themcglynn.com/theliberal.net

Everyone has memorable big-letter days in their lives – weddings, births, graduations – such days are too few, but are also somewhat artificial in that they are so unique, and so unlike daily life that they have an almost detached feeling to them. Then there are those remarkable days that happen within the relatively normal ebb and flow of our lives that stand out and never fade away. They stay with you not because they are easy to remember, but rather because they are inescapable and cannot be forgotten, like they are part of your identity.

June 8, 2001 was such a day. The setting of it was by no means my regular or ordinary daily life. Quite to the contrary, it was extraordinary in that Marna and I, before we were married, traveled to Ireland for two weeks. However, it was ordinary in the sense that we were travelling on our own, making provisions on our own, and spending our time together. Every day, Ireland presented something remarkable for our pleasure. Quickly, notions of deadlines, projects, bills, and the daily grind were forgotten. But June 8, 2001, stands out above every other day.

Ireland had a very special feeling. Not to sound trite or cliched, but Ireland felt like home to such an extent that home has never felt quite the same since I returned. To this day, I find myself constantly questioning the speed, modernity, and hassle of our lives. In Ireland, I felt so much more in focus and within myself in the moment, instead of thinking about later that day, or tomorrow, or next week. So with this sense of place, I revisit June 8, 2001 every day of my life.

Marna and I drove into the Dingle Peninsula, located on the very southwest corner of the island. It is a small peninsula that jets out into the Irish Sea and Atlantic Ocean. I say we drove, but Marna had done all of the driving. My skill was keeping us on the map, and her skill was keeping us on the road. We complimented each other perfectly as we never really found ourselves lost or in a ditch. As the day progressed, we stopped in Anascaul – the home of the great Irish antarctic explorer Tom Crean, and where you can still see The South Pole Inn, the pub he operated later in his life – and Dingle – a beautiful town with brightly painted homes and businesses. The day was near perfect, low 70′s, mostly sunny, and no humidity. As beautiful and scenic as Dingle and Anascaul were, it was our drive into the peninsula that stays with me.

It was the town of Inch, and its beach, that is locked into my memory. Inch sits near the base of the Dingle Peninsula and looks out onto Dingle Bay. The bay view further looks out to the confluence of the Irish Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The Inch beach, or strand, is beautiful – it is where parts of Ryan’s Daughter were filmed. And you can drive right down onto it. On this particular day, at this particular hour, at this particular moment, there was no one there but the seagulls and us. It was windy, and the rising hills above the beach acted to funnel the sound of the waves and wind right down onto you. At times it was a near deafening sound, not in a painful way but totally natural. There were enough clouds to give the pure blue sky some context, some comparison. The sun was bright, but the winds kept the air cool. We parked the car, on the beach, and walked around – picking up some shells and stones. Marna and I could hardly not laugh, it was all so perfect and beautiful it almost had to be a joke. While we did very little – no hiking, tanning, or swimming – we were there for quite a while in a stunned state of sensory attachment. Finally, and regrettably, it was time to go.

It easily is the single most idyllic and pure moment I have experienced. There is not a day that passes in which I do not close my eyes and imagine Marna and myself standing barefoot on the sands of the the Inch strand staring out at the waters, sun in our eyes, wind in our hair, crashing waves in our ears. I can still see, feel, and hear it as if it were yesterday.

The White House has raised executive privilege so often lately that one really needs a scorecard to keep track of when and by whom and in response to what inquiry. But one never has to ask why – because they are stonewalling their criminal, civil, moral wrongdoings. If you were on the fence about the legitimacy of the assertion of executive privilege in the U.S. Attorneys scandal, the CIA surveillance probe, or the Vice President’s energy policy formation, just stop and read about Pat Tillman.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NEWS07/70726085/1118/RSS&imw=Y

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2996532

Pat Tillman was a pretty good pro football player for the Arizona Cardinals. After 9/11, he and his brother felt compelled to join the military, and they enlisted in the Marines. Tillman was sent to Afghanistan, maybe the highest profile soldier in the war on terror. Sadly, he was killed. The military orchestrated a nice tribute to him, and he was honored as a war hero who was killed by enemy fire.

