball fan, I lived by the sweep last year, and this year I died by the sweep.

World Series desperation

Well, you win the longest ever overall playoff game, and then you lose the longest ever World Series game. Game 3 was so frustrating. You want to know the difference in this Series so far? It's not that the White Sox have been brilliant. They have made mistakes and boneheaded plays, but not as many as Houston. However, the White Sox have taken advantage of more opportunities than the Astros, and that is the big difference. Chicago has done things that a championship team is supposed to do, and the Astros are playing like rookies.

In Game 2, the Astros' bullpen was beyond bad. Last night, Roy Oswalt, the NLCS MVP, had a complete meltdown and lost a 4-run lead in one inning. And after that--all the way through the 14th inning--the Astros had chance after chance after chance to win the game and failed every time. Now, that was partly due to decent pitching, but the White Sox pitchers were not dominant by any means. They didn't have to be when the Astros lineup as a whole acted as if they had never seen a slider. If I were Ozzie Guillen, I would tell my pitching staff to throw nothing but breaking balls, because the Astros showed last night that not only can they not hit them, they will swing at all of them.

There has been another difference maker in this Series. The White Sox hitters have shown tremendous patience and discipline at the plate. They are making the Astros throw lots of pitches and forcing them to throw strikes. The Astros' pitchers have, by contrast, shown a tendency to get frustrated and impatient, resulting in lots of balls or strikes that have been easy to hit.

If the Astros can all calm down and get their heads right, they could win the next two games. Hey, I'm trying to be optimistic.

Follow up on Lawrence Wilkerson

Yesterday, the L.A. Times published an editorial by Wilkerson which was a concise restatement of his speech at the New American Foundation (see previous post). Those that don't want the extensive discussion in the full speech should definitely read this editorial. For those of you who do not want to take the time and effort to do even that, the first five paragraphs of the editorial will tell you most of what you should know:

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New America Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005.

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and "guardians of the turf."

But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well.

Oh, and I just cannot resist showing something Wilkerson said in the Q&A portion of his appearance at the New American Foundation. Wilkerson was contrasting Bush 43 with Bush 41:

When you put your feet up on a hassock and look at a man who’s won the Nobel Prize and is currently the president of South Korea, and tell him in a very insulting way that you don’t agree with his assessment of what’s necessary to be reconciled with the north, that’s not diplomacy, that’s cowboyism. And I went to high school in Houston – I’ve got some connections with Texas. But there’s just a vast difference between the way George (H.W.) Bush (41) dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and affected positive results, in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.

I like to use the world gracelessness, and I use that word because grace is something we have lost in the modern world. It’s a very important product. It’s very different, for example, to walk in with a foreign leader and find something you can be magnanimous about. You don’t have to win everything. You don’t have to be the big bully on the block. Find something you can be magnanimous about, that you can give him, that you can say he gets credit for, or she gets credit for. That’s diplomacy. That’s diplomacy. You don’t walk in and say, I’m the big mother on the block and if everybody’s not with me, they’re against me, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The difference between father and son, in my mind, sort of comes from that attitudinal approach to the world.

In another post, I explained that in late 2003 I went on record as saying "The Bush administration has displayed an astounding combination of stupidity, delusion, and arrogance." I have repeated that claim several times on this blog. And Lawrence Wilkerson's firsthand, personal experience supports that evaluation.

Lawrence Wilkerson confirms what most of us already knew.

On October 19, 2005, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson gave a speech at the New American Foundation. So who is Lawrence Wilkerson, and why should anyone care? As stated by Steve Clemons in introducing him, Wlikerson

served from the years 2002 through to this year as Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department. He is also the former associate director of policy planning at the Department of State, the former director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College, and he’s getting ready to teach some courses on national security at the College of William & Mary and at George Washington University.

Wilkerson's official State Department biography includes more details. Wilkerson's speech was part of a forum entitled "Weighing the Uniqueness of the Bush Administration's National Security Decision-making Process: Boon or Danger to American Democracy?" Given Wilkerson's credentials, he is in a position to speak on this subject with personal knowledge.

And what he had to say was not exactly warm and fuzzy.

Wilkerson used history as the foundation of his speech, talking about checks and balances and concentration of power. Here is an excerpt I really like:

If you concentrate power and you do it in a way that is not that different from the way Franklin Roosevelt concentrated it, but you don’t have someone who is brilliant at the utilization of that power, you’ve got problems. You’ve got problems. You may have problems even if you have someone who is brilliant. Go ask people who’ve written about Woodrow Wilson – although I wouldn’t say Woodrow Wilson had concentrated power quite the way FDR did. And of course the war and the depression gave him ample opportunity to do things to abridge civil liberties, for example, that even Abraham Lincoln didn’t go to in a conflict that produced far more casualties and arguably was more passionately fought, certainly in terms of the families of America. But too much power, too much secrecy – they (FDR’s critics) wanted to get rid of that (after WW II).

(emphasis added). Gee, you don't think he was trying to say that George and his inner circle are less than brilliant? In any event, Wilkerson made it very clear that concentration of power and secrecy are not good things in the context of foreign policy. There is no way to give the full impact of Wilkerson's speech with a few excerpts, so I urge everyone to read it in its entirety (or you can watch the video). Still, there are a few excerpts that will give an accurate picture of Wilkerson's thoughts.

Regarding how the Bush administration has conducted its foreign policy, Wilkerson said

And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran. Generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita – and I could go on back – we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it sometimes again. I just use it for a tutoring class for my students down in the District of Columbia. It forced me to read it really closely because we’re doing metaphors and similes and antonyms and synonyms and so forth, and read in there what the founders say in a very different language than we use today. Read in there what they say about the necessity of the people to throw off tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. And you’re talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don’t get our act together.

(emphasis added). Still wondering if Wilkerson was talking about the Bush administration? Well, wonder no more. What follows is an indictment (so to speak) of most of the gang:

But the case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. And then when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in a such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out.

Read George Packer’s book, “The Assassin’s Gate,” if you haven’t already. George Packer, a New Yorker – reporter for the New Yorker, has got it right. I just finished it, and I usually put marginalia in a book, but let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on. (Laughter.) And I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he’s got. (Laughter.) But if you want to read how the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And of course there are other names in there: Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom most of you probably know Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety, blank man in the world. He was. (Laughter.) Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. (Laughter.) And yet – and yet – and yet, after the secretary of State agrees to a $40 billion department rather than a $30 billion department having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw itself in a closet somewhere. Now, that’s not making excuses for the State Department; that’s telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished. Read George’s book.

