Hehehe

NYT Editorial

From the Carpet-Bagger Report:

I'm not one to jump to conclusions, but the New York Times sounded an awful lot like it was calling for Bush's removal from office today.

NEW YORK TIMES:
After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.
In Argentina, Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his ability to relate to world leaders face to face, could barely summon the energy to chat with the 33 other leaders there, almost all of whom would be considered friendly to the United States under normal circumstances. He and his delegation failed to get even a minimally face-saving outcome at the collapsed trade talks and allowed a loudmouthed opportunist like the president of Venezuela to steal the show.
It's amazing to remember that when Mr. Bush first ran for president, he bragged about his understanding of Latin America, his ability to speak Spanish and his friendship with Mexico. But he also made fun of Al Gore for believing that nation-building was a job for the United States military.
The White House is in an uproar over the future of Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, and spinning off rumors that some top cabinet members may be asked to walk the plank. Mr. Bush could certainly afford to replace some of his top advisers. But the central problem is not Karl Rove or Treasury Secretary John Snow or even Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary. It is President Bush himself.

It should come as no surprise that I agree with all of this, but isn't this an example of the nation's leading newspaper arguing that Bush should no longer be president? That, as far as the Times is concerned, the world "simply can't afford" him?
I've been reading NYT editorials for quite a while and, outside of explicit candidate endorsements, this was about as direct an affront as I've seen. This seemed to walk right up to the "impeach him" line.

OK, Let's Play This Out.

See, now these are the kinds of discussions that I simultaneously am trying to avoid and trying to make public so that the entire debate seems less ridiculous.

Anonymous poster says:
"Bush looked at the same intelligence 29 Democrat senators did before they voted in favor of the war. This impeachment stuff does not hold water. By the way, was Clinton a step below treason when he bombed Iraq?I smell desperation since all they got was Scooter... "

First of all, the Democratic senators looked at two sources of information. The first was Bush's State of the Union Address and the other was the Senate Committee's findings. The trouble is that the committee had very little oversight (seeing as how it's only a Senate committee, not an international organization or non-governmental organization with the ability to perform investigations in a foreign nation) and had to rely heavily on the findings of other groups like the CIA. The committee already admitted that they screwed up royally - when will Bush apologize? My guess - never.

Second - the impeachment stuff doesn't hold water? I recommend reading the rules and regulations of the Senate. It's a fun read. When you do, you'll find that deliberately ignoring facts in order to persuade the country into war is considered a high form of perjury and is actually legally included in the Senate handbook as an impeachable offense. Whether or not that materializes is entirely dependent on the Senate's findings in the next months regarding whether Bush KNOWINGLY disregarded Wilson's information (or an independent commission, if it gets to that...we should know by 11/14). If he did, you can bet that the impeachment cup will be more than a little full, and that's coming from someone working in a Democratic office in the Senate.

Third - a distinction needs to be made between bombing and invading. Very different military operations in terms of casualties, strategy, the ability to perform "surgical strikes", and legal responsibilities. Bush could have bombed Saddam until he complied and allowed inspectors into his country, but Bush made a decision that invasion was a better strategic option. That being said, Clinton never was in this mess because he never has been accused of deliberately witholding information from the U.S. public in order to manipulate a war in favor or war.

If Clinton did, I'd be as angry at him as at Bush. If Bush did, I'll be the first to say that he probably shouldn't be in office...an opinion that damn well should be echoed by a majority of the country.

Oh, and if you want to know about why Scooter Libby was the only one indicted, read Fitzgerald's comments after the indictment was handed down (the moral of this post is to read more). The indictment specifically states that Cheney was involved and he also says that Rove is still under investigation. Let me say, though, that "just" getting Scooter is misleading - the man was Cheney's Chief of Staff and had considerable power in the White House leading up to his resignation. It's not like the Democrats only got a janitor or a Bush chef. In terms of desperation, if there is any I haven't seen it yet. The crux of the Democratic strategy is not to get everyone indicted...thus not getting more than one person yet is not a crushing defeat. Remember that the Democrats already got DeLay and Libby, with the possibilities of Rove and Frist coming in the next months. They didn't expect any of that - it's not desperation, it's a pleasant surprise.

LONG political explanation

I've been terrible at updating this, but it's 100% because we've got so much to do out here. That being said, it would be a good time to write something, but not about my life b/c nothing is going on for me personally. Instead, I'm going to do everyone a favor and explain what all the huffing and puffing in D.C. is. I've had the pleasure of talking to a few super-republicans in the last week and most of them had literally no idea what was going on and just assumed that it was poor politics. If you are in that boat, do me a favor and at least read the rest of this before you make up your mind.

January 28, 2003: With the Iraq invasion on the horizon, President Bush announces in his State of the Union that: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

July 6th: Nearly 3 months after Baghdad falls, Joe Wilson (a former U.S. Ambassador) writes an op-ed to the New York Times stating that he performed a CIA investigation of the Niger uranium that Bush cited and found it "highly doubtful" that such a transaction could have occurred.

