The Blue State

Testimony from Rove's assistant could be last straw leading to indictment

A number of sources are hinting that the hours might be numbered before the indictment of Karl Rove by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald regarding the CIA leak case.  According to The Raw Story blog, Susan Ralston, Rove's former Assistant, provided a testimony that will likely put the nail in the coffin that leads to Rove's indictment:

Rove has remained under intense scrutiny because of inconsistenciesin his testimony to investigators and the grand jury. According tosources, Rove withheld crucial facts on three separate occasions andallegedly misled investigators about conversations he had with Timemagazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

The attorneys say that Rove’s former personal assistant, Susan B.Ralston -- who was also a special assistant to President Bush --testified in August about why Cooper’s call to Rove was not logged.Ralston said it occurred because Cooper had phoned in through the WhiteHouse switchboard and was then transferred to Rove’s office as opposedto calling Rove’s office directly. As Rove’s assistant, Ralstonscreened Rove’s calls.

But those close to the probe tell RAW STORYthat Fitzgerald obtained documentary evidence showing that otherunrelated calls transferred to Rove’s office by the switchboard werelogged. He then called Ralston back to testify.

Earlier this month, attorneys say Fitzgerald received additionaltestimony from Ralston -- who said that Rove instructed her not to loga phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame in July 2003.

Ralston also provided Fitzgerald with more information and“clarification” about several telephone calls Rove allegedly made to afew reporters, including syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the lawyerssaid.

If true, this is perhaps the most significant evidence Fitzgeraldhas obtained suggesting Rove deliberately sought to misleadinvestigators. Her testimony may help Fitzgerald prove that there wereinconsistencies in Rove’s account of his role in the leak and assesswhy he withheld a crucial fact from the prosecutor: that he had spokenwith Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as well as Novak about Plameand confirmed that she was an undercover CIA agent.

Raw Story also indicates that Fitzgerald will present this evidence to the newly-assembled grand jury sometime this week.  This pretty much makes it certain that Rove was one of Novak's sources for the Plame article.  Rove will likely be charged with both obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators.

This news comes just days after Time reporter Viveca Novak agreed to testify in front of the grand jury about her talks with Karl Rove's attorney.

The CIA leak case is picking up steam again, and it could only be a matter of one or two weeks before another possible indictment.  Buckle up, sit back and enjoy the ride!

New Medicare plan might turn out worth while for some

(Courtesy of Milt Priggee, Skagit Valley Herald, Cagle Cartoons)

New Hampshire Democrats plead with national party to keep early primary

There has been talk in recent weeks among inner circles within the Democratic Party about changing the schedule for the 2008 primaries.  That has New Hampshire Democrats worried.  Fearing that their early primary will be preempted by some heartland states, New Hampshire Democrats have outlined a counter-proposal (AP):

"We need to decrease front-loading, increasediversity, recognize Iowa and New Hampshire laws and traditions andhave a calendar that will let us elect a Democrat to the White House,"said Kathleen Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.She said her state's proposal would limit the number of early contestswhile assuring diversity. The populations of Iowa and New Hampshire arepredominantly white.

In plain English, what this means is New Hampshire Democrats want to remain the second contest at all cost, right behind Iowa.  Because of the lack of racial diversity in both Iowa and New Hampshire, they would be willing to recommend having states with more diverse demographics go immediately following their state.

In a nut-shell, the proposal by New Hampshire Democrats would not change anything really.  There is something troubling about having very minimally diverse states like Iowa and New Hampshire go first.  As I outlined in an earlier column about one month ago, the Democrats might want to try switching Iowa and New Hampshire with Ohio and a Southwestern state like New Mexico or Nevada.  Why Nevada?  The state is home to the fastest-growing area in the country: Las Vegas/Henderson.  Places like these all across the country were where the Democrats found themselves trounced in the 2004 general election.  Since the early states usually decide it all, I would like to see an area like Las Vegas (meaning Henderson), a model for 21st century development, have a major say in picking our candidate and hopefully help turn things around in 2008.

Other possible states that we might be smart to make the top-two primary destinations are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oregon, Missouri or even West Virginia.

Cunningham becomes latest in GOP's continuous string of scandals

The GOP scandals keep on coming.  Republican U.S. Congressman from California Randy Cunningham is going to plead guilty to tax violations (AP):

In November 2003, he sold his Del Mar, Calif.,home to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000. Wade put thehouse back on the market and sold it after nearly a year for $975,000 —a loss of $700,000 in one of the nation’s hottest housing markets.

Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, used the proceeds from the sale to buy a $2.55 million mansion in ritzy Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.

Wadealso let Cunningham live rent-free on his yacht, the Duke Stir, at theCapital Yacht Club. His firm, MZM Inc., donated generously toCunningham’s campaigns.

Aroundthe same time, MZM was winning valuable defense contracts at a timewhen Cunningham sat on the House Appropriations subcommittee thatcontrols defense dollars. In 2004 the little-known company based inWashington, D.C., tripled its revenue and nearly quadrupled its staff,according to information posted on the company Web site.

Thoughhe denied wrongdoing when he announced in July that he wouldn’t seekre-election, Cunningham himself acknowledged that the sale didn’t lookgood.

Many strategists are encouraging the Democrats to hurry up and formulate their own strategy to win back a majority of Congress in the 2006 midterm election.  But with the way things are going now with all these scandals, the GOP are writing Democratic strategy for them.

The Administration tries to assume victim status on Iraq

While the Administration condemns Democrats for challenging the President on prewar intelligence, they must remember that the rhetoric regarding intelligence coming from the minority side of the isle in Congress is no different than what former Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted a few months ago.