*******

So you’ve got this collegiality there between the secretary of Defense and the vice president, and you’ve got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either. And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you’d thought were made in the formal process. Now, let’s get back to Dr. Rice again. For so long I said, yeah, Rich, you’re right – Rich being Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage – it is a dysfunctional process. And to myself I said, okay, put on your academic hat; who’s causing this? Well, the national security adviser. Even if the framers didn’t envision that position, even if it’s not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the national security advisor should be doing a better job. Now I’ve come to a different conclusion, and after reading Packer’s book I found additional information, or confirmation for my opinion, I think. I think it was more a case of – in some cases there was real dysfunctionality – there always is – but in most cases it was Dr. Rice made a decision, she made a decision – and this is all about people again because people in essence are the government. She made a decision that she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.

And so what we had was a situation where the national security advisor, seen in the evolution over some half-century since the act as the balancer or the person who would make sure all opinions got to the president, the person who would make sure that every dissent got to the president that made sense – not every one but the ones that made sense – actually was a part of the problem, and probably on many issues sided with the president and the vice president and the secretary of Defense. And so what you had – and here I am the academic again – you had this incredible process where the formal process, the statutory process, the policy coordinating committee, the deputies committee, the principal’s committee, all camouflaged – the dysfunctionality camouflaged the efficiency of the secret decision-making process.

And that's some of the nicer things Wilkerson had to say. And compared to some things Brent Scowcroft said recently, Wilkerson was downright civil...

World Series hopes

I hope that the vaunted Astros bullpen does not stink up the joint like they did on Sunday. With 2 outs in the 7th, Wheeler was terrible. Did the ump make a bad call that Dye was hit by a pitch? It sure looked like it to me, but so what? If Wheeler had been able to even get close to the strike zone with the previous batter, the inning might have been over. And then Qualls came in and gave Konerko--Chicago's RBI leader--a belt-high fast ball right down the center. And finally, for the second straight appearance, Lidge gives up the game winning home run. Those guys need to calm down and pitch like they did in the NL playoffs.

That being said, here's hoping Oswalt has another complete game...

Rosa Parks, 1913-2005

To Rosa Parks,

May you rest in peace. And thank you.

Fitzgerald, Rove, Libby, and my shiny new tinfoil hat

For those wishing to find evidence that I am crazy, this post could be the proof you need.

In the last few days, I have heard and read much speculation on several issues, among them prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's motivation. Well, I have a possible answer to that one, and I will explain it just as soon as I make sure that my tinfoil hat is snugly in place...

Let's start with a basic description of Fitzgerald. From everything I have seen about him (and I first read about him several months before anybody heard about Valerie Plame), he is basically a by-the-book, relentless hard ass. "Straight as an arrow" would be a accurate, if understated, description. He appears to take his job and responsibilities very seriously, and he does not seem the type to tolerate outside pressure or interference.

Some people are seeing the investigation as going to matters beyond the outing of a CIA operative. As described in an October 16 column by Frank Rich (discussed here),

Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq.

(emphasis added). Given what I have seen about Fitzgerald, I am not at all sure that his motivation is to show that the Iraq war was based on false premises (indeed, there is a ton of proof of that already). I nonetheless think he might be motivated by factors other than the outing of Plame.

One of those factors is a desire to get people who have basically screwed him around in this investigation. There are many indications that several people 1) have not been completely truthful, 2) have tried to mislead Fitzgerald, and 3) have basically been obstructionist. If my basic description of Fitzgerald is correct, such conduct will piss him off severely, and he will want to go after people for violating the law in this regard.

Anopther possible factor is related in principle to the first, but is more complicated and definitely requires a tinfoil hat. Back in October of 2002, the U.S. government issued a criminal indictment against Enaam Arnaout, the executive director of Benevolence International Foundation, one of the two major Islamic charities shut down by the U.S. government. The case was in Chicago, and the lead prosecutor was Patrick Fitzgerald. As reported by Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times on October 10, 2002,

The leader of a prominent Islamic charity was indicted on conspiracy and racketeering charges today in Chicago in what officials said was the most significant criminal case that federal officials have brought as they seek to shut down Al Qaeda's terrorist money pipeline.

When the indicted was handed down on October 9, 2002, John Ashcroft (remember him?) held a big press conference in which he trumpeted the importance of the case. Included in his remarks was the following:

Enaam Arnaout is charged with conspiracy to obtain fraudulently charitable donations in order to provide financial assistance to Al-Qa'ida and other organizations engaged in violence and terrorism.

*******

In fact, the indictment describes an archive of incriminating documents recovered in the Bosnian offices of BIF in March, 2002--documents that link Arnaout directly to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida.

In another New York Times article by Lichtblau ("Charity Leader Accepts a Deal In a Terror Case," February 11, 2003), prosecutors were quoted as saying that the Arnaout case was a "linchpin in their efforts to shut down Al Qaeda's money pipeline."

Wow! That all sounds really great, right? Well, don't get too excited. The story of the Arnaout case is exceptionally lengthy (even by my standards), but here is a synopsis: Arnaout agreed to a plea agreement, that agreement fell apart, the government sought to have him sentenced to 20 years, the actual sentence was 11 years, 4 months, his alleged ties to Al Qaeda were never established, and the government gained no knowledge on Al Qaeda's financing. In other words, the case ended up a far cry from being the linchpin in shutting down Al Qaeda's money pipeline.

So what in the wide world of sports does this have to do with Fitzgerald's motivation in the Plame case? Does he want to redeem himself after a less than stellar result in the Arnaout case? I don't think so. To complete my tinfoil fantasy, we need to look at another terrorism case out of Detroit. The resulted in convictions, but after the trial, chaos ensued. This is also an very long story, but for purposes of this post, this February 18, 2004, article by Shannon McCaffrey sufficiently tells the story:

The federal prosecutor who won convictions in the government's first and only terrorism trial after the Sept. 11 attacks has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft accusing the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" in the war on terrorism.

The highly unusual complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by Richard Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the conviction of three members of an alleged terrorism sleeper cell in Detroit.

Convertino is facing an internal Justice Department investigation for failing to turn over a document to the defense until long after the trial had ended.