July 11th: George Tenent, the CIA director, says that the uranium should have been left out of the State of the Union address and takes responsibility for the mistake.

July 14th: Robert Novak, a columnist and former CNN correspondent, writes that Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife) is a CIA operative and suggested sending him to Niger, citing "two senior administration officials" for the report. (Note: a 1982 law makes knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.)

September 26th: The Justice Department launches a probe into Plame's identity.

September 29th: Novak refuses to reveal his sources. He states that the CIA asked him not to reveal her identity, but never said that it would put her in any danger.

December 30th: Attourney General John Ashcroft excuses himself from the case, citing a conflict of interest. Pat Fitzgerald, the U.S. attourney in Chicago, is named a special prosecutor to take over the investigation.

May 21, 2004: Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper is subpoenaed. Cooper and Time refuse to comply, but later relent.

June 5th: Dick Cheney is questioned.

June 19th: George W. Bush is questioned, although not under oath. It is announced that Bush has hired a private attourney, Jim Sharp.

July 16th: Colin Powell appears in front of the grand jury investigating the leak.

August 12th: Judith Miller, a writer for the New York Times, is subpoenaed. Miller and the Times refuse to cooperate.

October 7th: U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan holds Miller in contempt of court. 6 days later, he finds Cooper and Time Magazine in contempt.

February 15th, 2005: A 3-judge panel of a federal appeals court denies the combined appeal of Miller, Cooper, the NYT, and Time Magazine. The full court affirms that decision in April. The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case in June.

June 30th: Time Magazine surrenders Cooper's noters to Fitzgerald, arguing that all routes of appeal had been exhausted and Cooper should be spared jail time. Cooper and Miller vow to continue their defiance.

July 3th: A lawyer for top White House advisor Karl Rove says that Rove talked to Cooper before CIA agent Valerie Plame's name became public, but did not disclose anything confidential.

July 5th: Fitzgerald states that Cooper still needs to testify in front of the grand jury and requests to the judge (Hogan) that Miller and Cooper not be allowed to serve any of their sentence under house arrest. The two could face up to 4 months in prison.

July 6th: A federal judge orders Miller jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify to the grand jury regarding her source for the name of the operative. Cooper announces that he has recieved a waiver from his source and will testify to avoid jail time.

July 13th: After days of media rumors that Karl Rove was named as a source by Cooper, Bush declines comment. Cooper testifies.

September 29th: Miller is released 12 weeks later after her source agreed to let her identify him. Her source? Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

October 14th: Rove testifies for the fourth time in front of the grand jury.

October 25th: The New York Times reports (based on lawyers close to the case) that Libby first heard Plame's name from Dick Cheney in a conversation on June 12th, 2003...a month before Novak made it public knowledge. This is in direct conflict with Libby's testimony that he had not heard Plame's name until he was told it by reporters.

October 28th: Fitzgerald announces that he has indicted Libby on 5 counts: 1 - obstruction of justice and 2 each of perjury and making false statements. Libby immediately resigns. Fitzgerald states that he is not done investigating and that more indictments could still come.

November 1st: Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid invokes Rule 21 in the Senate, calling for a closed session (no press, no staff, only Senators) to discuss the White House's involvement in the CIA leak and, more importantly, discuss the investigation regarding Bush's State of the Union and whether it was based on false information. If so, such a statement would be a legally impeachable offense. The Republicans immediately create a 6-member panel to investigate the committee, analyze its progress in the investigation, and determine if a commission similar to the 9/11 commission is necessary.


-------End Factual Timeline---------
-------Start Rumor Mill-------------

Drew's thoughts on the situation:

1. Karl Rove very well could still be indicted. In the last week, he has told his friends that he is still under heavy investigation and is expecting to be in legal trouble. Trent Lott (extreme conservative) has joined the hoardes of democrats and moderates calling for Rove to step down.

2. Libby was the first White House employee ever to be indicted. Ever. All others stepped down first.

3. If Bush is found to have knowingly mislead the public and the Senate into war, it's a step below treason legally. Yes, this is probably more important than Alito and the Supreme Court right now. Yes, this is more important than pre-preparations for the bird flu. Was the Democrats' action extreme and a stunt? Yes. Was it necessary? Probably, b/c if the Republicans have their way, we'll never find out what Bush's role has been.

4. The Committee in the Senate was in charge of 2 things: Finding out what the Senate did wrong in their investigations pre-Iraq and finding out what Bush did wrong. They completed phase one over a year ago, determining that the CIA screwed up. Phase two? Never completed. Never really started, probably. It was postponed, then put off indefinitely until yesterday.


How this all plays out will be interesting, but it's certain that the Republicans are in BIG trouble right now.

Bill Frist? Could be indicted for his illegal stock trading and possible insider information.
Lewis Libby? Already indicted on 5 counts. Resigned.
Karl Rove? Indictment could come in the next week.
Tom DeLay? Already indicted on 2 separate charges. Removed himself from leadership, but refused to resign.
Cheney? Under investigation. Definitely involved as per Fitzgerald's public statements, but likely will get away without an indictment.
Bush? That's the question that the country needs to start asking.