But he wasn’t. He was killed by American troops in an incident of “friendly fire.” But that conclusion leaves some doubt as he was shot multiple times in the forehead from a distance of approximately 10 yards. What really makes matters worse is that the military chain of command knew, and directly obfuscated the story and the subsequent investigations. And they knew long before the eulogies, long before the honors, long before the tributes. But they stonewalled and it took three for four inquiries to root out the real story. They have retired a couple officers and generals, with one general facing demotion, and the matter is done.

But it isn’t. Henry Waxman’s congressional committee has subpoenaed the White House for records as to how far and high the cover-up went. Predictably, the White House has claimed executive privilege. Why? Because the sycophant generals who surrounded Bush and Cheney when the White House decided to go into Iraq are implicated, because Bush used Tillman as a non-response response to Abu Ghraib and in the election at a time that he likely knew or should have known.

I would like to say or predict that this will end with just desserts. But I no longer have such faith. Bush has stacked the judiciary so much in his favor, and has successfully placed such loyalists (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11433231) on the District of Columbia federal district and appellate bench and the Supreme Court that there may be no relief, no recourse, no justice.

For those of you who really want commentary worthy of the issues of the day, the choices are clear – Stewart, Colbert, or Olberman.  The “mainstream” media outlets have fallen so far off the charts, that we are left with the (considerable) talents of comedians and former sports anchors pretending to be the media news.  Yet, they do a better job.  Routinely.

Look no further than Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-IN) recent break from the Bush White House on Iraq.  Most of the media played it up, directly or indirectly, as a moral stand of some significance, something approaching a watershed moment.  A moderate-ish Republican breaking ranks.  Here is a sampling of the print media’s coverage:

The New York Times:   Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a steadfast supporter of the president, has conspicuously broken ranks with him on the Iraq war, warning that the United States’ standing in the world could be irreparably eroded if the White House does not change strategy soon…For months, Mr. Lugar has kept his skepticism about the president’s Iraq policy largely to himself, seldom offering anything beyond a hopeful wait-and-see statement. A soft-spoken cardinal of foreign policy, Mr. Lugar is known to his colleagues as anything but a bitter partisan, which made his remarks all the more stinging…

The Washington Post:  …Lugar’s spokesman Andy Fisher said the senator wanted to express his concerns publicly before Bush reviews his Iraq strategy in September.  “They’ve known his position on this for quite a while,” Fisher said of the White House…

Bravo, Sen. Lugar, right?  Well, not really, as Steven Colbert points out.  Go to http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18930/1/TCR-Lugar.wmv/ to see just how courageous this actually was.  Yet, Lugar will be lauded and he’ll get his little parades on the Sunday morning shows.  Timmeh and Schieffer and Stephanopolous will fawn and play the game.  But will anyone poke him with a stick like Colbert?  No, because if the Libby trial showed us anything, the media is much a part of the game as are the politicians.

Lugar is neither courageous nor honest in his actions, but will be treated as such by the media because they need him.  The media is neither responsible nor honest in their coverage of him, but we will watch and listen because we need the media.  We are neither responsbile nor courageous in our diligence, but Lugar will pacify our anger at the war by seeming reasonable.  So who is left as the voice of reason and courage in King Bush’s court?  The jesters, but we kid ourselves into thinking that they are only jesting.

-BooRadley

When Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as the special prosecutor (by acting Attorney General James Comey, with the approval of John Ashcroft no less) on the Valerie Plame leak matter he knew full well what he was getting into.  Not being a well-known commodity on the national level, politicians (blue and red) questioned his credentials.  When asked about this, Fitzgerald presciently stated that “One day I read I was a Republican hack, another day I read I was a Democratic hack.  The only thing I did between those two days was sleep.”  As it would turn out, that was probably the last restful night of sleep he got.

To many uninformed partisan politicos out there, he served as a whipping boy for both camps.  When he indicted only Scooter Libby, national Democratic politicians and bloggers complained of the lack of an indictment on Karl Rove and began to posit conspiracy theories (it was set up in advance by the White House that someone would take the fall as long as it wasn’t Karl); while the national Republican politicians and bloggers cried foul – Libby didn’t violate the law as to outing Plame, so who cares if he lied under oath about it (where were they when Clinton was facing impeachment?).   You could almost look at what happened and think that Fitzgerald took the political out – charging someone but not Rove, which allegedly would have been professional suicide for him.