Convertino claims the Justice Department is retaliating against him because he has attacked its efforts in the war on terrorism and cooperated with the Senate Finance Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal critic of the department.

In his lawsuit, Convertino said the Justice Department has exaggerated its success in fighting terrorism. He said heavy-handed officials at Justice Department headquarters in Washington have hindered prosecutors in the field.

In the case he handled in Detroit, which Ashcroft has frequently praised as a success in the war on terrorism, Convertino said the government failed to provide the needed federal law enforcement manpower to help review documents, interview witnesses and prepare for trial.

Convertino claims he worked the case for months with the help of only one FBI special agent.
Convertino said he repeatedly asked for additional help.

In the suit, Convertino alleges there was a "lack of support and cooperation, lack of effective assistance, lack of resources and intradepartmental infighting" in terrorism cases.

"These concerns directly related to the ability of the United States to effectively utilize the criminal justice system as a component in the `war on terrorism,' " the lawsuit said.

*******

U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen said Tuesday that he was seriously considering granting a new trial for the three men convicted.

Even before Tuesday's disclosures, the case was in jeopardy over allegations against Convertino.
A letter from a jailhouse inmate alleged that the government's star witness, Youssef Hmimssa, had lied. That letter was turned over to defense lawyers only last year, well after the trial had concluded in June.

*******

In his suit, Convertino alleges that his superiors in Detroit and Washington retaliated against him after he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He had been subpoenaed to appear. Convertino and his boss, Keith Corbett, were removed from the Detroit case in September after Convertino appeared before Grassley's committee.

The Justice Department also launched an investigation against him after that testimony. The details of that probe were leaked to the media, which Convertino claims violated his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and the Privacy Act. The prosecutor also said in the lawsuit that Justice Department officials tried to discredit him by leaking the name of one of his confidential informants.

That leak put the informant at risk, forcing him to flee the United States.

The leak "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the (confidential informant) about current and future terrorist activities" the suit said.

Back in March of last year, I started really looking into this matter, and I was surprised by how viciously the Department of Justice turned on Convertino. Let's just assume for the moment that Convertino's allegations are correct. That would show that the Department of Justice--led at the time by Ashcroft, who was a hatchet man for the Bush administration--was doing a crappy job of combatting terrorism. And then when someone complained about it, the DoJ tried to ruin him.

Now let's get back to Fitzgerald. Perhaps he dealt with some of the same problems in the Arnaout case. Perhaps he is motivated by his experiences and what happened to Convertino to go after the people who kept him and Convertino and others from effectively combatting terrorism. If the Plame case ends up handing out indictments against many people, maybe one reason why Fitzgerald has been so thorough is that he sees this case as a way to send a strong message to those responsible for doing such a crappy job of fighting terrorism.

This is all speculation on my part. I do not know exactly what happened in the Arnaout case. I do not know if Convertino's claims are valid. Perhaps Fitzgerald does not like Convertino. Still, with all of the Bush administration's ineptitude, incompetence, and near pathological desire to destroy anyone who issues public criticism, my little theory could well be within the realm of possibility.

Another sign that the Miers nomination is in trouble

When the National Review reports that the Miers nomination is pretty much in the tank, you know things are bad. Byron York, White House correspondent for the National Review, posted yesterday an article entitled "The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized." The subtitle is even more telling: "Now they’re discussing stopping her visits to the Senate."

Ouch.

And the article, which quotes three unnamed sources within the White House, only gets increasingly painful. Here are my favorite excerpts:

Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators.

*******

"It's been a gradual descent into almost silence," says a second source of the calls. "The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end....Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings."

*******

In summary, says the first source, "People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove's part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate."

(emphasis added). As Kevin Drum put it, "Goodness. A 'pig-headed resolve to press forward'? From George Bush? Who would have guessed?"

What is Jeanine Pirro thinking?

Josh Marshall has a post today related to the NY Senate race between Hillary Clinton and Jeanine Pirro. That post links to an article reporting on something Pirro said at a campaign stop:

During a speech to Chemung County Republicans on Tuesday night, Pirro continued her criticism of the Democratic-controlled state Assembly for its refusal to adopt legislation that would civilly confine violent sex offenders after their prison sentences end.

"That's a difference between Democrats and Republicans--we don't want them next door molesting children and murdering women," said the Westchester County prosecutor, according to Wednesday's Elmira Star-Gazette newspaper.

Look--I am no Hillary fan. In fact, I have stated elsewhere in this blog that I think Hillary being the nominee in 2008 would be a disaster. However, these comments by Pirro are just insane and insulting. Read the rest of the article to see if her campaign manager's claim that the quote is out of context rings true. Statements like this create their own context, and no amount of spin can change that. Then again, maybe I am not aware of the full picture here.

Consequently, I am very interested in hearing from at least one Republican in New York in order to get a better understanding of this situation.

Some thoughts on Ronnie Earle

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show this morning, and the discussion turned to The Bug Man. Someone from Dallas sent an email asking what effect the anti-Earle TV ads that are starting to air would have. One of the panelists said that they could affect a potential jury in the event of a trial. I immediately fired off the following email:

The argument that the anti-Earle TV ads could affect a potential jury is not a good one. The jury pool will consist of residents of Travis County. Travis County was the only county in Texas that went for Kerry in November, and a majority of the voters in Travis County have re-elected Earle time and time again. Earle has not changed his SOP, and the people of Travis County know him well.

Horse Poup has some info on Earle that is relevant to the claims by The Bug Man and other Republicans that Earle is a rogue prosecutor pursuing a political vendetta. Be warned, however, that the owner of that blog is rather liberal. Still, facts are facts.

No title needed...

ASTROS ARE GOING TO THE WORLD SERIES!!!

I'm so happy I can't even say anything else right now!

Another way to look at Miers's lack of qualifications

It is difficult to explain to non-lawyers the details of the legal world, in part because most people do not have any regular, practical exposure and experience in that world. I have been in that world for over 20 years, and the details often give me a headache. Therefore, in order to explain why Harriet Miers is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court, I will use an analogy from another professional field with which everybody has had some experience--medicine.