I'd Vote For Him

Thanks to The Carpetbagger Report for this one...

A professor at the University of Southern Maine announced this week a reward of $1 million to anyone who could provide a photograph that leads to the capture of Bigfoot alive.

Loren Coleman, representing Duel Masters, a company that makes toys and trading cards, said the firm would fork over the money for a specimen of the elusive creature, reported the Associated Press.

Days later, however, the company rescinded the offer, fearing someone might get hurt if hordes of heavily armed Bigfoot hunters charged into the woods.

I know what you're thinking: "Hey, this is a political blog. Stop writing about Bigfoot!" Bear with me. This story has an easy-to-overlook political bent, and here it is: I'm convinced Bigfoot is on our side. He's a Democrat, and if we find him he could become a powerful spokesmonster for the progressive cause. I'd like to see the original offer resurrected and the bounty upped to at least $2 million. We need to find America's abominable snowman fast.

Imagine that it's one year from today, and numerous House and Senate races are too close to call. Control of Congress hangs in the balance. That's when we bust out our new commercials:
Cue the soft lights, gentle piano music in the background. Bigfoot sits on a stool, looking kind of casual against a background of earth tones that really accentuates his dark hair. Of course, we've given him a thorough wash and comb and dressed him in some khaki Dockers and a light blue Oxford button-down with an open collar. (Let's hope the big-and-tall store has really big and really tall items.)

He looks directly at the camera and says, "Hi, I'm sasquatch. You might remember me from that 1967 film where I ran through the woods. Yeah, those sure were crazy times… but I'm here today to talk about something much more serious. You see, the Republican Congress really has me worried. Oh, I know people think I'm just a symbol of the rugged spirit of the untamed West — and I suppose I was once. But the Republicans have made it impossible for that spirit to exist anymore. They've logged my forests, polluted my streams and allowed oil companies to rip up my back yard. A guy can't even get a decent night's sleep any more. And don't even get me started on global warming. You try wearing a fur coat all summer long. And you know what else? Like 45 million other Americans, I don't have a health-care plan.

"We have the power to make a difference. Please, go to the polls and vote Democratic this year. Do it for me, your old pal Bigfoot. If you don't, I might have to come and eat your children — just kidding.

"I'm Bigfoot, and I approve this ad."

The big guy has real star power. I think he could easily turn the tide in several states and districts. Let's face it, no one wants to monkey with him.

Hilarious.

A site dedicated to firing Joe Morgan has this analysis of a Skip bayless article on the White Sox. The article is in bold, the comments are... well, are not. Funny Stuff:

And Ozzie Will Cure Malaria in the Third World
Master of hyperbole Skip Bayless:

Ozzie, with help from Orlando Hernandez, kept telling Contreras how good he is until he finally believed them. No pitcher in baseball has been hotter the past couple of months.
That's all he needed: two dudes telling him he's good. It's interesting that Joe Torre never tried that.

Ozzie took an Angels castoff named Bobby Jenks -- a July minor-league call-up -- and turned him into the closer he lacked.
This was a good move. But the real story is how fortunate the White Sox have been to get career years out of journeymen Dustin Hermanson (2.04 ERA this year, 4.21 career ERA) and Cliff Politte (2.00 / 4.06) as well as an amazing year from young Neal Cotts (1.94 ERA after a 5.65 ERA last year).
How much of that was Ozzie? I'm speaking for Bayless when I say 100%.

Ozzie pushed El Duque's button to get the White Sox out of a bases-loaded, no-outs jam against the Red Sox in the sixth inning of Game 3.
He pushed his button. It's that simple.

And of course, Ozzie let his starters finish all nine innings of all four victories over the Angels. No manager in baseball would have been crazy -- or shrewd -- enough to sit on his hands and ignore The Book and his bullpen.
It's possible he should have allowed some members of his bullpen to get some work in so they wouldn't be entering the World Series with a minimum of 11 days off (and that's just Cotts -- no other relief pitcher has thrown in a game since October 7th!). Of course, the ChiSox won those four games, and that's the most important thing, but they likely could have won them and not had their bullpen be that rusty.

That was last year the White Sox played in the World Series. That team had three big stars -- Luis Aparicio, Nellie Fox and Early Wynn.
This team has Ozzie.
You heard it here first: Ozzie will become the first man to pitch five complete games and hit seventeen inside the park home runs in a single game.

Series prediction: Ozzie in 3 (Astros will give up and return to their homes in fear midway through the third game).

YESSSSSSSSS

This weekend at the New Trier Season Opener, Marquette BJ (Gaurav Bhatnagar and Tyler Jackson) reached, at the time of writing, at least the quarterfinals of the tournament. New Trier is a quarterfinals bid to National Tournament of Champions in Lexington, KY. Thus, Marquette received its first bid to the tournament. (You need at least two bids in order to attend the tournament). Congratulations to Gaurav and Tyler.