The truth of the matter, as it often is, is far less exciting.  Fitzgerald made a series of sound principled decisions.  He decided that he could not charge Rove or Libby or anyone else with outing a spy because the President had authorized it, albeit for purely political reasons.  He decided that he could not charge Rove with perjury because, as the criminal statue allows, Rove corrected his testimony – albeit when facing the very real threat of a perjury charge.  He chose to charge Libby with perjury and obstruction because, as a prosecutor in general and as the Special Counsel on the case, he knew how important honest testimony is to conducting a legitimate investigation (no testimony is better than false testimony), and how Libby’s uncorrected lies had shielded others (hello Dick Cheney) from criminal scrutiny and prolonged and obstructed the investigation.

So, with a jury verdict on all counts and a sentence of imprisonment tagged on Libby, Fitzgerald walks away vindicated, the rule of law is upheld, and our system of justice honored.  Sounds good to me.

Well, not so fast.  Here come the Republican primary candidates.  First up, Rudy Guiliani, a former U.S. Attorney in NYC no less.  Surely, he would understand the importance of Fitzgerald’s principled decisions, the jury’s considered verdict, and the judge’s sentence.  He would have Fitzgerald’s back.  Guiliani, previously somewhat circumspect but now feeling the heat of a crowded field, said at the last debate “I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was, and he knew a crime wasn’t committed” and that the sentence was “excessive punishment.” Nice. Of course if Libby’s last name happened to be Gotti…

Mitt “Double Guantanamo” Romney, not to be outstupidified in inane comments, went even further and stated Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion” and was on “a political vendetta” in pursuing perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Libby when he knew the former White House aide was not the original source of the leak. Can’t you hear the Scarecrow singing “if I only had a brain……”

Finally, there is Fred Thompson.  Like Guiliani, he is an attorney and he is a former Assistant United States Attorney.  He even plays an elected district attorney on television in the disgustingly popular Law and Order.  Surely, he can at least fake some support for principled decisions.  Well, no.  As it turns out, he is on Libby’s strategy and fundraising teams and has probably promised Libby a seat at his table should Thompson be the next resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Maybe Thompson could at least be professional in his comments in supporting Libby. 

Thompson starts off generic enough, repeating his criticism of all special prosecutors “When you put too much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable people who have every incentive to focus massive resources onto one particular person — who gets the plaudits in the media for doing so — it’s a bad thing. And many, many times an injustice can occur.”  He then goes further, claiming Fitzgerald brought these charges to justify his existence and expenses as the Special Prosecutor.  Finally, he derides Fitzgerald’s skill and vision as an attorney by stating Fitzgerald is “a fella who can see miles and miles in a straight line, but had no peripheral vision at all and didn’t realize apparently that he was caught up in a bureaucratic political dogfight.”  Right, Fitzgerald didn’t understand the political minefield he was in when he was personally interviewed Bush and Cheney, when he succeeded in having reporters held in contempt for holding back sources, when he was routinely be kicked around in absentia on Sunday morning talkshows.  Yeah, he didn’t get it.

Guys like Rudy, Mittsy, and Freddie will never get it. They will never understand, appreciate, or have use for someone like Fitzgerald or Comey, even though they may be of the same political party.  Comey appreciated the seriousness of the potential crime, so he appointed a bulldog like Fitzgerald.  Fitzgerald dug out the facts and matched them to the principle, so he sought the indictment and got it.  He sought the conviction, and got it.  He sought a prison sentence, and got it.  He sought the truth and justice, and got it.  Rudy, Mittsy, and Freddie simply seek the brass ring, and the price of them getting it is too high for all of us. 

So, as Libby heads toward his inescapable pardon and as the rhetoric heats up, all around, remember that from the start to the end, someone tried to and did make the right decisions, followed and honored the rule of law, and kept it professional the whole time. Somebody got it. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the fired U.S. Atorneys, that and a buck won’t even get you a cup of coffee today.  May the good reputation of Pat Fitzgerald rest in peace.