Imagine that you are told by a cardiac surgeon that you need emergency open heart surgery tomorrow. This doctor, a heart specialist, finished his residency one year ago and is undistinguished. At your location there is another doctor, who is highly experienced, utterly brilliant, and recognized as one of the best in the entire world. In other words, he is very "accomplished" while the cardiac surgeon is not. However, the "accomplished" doctor is an obstetrician, not a surgeon. Who would you want to perform your open heart surgery? Would the "accomplishments" of the obstetrician have any bearing on your decision? Of course not. You would choose the cardiac surgery.

That was easy. Let's narrow the analogy. Your choices are between the same cardiac surgery or a world renowned orthopedic surgeon with 20 years experience. I would still go with the cardiac surgeon because he at least has relevant knowledge, skill, and experience in the highly specialized operation that I need. Perhaps the orthopedic surgeon could do the surgery, but, despite all his knowledge, skill, and experience, he would be "learning on the job." I would not like that.

And the major reason that I oppose the Miers nomination is that she does not have the requisite knowledge and experience, meaning she would have to "learn on the job." Just as cardiac surgery is a highly specialized field requiring knowledge, skill and experience in that field, Constitutional analysis is a highly specialized legal field. It is also a field in which Miers has no meaningful experience. I explained this in my very first post about Miers, and many others have explained this fact as well (among them are consevative luminaries such as Bill Kristol and George Will). Miers is indeed a highly accomplished lawyer, but as I have explained, those accomplisments do not qualify her to be on the Supreme Court. And while a surgeon can affect the life of one person at a time, the decisions and opinions the Supreme Court affect every person in this country for potentially generations.

As I have tried to explain before, the Supreme Court does not deal in simple, black-and-white issues. The Supreme Court deals with the most difficult issues in a highly specialized field. Regardless of one's judicial philosophy--original intent, strict constuction, etc.--the Constitution rarely provides easy answers. Regardless of one's judicial philosophy, the determination of Constitutional issues requires interpretation (as opposed to simple application) of the Constitution. Thus, an essential requirement for being on the Supreme Court should be some level of real world experience in such Constitutional analysis.

Miers does not have that experience.

Bush touting Miers and religion

On Wednesday, October 12, Bush met with Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski, and then they appeared before the media. One of the questions to Bush addressed the Miers nomination.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Why do people in this White House feel it's necessary to tell your supporters that Harriet Miers attends a very conservative Christian church? Is that your strategy to repair the divide that has developed among conservatives over her nominee?

PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the -- has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She's eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is -- or nominated her to the bench -- which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution.

(emphasis added). Forget for the moment that one's religion is not a qualification to serve on the Supreme Court. Instead, focus on yet more examples of abject hypocrisy by the Bush administration.

An examination of what Bush said upon nominating John Roberts first for Associate Justice and then Chief Justice shows that at those times, religion had absolutely nothing to do with pertinent qualifications. On July 19, 2005, Bush officially introduced Roberts as the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and he discussed some of Roberts's life:

Judge Roberts was born in Buffalo and grew up in Indiana. In high school, he captained his football team, and he worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through college. He's an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. In his career, he has served as a law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, as an Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Department of Justice.

*******

In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed. He's a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability. He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness, and civility. He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.

He's also a man of character who loves his country and his family. I'm pleased that his wife, Jane, and his two beautiful children, Jack and Josie, could be with us tonight. Judge Roberts has served his fellow citizens well, and he is prepared for even greater service.

Notice there was no mention of religion or faith at all. On September 5, 2005, Bush said the following about Roberts:

This summer I announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I choose Judge Roberts from among the most distinguished jurists and attorneys in the country because he possesses the intellect, experience and temperament to be an outstanding member of our nation's Highest Court.

For the past two months, members of the United States Senate and the American people have learned about the career and character of Judge Roberts. They like what they see. He's a gentleman. He's a man of integrity and fairness. And throughout his life, he has inspired the respect and loyalty of others. John Roberts has built a record of excellence and achievement, and a reputation for goodwill and decency toward others.

Once again, there was no mention of Roberts's religion.

And yet, in the face of all the accurate observations that, at the very least, Miers has nowhere near the same qualifications as Roberts, Bush expressly tells us that Miers's religion is relevant to being qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

And then of course Scotty Boy McClellan tried to tell everyone that Bush did not say that. About an hour and a half after Bush's comments on October 12, Scotty had a press briefing, and Bush's comments about Miers's religion were discussed. You know, if Scotty could ever just answer a question in a straightforward manner, I would stop printing such lengthy excerpts from his briefings. However, the lengthy excerpts are necessary to show the depth of his bullshit. In this lengthy excerpt, pay attention to how he tries to say that Miers's religion is irrelevant and how he completely avoids explaining why religion was never mentioned in connection with Roberts. I will add some commentary as we go...

Q: Scott, the President has said that religion was part of Harriet Miers' life, and the White House's outreaching has mentioned the fact that she does go to this conservative Christian church --

MR. McCLELLAN: Outreaching -- reaching out.

Q: Reaching out, outreaching. No such efforts were made, not to this extent, anyway, in terms of Chief Justice Roberts. No one in the White House even mentioned his religion, as best we can tell. Why is this case --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of outreach?

Q: In terms of talking about his religion --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's well-known that he is a person of faith, as well.

Q: I know, but it was never -- it never was brought up at this podium, and the President never mentioned it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where have I brought up Harriet Miers' religion at this podium?

COMMENT: No one said you brought up Miers's religion. The reporter said that you never brought up Roberts's religion.

Q: Do you think Harriet Miers' religion is being emphasized more by this administration than Chief Justice Roberts' was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Harriet Miers is a person of faith. She recognizes, however, that a person's religion or personal views have no role when it comes to making decisions as a judge. A judge should make decisions based on our constitution and our laws. That's the role of a judge. A judge should look at the facts and apply the law. And that's just like Judge Roberts. He recognized that, as well, that someone's ideology or religion has no role to play when it comes to making decisions on our nation's highest court. That's what the American people expect.

I think when you're talking about our outreach, or reaching out, we do reach out to a lot of people. And Harriet Miers is not someone who has sought the limelight. So there are a lot of Americans who are just beginning to get to know who she is. And we're confident that, as they do, they will see what the President has known for some time now, which is that she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But what we emphasize in the outreach to people we talk to is that she has the qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy that is needed on our nation's highest court. The President appointed her, or nominated her, because she is eminently well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. We should be looking at a nominee's record and that nominee's qualifications and their judicial temperament. She is someone who believes in strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws. And that's why the President selected her.

COMMENT: Notice that Scotty never answered the question, but instead tried to say that Miers is just like Roberts.

Q: So if her personal views and ideology have no bearing on --

MR. McCLELLAN: You just had your question.

Q; -- the judicial decision --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're taking away from others.

COMMENT: Perhaps I should start calling McClellan "Snotty."

Q: -- what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're being very selective in what you're talking about from the conversation, because I know what Karl emphasized in that conversation is her qualifications and her background, and her judicial philosophy.

Q: Also that she's a member of a very conservative church.

MR. McCLELLAN: That she is a person of faith. She is someone who attends church on a regular basis. And people want to know who she is. They want to know her qualifications, they want to know her background, they want to know her experience. And that's all part of reaching out to people to gain support for her nomination.

COMMENT: Notice that Snotty did not deny that Rove told SpongeDob that Miers was a member of a very conservative church. Does anyone really think that SpongeDob cares about judicial philosophy more than what church Miers attends?

Q: But in the context of the conversation between the President's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor and the head of a very conservative Christian organization, it sounds like code.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, what Karl emphasized in that conversation is that she is someone that has the qualifications and experience and the judicial philosophy that the American people want to see on our nation's highest court. And that's why the President selected her.

COMMENT: See previous comment.

Q: Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore, her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the factors in his selection?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President makes selections based on potential nominees' qualifications and experience and judicial temperament. That is what he has done in each and every instance when it comes to appointing people to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who have a conservative judicial philosophy, one that is based on interpreting our Constitution and our laws, not making law from the bench. And that's what he bases his decisions on, not someone's religion.

Q: So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and then, ultimately --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President makes decisions based on the person's qualifications and experience and judicial temperament.

COMMENT: Then please explain why Bush expressly mentioned Miers's religion.

Q: All right. So there was no -- no role at all in the President's decision-making of Harriet Miers' religion?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of who she is. That's part of her background. That's what the President was talking about in his remarks in the Oval Office.

Q: Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it's okay, she belongs to an ultra evangelical church?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're calling up a lot of people --

Q: Why that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to reach out to them and talk to them about the President's selection of Harriet Miers. And what he is emphasizing in those conversations, Terry, is that she is someone who is strongly committed to a conservative judicial philosophy.

Q: What is somebody's --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why wouldn't --

Q: Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't say that it did.

Q: So why are you peddling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of her background, Terry; it's part of who she is.

Q: But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy.

MR. McCLELLAN: People want to know who she is. And when you're getting to know someone, you want to know what their qualifications and experience are, you want to know what their judicial philosophy is, and you want to know who they are. Faith is very important to Harriet Miers. But she recognizes that faith and that her religion and that her personal views don't have a role to play when it comes to making decisions.

COMMENT: This is Snotty at his best. He never answered the question. Instead he just kept repeating catch phrases.

Q: It seems that what you're doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right concerned that Harriet Miers isn't conservative enough, by saying, it's okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it seems like the media wants to focus on things other than her qualifications. Maybe your news organization would rather focus on things other than her qualifications and record. The President believes we should focus on her qualifications and her record and her judicial philosophy. And that's what we emphasize.

COMMENT: As I and scores of others have explained, she has NO qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Moreover, the media is focusing on her religion because Bush has expressly focused on her religion.

Q: Why is his top aide going around and telling people how she prays?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's simply talking about who she is and what her background is. And you're being very selective in your comments there, because what he emphasized and what Dr. Dobson said he emphasized, was her conservative judicial philosophy. That's what it should be based on.

Q: Scott, isn't -- the bleed-over here, though, is that if we understood the account correctly -- and it doesn't sound like you're disputing it -- that Karl was making an argument that her religious faith and her membership in the evangelical church was evidence of what her judicial philosophy -- conservative judicial philosophy would be. He was using it to buttress the question of how she would rule -- am I misunderstanding that?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, David, there's some that have -- no, there's some that have a litmus test for the Supreme Court. The President does not. The President does not ask candidates their views on issues that may be controversial, like abortion. The President looks at them and asks them what their judicial philosophy is; are they someone who is going to strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, rather than -- and not make law from the bench. The President doesn't believe people should be legislating from the bench. He believes that judges ought to be looking at the law and applying the law.

Q: Scott, if that's the case, then, wouldn't Karl's statement to Mr. Dobson have been, "you know, what church she belongs to is completely irrelevant to how she would serve on the Supreme Court; I'm not even going to tell you what church she went to because it doesn't have anything to do with her philosophy." Wouldn't that be the consistent statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is, David. We're just pointing out facts about who she is. But that's not what we're emphasizing. What we're emphasizing is her judicial philosophy and her experience and her qualifications.

COMMENT: If Rove really was emphasizing Miers's judicial philosophy, then please explain why on October 5, 2005--several days after Rove spoke to him and after he endorsed Miers--SpongeDob said on his radio broadcast "Lord, you know I don't have the wisdom to make this decision. You know that what I feel now and what I think is right may be dead wrong." On the air one week later, Dobson explained his conversation with Rove. He stated that Rove did say that Miers's judicial philosophy was the same as Bush's, but he disclosed that Karl also talked about religion:

What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn’t reveal? Well, it’s what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life.

If the greater emphasis was on judicial philosophy, that would mean that Dobson was uncertain about Miers because she was an evangelical Christian from a conservative church and had been a member of Texas Right to Life. Yeah, right. The point is that the only thing that was keeping Dobson on board was Miers's religion. Any other conclusion is delusional. That means that the major emphasis by Rove was religion.

Q: So there was no effort, to your mind, that it was not Mr. Rove's desire here to use her church background as evidence of how she may approach cases from the bench?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already described what we were talking about in these outreach efforts. If you want to interpret them differently, that's your right to do.

Q: I was asking how you were interpreting.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just explained it.

COMMENT: Well, no, you did not.

Q: You talk about conservative judicial philosophy. As you know, there is a difference between conservative judicial philosophy and conservative ideology. Were both equally important to the President in picking Harriet Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you what the President looks for when he nominates someone to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who are highly qualified and people who have a conservative judicial philosophy. That's what you're looking for in a judge -- you want someone that is going to apply the law, not try to legislate from the bench. And that's why the President -- in part, is why the President selected Harriet Miers.