 –BooRadley

At times, the fired U.S. Attorneys scandal is hard to fully appreciate.  However, it really is far worse than anything you could imagine.  It involves political favoritism, actions politically directed solely to influence elections, perjury, violations of federal laws intended to prevent politicization of career positions, obfuscation of congressional inquiry, and more.  And at the center of it is The Man Who Wasn’t There.

The Man Who Wasn’t There has little recollection of anything about why, when, or how he fired the U.S. Attorneys, but he knows he did it for the right reasons whatever they may be.  The Man Who Wasn’t There has little or no recollection of whether or how the White House was involved in the process, but he knows they would not have been.

And this isn’t the first time The Man Who Wasn’t There wasn’t there.  There are other semi-famous examples, including The Man Who Wasn’t There’s successful effort in getting Bush out of jury duty, thereby keeping his drinking and driving problems a secret.  Yesterday, we finally heard of another example, as former Deputy Attorney General (and former acting Attorney General) James Comey testified as to a story that has been circling around for some time, involving The Man Who Wasn’t There as chief counsel to the presdient.

As Attorney General John Ashcroft lie seriously ill and incapacitated in a hospital bed, and at a time that Comey was the acting Attorney General, the then-unknown NSA “terrorist”-surveillance (i.e. domestic wiretapping) program was coming up for Justice Department approval (it needed to be reauthorized every 30 days).  Comey believed, as the acting AG, that it was unconsitutional.  He had consulted with many, including FBI director Robert Mueller (a former United States Attorney himself) and Aschcroft in reaching this conclusion.  Mind you, we are not talking about a meeting of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Elliot Spitzer, and Pat Leahy.  No, these guys are republicans, likely conservative republicans, possibly Federalist Society members.  And they still deemed the program unconstitutional.  Comey told the White House he would not sign off on it. 

So, The Man Who Wasn’t There and Chief of Staff Andy Card decided to do a night-time end run around Comey and go straight to the incapacitated Ashcroft.  It is like a scene out of Weekend at Bernie’s, where the protagonists are trotting around the corpse of Bernie to convince people that they have his permission for something, with hijinks ensuing.  Comey got clued in to the plot because Ashcroft’s wife called him to say the President called looking to send someone over for the strong-arm.  Comey and his detail raced to the hospital, got there first, and waited with Ashcroft.  The Man Who Wasn’t There and Card showed up and, according to Comey, Ashcroft (who has never commented on the story) summoned the strength to say both that he wouldn’t approve it, and that he couldn’t because Comey was the man.  Card and The Man Who Wasn’t There then slunk out of the hospital without acknowledging Comey.  On his way out, The Man Who Wasn’t There had, according to Comey, “a memorable brief exchange” with Mueller, who had just arrived.

Comey then got summoned to the White House for an even later in the evening meeting with The Man Who Wasn’t There and Card.  Comey, sensed a trap and took Solicitor General Ted Olson (he who argued for Bush in the Bush v Gore Supreme Court debacle) with him as a witness.  So, the guy who argued to get Bush into the White House, whose wife was killed in one of the 9/11 planes, who is Bush-appointed to the position of Solicitor General to argue cases for the government before the Supreme Court, is there for Comey.  Card, apparently fearing that Olson had suppressed liberal political beliefs, refused to let him in the room for the meeting, and Comey relented and commenced the meeting without him.  The Man Who Wasn’t There showed up, and let Olson in for the meeting where Comey refused to back down and sign on to the NSA program.

The next day, the White House, without the required Justice Department attestation to the NSA program’s legality, reauthorized the program as is.  I’m certain that if called to be asked about this, The Man Who Wasn’t There won’t be able to recall much, but will be certain that proper procedures were followed.  The Man Who Wasn’t There will be unable to remember anything so as to substantively defend or explain the propriety of his and the White House’s actions, but he will have the firm conviction of their legality.  The Man Who Wasn’t There will not offer any recollection to substantively contradict Comey’s story, but will be certain that any critical inference to be drawn from it is wrong.

His actions are unclear, uncertain, and, above all, often unverifiable.  He does not know what he has done, but knows it was right.  He’s The Man Who Wasn’t There.

- BooRadley