He also selected her because she is someone who is exceptionally well-qualified to serve in our nation's highest court. Some have tried to create a different standard when it comes to the confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice. I would encourage you to go back and look at her record and look at her qualifications. She is very accomplished. She is someone who has a distinguished career and a long record of accomplishment. She was one of the top 50 women lawyers in the nation, named by a national journal, on a number of occasions. She is someone who has been a trailblazer for women in the legal profession. She has broken the glass ceiling when it comes to the legal profession in Texas, serving as the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and then the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. And she's on track to be the number two leader at the American Bar Association. She is someone who has a record of overcoming obstacles throughout her life.

Q: That doesn't answer my question. Is it --

COMMENT: Snotty certainly did not answer the question. Aside from that, being "accomplished" does not necessarily mean that a person is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I will address this matter in a separate--and brief--post.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree because I think it's important --

Q: No, no, no. Here is my question. Is it as important to the President that his nominee, that Harriet Miers has a conservative ideology, as a conservative judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: He bases it on their judicial philosophy and their qualifications and experience. That's what he makes decisions on. Again, your question implies that there are litmus tests. There are not litmus tests when it comes --

Q: I wasn't implying anything. I was asking --

COMMENT: Conservative ideology is not the same thing as a conservative judicial philosophy. For instance, I have a rather conservative judicial philosophy, but I am no conservative in terms of political ideology. And did the reporter say anything that resembled "litmus test"? That answer is "NO."

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, sure, because a person's ideology and personal views have no role to play when they're making decisions as a judge. A judge makes decisions by looking at the case and looking at the facts and then applying the law. That's what the American people expect, and that's the type of people that the President has always appointed to the bench.

Q: If personal views don't have a role to play, then why would anybody from the White House talk about what church she goes to and what the beliefs are of the people in the church?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is. And faith has played an important part in her life. But she recognizes that religion and personal views and ideology don't have a role to play when you're a judge, but people want to know who she is. And that's been an important part of her life.

COMMENT: Let me see if I understand...Religion and personal views and ideology don't have a role to play when you're a judge, but Bush wants to make sure we know about Miers's religion and personal views and ideology.

I am so sick and tired of this administration's bullshit. Bush never said anything about Roberts's religion being in any way relevant to his nominations to the Supreme Court even though it was well known that Roberts was (and is) a devout Catholic. And then he turns right around and expressly says that Miers's religion is relevant to her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Snotty McClellan said that Rove did not emphasize religion in giving a confidential briefing to SpongeDob when the facts show otherwise. And so on and so on...

Woe to you hypocrites.

Heartbreak for the moment

Bottom of the 7th. Cardinals lead 2-1. Biggio singles. Chris Burke hits a single behind Biggio as the hit and run is on. Runners at 1st and 3rd with Lance Berkman coming to the plate--hitting left-handed, his power side. Berkman takes a Chris Carpenter pitch the opposite way, up and over the left field wall. Astros lead 4-2.

Top of the 9th. Score still 4-2. "Lights Out" Lidge on for the save and a trip to the World Series. Lidge strikes out the first two batters and has two strikes on Eckstein. So damn close. Then Eckstein singles. Lidge pitches like crap to Edmonds and walks him. Up next--Albert Pujols. I just keep saying "Don't give this guy anything to hit. Walk him if you have to. Just don't give him anything to hit." Then Lidge throws a slider, and as it was halfway to the plate, I had a sickening flashback to Bill Lee's second looping curve to Tony Perez in 1975. The slider broke right into the center of the plate, and Pujols crushed it.

Final score: Cardinals 5, Astros 4.

I just hope the 'Stros can get over this one. They still have two more shots to win one game. Oswalt starts Game 6, and if Game 7 is necessary, the Rocket takes the mound.

I'm getting too old for all this stress.

Paying for Katrina (not to mention Rita)

A disclaimer and the "bottom line" question

I am not an economist. Many moons ago I was a college freshman with plans of being an economics minor. I kicked ass in the first two semesters, then I took the course that was designed to thin out the herd, and I found that my mind lacked the requisite elasticity to be an economist. What follows should be read with that in mind. I am not going to undertake an analysis of all the economic factors involved. Instead, I am going to look more at the possible political and policy consequences--and I'm not talking about Democrats v. Republicans.

The question is "How are we going to pay for this massive federal hurricane recovery program?" By a process of elimination and some comments by the Bush administration, we can ascertain how we are going to pay for this massive federal program. There are three basic options.

Option 1: Raise taxes and/or eliminate the tax cuts that have been passed in the last few years.

That ain't gonna happen. On September 16, 2005, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared before the media. When asked "Who is going to have to pay for this recovery?" Bush answered

And so, you bet, it's going to cost money. But I'm confident we can handle it and I'm confident we can handle our other priorities. It's going to mean that we're going to have to make sure we cut unnecessary spending. It's going to mean we don't do--we've got to maintain economic growth, and therefore we should not raise taxes.

(emphasis added). The same day Scotty McClellan, Claude Allen (Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy), and Al Hubbard (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) held a press briefing. Hubbard was asked whether taxes would have to be raised, and he answered as follows:

The most important thing that we need to do is make sure that this economy remains very, very strong. A strong economy is what will provide the resources for the rebuilding for the disaster as a result of the Katrina storm. We're fortunate that the economy is very, very strong now; it will continue to be strong. But the last thing in the world we need to do is raise taxes and retard economic growth.

(emphasis added). It is a pretty safe bet that the prevailing view in Congress is the same. As reported by Andrew Taylor of the AP, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said "We do not have to raise taxes" to finance the recovery. In any event, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the existing tax cuts, and anyone who thinks that Congress will eliminate those cuts or raise taxes is in serious need of a reality check.

Option 2: Spending cuts

This is the most popular option among the Republicans. This option would achieve something--reduce government--that the GOP has always stated it wanted. Never mind that the size of government and the size of the federal deficit have reached record levels under this Republican President and Republican Congress. The amount of spending cuts needed to pay for the hurricane recovery plan simply are not going to happen.

Andrew Taylor wrote another AP article which contained this passage:

There are the requisite calls for sacrifice: Just cut wasteful spending elsewhere in the government's $2.5 trillion budget. But even some of Congress' staunchest conservatives say offsetting spending cuts simply won't happen.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "But nobody has been able to come up with any yet."

Obviously, this article was written before The Bug Man got indicted. :-)

Well, The Bug Man was not entirely correct. There have been some suggestions, but Congress apparently won't act on them. Taylor's articles explain the situation.

In February, President Bush proposed killing or paring back 154 government programs to save $15.3 billion. Most of the proposals got crumpled up and tossed in the trash. The House Appropriations Committee managed to kill off programs totaling $4.3 billion, but all of the money was redirected to other programs.

That experience underscores how difficult it would be to finance Katrina reconstruction with savings from the budget that Congress passes each year in the form of appropriations bills.

*******

Some lawmakers say Congress should rescind "pork barrel" projects like the $223 million "bridge to nowhere" connecting Alaska's Gravina Island -- population 50 -- to the mainland, or even consider delaying the rollout of the $400 billion-plus Medicare prescription drug benefit passed two years ago.

"With a disaster this size, no program is sacrosanct, no cost-cutting is off the table," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "Republicans weren't put in office to be satisfied with the size of our government."

While some deficit hawks like Tancredo are energized, it's doubtful they'll meet with success. There's little political stomach for the types of cuts they're advocating. Neither their leaders nor the White House is backing them up.

"I'm not sure the will is here to sacrifice," admitted Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

*******

Many of the ideas circulating are likely political nonstarters like delaying the start of the Medicare prescription drug benefit or favorite White House cuts that have previously been rejected by Congress — some of them several years in a row.

Cutting Amtrak subsidies, crop supports, grants to state and local governments and hometown projects may sound like great ideas to some, but they are extraordinarily difficult to get through Congress, even one dominated by supposedly tightfisted Republicans.

President Bush said Thursday the administration was still tabulating the cost of hurricane recovery to help decide where to suggest budget cuts to offset the spending.

"We're beginning to make those kinds of suggestions," the president said.

But he didn't offer any specific places to cut.

A group of House conservative stalwarts announcing "Operation Offset" on Wednesday before a phalanx of television news cameras admitted they had no agreement among themselves on a $500 billion-plus roster of spending cut ideas, many of which — such as cutting public television subsidies — have been resoundingly rejected.

*******

House leaders, however, have offered only tepid support. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Wednesday he is "willing to look at offsets if there are viable offsets."

"Viable" means commanding enough support to at least pass the House, said Hastert Spokesman Ron Bonjean. Winning the approval of the Senate and Bush is a taller order.

"So far, to be honest, there is not a working majority in the Congress to do any aggressive activity in the area of spending restraint, especially on this," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

*******

The White House's $20 billion roster of spending cuts and "reforms" is studded with cuts that haven't made the grade with lawmakers, such as an almost $1 billion cut in Amtrak subsidies. The House overwhelmingly rejected the idea this summer and the Senate Appropriations panel voted to increase those subsidies.

Other ideas, like a $3 increase in airline ticket taxes, $500 million in cuts to airport construction grants, halting construction on two new federal prisons and cutting a variety of grant programs to state and local governments have been rejected or ignored by lawmakers.

Congress also has made it plain it is uninterested in significant cuts to farm subsidies or curbing grants to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Most ideas offered by McCain and other GOP "deficit hawks" don't appear to have enough support to pass, starting with the $33 billion in proposed savings by delaying Medicare prescription drug benefits for a year. Both the White House and GOP congressional leaders dismiss that.

In passing 11 spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1, Republicans did manage to kill off 98 programs totaling $4.3 billion. But those savings were just redirected to higher-priority programs.

And there you have it. Option 2 is not really viable. Man, I hope Option 3 is a winner.

Option 3: Brother, can you spare a few billion?

Option 3 is simple: borrow the money. This is where the economics come into play. Here's the basic scenario. Borrowing money to pay for the hurricane recovery plan will increase both the national debt and the federal deficit. Economists have differing views as to whether this will hurt the U.S. economy, but from what I have seen, most feel that in the short term, the increase in the deficit will stimulate the economy. However, as I said in the first paragraph of this post, I am not going to focus on the economic analysis, which gets quite complicated.

First, let's establish that the deficit will increase. In the September 16, 2005, press briefing, Al Hubbard said, "Well, there's no question that this -- the recovery will be paid for by the federal taxpayer and it will add to the deficit. That's right."

To me, however, the bigger issue is the national debt and the possible ramifications of borrowing billions of dollars at this time. My principal sources for this part of the discussion are Kevin Hall and James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder, Allen Sloan of Newsweek, a George Stephanopoulos interview with Bill Clinton, a March 15, 2005, article by Pauline Young, a December 1, 2004, article by Bruce Bartlett, and a March 16, 2005 article by Bartlett. Both of the Bartlett articles were published by the National Review Online.

The national debt used to be $3.4 trillion, then Bush took office and the GOP got control of Congress, and now the debt is $4.6 trillion. That is a 35% increase in just over four years. That's not the troubling part, however. The nature of the debt, how it is serviced, and to whom it is owed constitute the troubling part.

As Bartlett noted in his March 16 article,

Growing nervousness in the bond market might be signaling an end to the free lunch Americans have enjoyed for the past three years, when foreigners have essentially financed our budget deficit.

(emphasis added). Stated differently, continuing budget deficits means more borrowing, which means an increase in the national debt. It turns out that a significant amount of the national debt is owed to foreigners, and, most notably, foreign governments are increasingly becoming our creditors. Not only that, but as Clinton explained to Stephanopolous, "Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our Government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts."

Bartlett wrote about the increase of debt owed to foreign nations in his December 1, 2004, article:

If foreigners were just interested in investing in the U.S. because they like our economic prospects and investment climate, this would not be a problem. Indeed, this unquestionably explains most of the private capital transfers. In places like Japan and Europe, economic prospects have been much worse than here for some time and investors there have had little choice except to invest abroad.

But lately, a considerable portion of foreign investment has been by foreign central banks in U.S. Treasury securities. From 1999 to 2003, these rose to $249 billion from $44 billion. The figure for this year will undoubtedly be higher than last year since foreign central bank purchases of Treasurys were already at $202 billion just through June.

As a consequence, foreign ownership of the U.S. national debt has risen to $1.8 trillion or half of the privately held debt. A decade ago, foreigners owned just over 20 percent of the debt.

(emphasis added). In his March 16, 2005, article, Bartlett stated that foreign central banks owned 60% of Treasury securities held by foreigners ($1.2 trillion of $1.9 trillion). In other words, foreign governments, not private investors, have become major creditors of our government.

Allan Sloan discussed this situation further in his September 26, 2005, Newsweek article:

Borrowing endlessly for Katrina and Iraq and tax cuts and Homeland Security is possible only because foreigners are willing to keep buying U.S. Treasury securities despite the relatively low interest rates they pay. At least for now. The cost of hocking ourselves to the eyeballs shows up in the line of the federal budget that says how much interest we're paying. Interest will run about $350 billion in the current fiscal year, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It rises to $385 billion next year, $426 billion the year after and so on. This is without Katrina. Just the interest on Katrina—call it 4 percent on $200 billion—is $8 billion a year.

(emphasis added). Some might be wondering why I emphasized something other than the money amounts. Our federal government is able to operate only because of deficit spending, and deficit spending is possible only because of the borrowing, which takes the form of the purchase of Treasury securities by foreigners. What happens if those foreigners decide to stop buying Treasury securities? Some possibilities are not good, but then again, some possibilities are not good if foreign governments keep buying Treasury securities.

Before proceeding, I repeat that I am primarily addressing the political consequences. You can find plenty of analysis dealing strictly with the economics and the effects on the U.S. economy as a whole. While some economists are concerned, many economists say that there is no imminent danger. Since I am not an economist, I am not going to try to sort all that out. I will say that I have yet to see any of these economists look at the political factors. I find that much of economic theory looks at the world in a bit of a vacuum in spite of the fact that economic theory takes into account many variables and complex relations among those variables. Those variables tend to be tangible and quantifiable. However, they are affected by other variables which are not tangible and quantifiable, and often these other variables are not predictable or controllable. Such variables include human nature in general and greed and the desire for power and control in particular.

Now back to "What happens if those foreigners decide to stop buying Treasury securities?" There have been indications that this is already happening. In March of this year, Pauline Young wrote that "According to Treasury Department data, foreign official net purchases of U.S. Treasury fell to US$7 billion in December from US$21 billion in November (of 2004)." Subsequent data from the Treasury Department (which can be accessed here) show the following numbers (in billions of dollars):

Feb. 05: 11.3
March 05: -15.0
April 05: 13.9
May 05: 6.8
June 05: 11.2 or 16.7 (one report says 11.2, and the next month's report says 16.7)
July 05: 3.6

These data show that at best, the purchase of Treasury securities by foreign governments has been fluctuating. At worst, it shows a decline even before Katrina and Rita and the announcement of the huge recovery program. If purchasing of Tresury securities declines, that initially means a decrease in money available to finance the deficit and national debt. That's not good. Sales of Treasury securities could be increased by raising the interest rate on the securities (the rate of return), but that is not particularly good, for the higher the rate of return, the greater the increase of the national debt. In other words, if the interest rate of Treasury securities goes up, the cost of borrowing money also goes up.

But what if foreign governments keep buying Treasury securities at a rate sufficient to fund the deficit (which will include the cost of hurricane recovery)? Well, there will be incentive for this Republican Congress and President to continue their "borrow and spend" ways. But there is another possibility that is my big concern.

So here are the circumstances that form the basis of my big concern: 1) our deficit spending is possible only because of borrowing from foreigners; 2) increasingly, such borrowing is being done through foreign governments; 3) the deficit and subsequent borrowing are increasing our national debt; 4) to use a phrase of Hall and Kuhnhenn, due to the record deficit and record spending, the day-to-day operation of our federal government "depends on the kindness of foreigners." Wow, Blanche DuBois as a metaphor of our federal government...interesting.

Anyway, what this all adds up to is the possibility of a foreign government having power over our government. Lots of people are upset that we are dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil, but the "borrow and spend" conduct threatens to make us dependent on foreign governments just to keep our government working. In other words, there is the potential for our government to be subject to the desires and demands of foreign governments. That power could be exerted either by buying more Treasury securities or halting such purchases. This issue was raised a year ago in a Washington Post article:

If the lending splurge continues, however -- and some feel it is bound to, if only because China and Japan now have an interest in propping up the dollar to keep their exports cheap -- some fear U.S. policymaking will be constrained by the reliance on foreign capital. "What does this mean to our bargaining power as a nation?" asked Michael D. Granoff, president of Pomona Capital, an investment firm. "If China is financing our debt, how tough can we be the next time there's a Tiananmen Square?"

More to the point, China wants to be a world economic power. China is already kicking everyone's ass in manufacturing, we have a huge trade deficit with China, and China needs mass quantities of oil--meaning that we are in competition for that resource. China wants power on the global stage, and that is going to be the driving force for its policy. And that is one factor that has not been part of any economic analysis I have seen. One of China's state-owned oil companies recently tried unsuccessfully to buy Unocal (an oil company). That situation caused much consternation here, as expressed in a June 27, 2005, article posted on Fox News:

Gal Luft, executive director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, said it would be "suicidal" at a time of $60-a-barrel oil for the United States to let a Chinese state-run firm control oil sources by buying Unocal.

"It's not the government of Japan or France," he said. "We want to think about the fact that an American company falls in the hands of the Communist government of China."

So, the Chinese government was unable to invest in an American oil company, but it certainly has invested in the U.S. government, and our Republican-controlled government has willingly allowed that. Going back to something Bartlett said, China and other foreign governments are NOT "just interested in investing in the U.S. because they like our economic prospects and investment climate." They are interested in making investments which will pay a return in the form of policy power, not direct monetary gain.

And now, we have a hurricane recovery plan that is going to cost $100-200 billion and will have to be paid for by borrowing more money.

As I said, I have not seen an economic analysis that takes into account "the circumstances that form the basis of my big concern." I have seen analyses that say we are doomed economically, and I have seen analyses that say all of this is actually good for the economy. I have seen analyses of currency issues, and the those conclusions are also varied. I want to stress that even if all this borrowing and deficit spending and increased national debt is somehow good for the overall economy, I feel that my concerns are still valid. Look at it this way. By many accounts (pun not intended), the U.S. economy as a whole is good and growing. However, that does not mean that people in the lower and middle classes are better off. We are losing jobs, common folk are not making as much money in real terms as they were a few years ago, and a tax cut of several hundred dollars doesn't mean much. So, the economy might somehow improve with continued "borrowing and spending," but that fact would not preclude my concern from becoming a reality.

At least that's my story for now. This is another instance in which I would be happy to be proven wrong. Just don't ask me to assume any can openers.