I second what William Raspberry of the Washington Post said in his column today -- titled, "We're Past Politics" -- about how these smears coming from the strategy team at the White House are without merit:

Colin Powell, who -- unwittingly, I believe -- passed alongsome of the cooked evidence, is on record as having changed his mind.As Powell told Barbara Walters in September, when he made his dramaticshow-and-tell presentation before the U.N. Security Council, there were"people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some ofthese sources were not good and shouldn't be relied upon, and theydidn't speak up. That devastated me. . . . It's a blot . . . [that]will always be a part of my record."

Powell isnobody's flip-flopper. People who wanted a certain conclusion gave himbad information and he passed it on -- to his regret. Can't members ofCongress who believed the bad evidence enough to vote us into war alsoexperience regret?

Except they didn't really vote usinto war. As I recall, that vote authorizing the president to use forceagainst Iraq was analogous to a trade union's strike vote. Whennegotiations bog down, union leaders often will ask their members for aresolution authorizing a strike. For members to refuse such a votewould cripple their own leadership. But to grant it is not the same asending negotiations and launching a strike. It is a way of steeling theleadership, giving it a powerful negotiating tool.

Again, for the millionth time, most of the Democrats voted to authorize the President to use force as a last resort.  The vote was also intended to give political leverage to the President in his successful attempt to get weapons inspectors back into the country.  Democrats like John Kerry and John Edwards are now saying, knowing what they know now about both intelligence and the secretive effort by the Administration to make war the only course of action, that they would have voted against the war resolution.  What is wrong with that?  Congress was manipulated.  They were the victim, the American people were the victim and our post-Cold War foreign policy was the victim.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were anything but victims here.  Don't be surprised if we listen to the President continue to play out his victim status in Wednesday's speech.

Just in time for the midterms

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek predicts a troop withdrawal by November 2006, just in time for the midterm elections.  I don't think there is one person reading this blog that cannot not see the logic in that.  By now we know how Karl Rove's brain works:

There is talk among Republican strategists that Bush could build hisState of the Union address next year around the promise of bringing thetroops home from Iraq. The difference between withdrawing andre-deploying is in the eyes of the beholder, but we’re seeing thebeginnings of a stampede among politicians to re-position themselves.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq, it will be our job not to allow swing voters to forget all the GOP scandals: Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Bob Taft, Robert Ney, Dick Cheney, and John Bolton (oh, and don't forget Katrina -- that was sure some effective management).

Video: Wallace distorts fact in interview with Levin

Here's a clip from FOX News Sunday yesterday, as conservative host John Wallace distorted the truth in his interview with Democratic Senator Karl Levin (C & L):

Click to view >>> (QuickTime) (Windows Media Player)

What Levin failed to point out was the reality that Bush was not the only person responsible for making the American people believe that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11.  FOX News was equally, if not more, responsible for portraying that false perception.

Making sense of all the nonsense

Ever get annoyed with how Republicans try to re-write the dictionary, such as badmouthing the word "liberal" (which actually means "open to change")?  Well, here are a few examples of some definitions found in Katrina Vanden Heuvel's dictionary of Republicanisms:

bankruptcy n. A punishable crime when committed by poor people but notcorporations [Beth Thielen, Studio City, Calif.].

China n. See Wal-Mart [Rebecca Solnit, San Francisco, Calif.].

class warfare n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage [Don Zweir,Grayslake, Ill.].

compassionate conservatism n. Poignant concern for the very wealthy[Lawrence Sandek, Twin Peaks, Calif.].

creationism n. Pseudoscience that claims George W. Bush's resemblance toa chimpanzee is totally coincidental [Brian Sweeney, Providence, RI].

energy independence n. The caribou witness relocation program [JustinRezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

girly men n. Males who do not grope women inappropriately [Nick Gill,Newton, Mass.].

laziness n. When the poor are not working [Justin Rezzonico, Keene,Ohio].

leisure time n. When the wealthy are not working [JustinRezzonico, Keene, Ohio].

neoconservatives n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes [Matthew Polly,Topeka, Kans.].

9/11 n. Tragedy used to justify any administrative policy, especially ifunrelated (See Deficit, Iraq War) [Dan Mason, Durham, NH].

ownership society n. A civilization where 1 percent of the populationcontrols 90 percent of the wealth [Michael Albert, Piscataway, NJ].

Patriot Act n. 1. The pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to preventthe terrorists from destroying them first. 2. The elimination of one ofthe reasons why they hate us [Michael Thomas, Socorro, NM].

pro-life adj. Valuing human life up until birth [Kevin Weaver, SanFrancisco, Calif.].

simplify v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors [Katrina vandenHeuvel, New York, NY].

voter fraud n. A significant minority turnout [Sue Bazy,Philadelphia, Pa.].

Wal-Mart n. The nation-state, future tense [Rebecca Solnit, SanFrancisco, Calif.].

Wait!  Don't stop reading yet.  I have some of my own:

Veteran n. A status valid until becoming a Democrat [See Murtha, Kerry, and Cleland]

Social Security Privatization n. Legislation that increases the dependence that poor grandmothers have on shows such as CNBC's "Mad Money" to manage their new stock portfolios.

Zell Miller n. Wacko until loved as a Republican.

I'm sure that we could go on all day with this.

Bolton helps intensify growing rift between US and Britain

No more taking our ally Great Britain for granted.  With both American and British citizens growing more impatient towards both the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq, Tony Blair's cabinet is beginning to show signs of parting ways with the United States.  In a low-profile disagreement between U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and the British government, an alarming message has been sent to the White House that they had better be careful of how hard they try to order their strongest ally around (Daily Telegraph):

Britain has rejected a proposal by John Bolton,America's combative ambassador to the United Nations, to block theupcoming UN budget as a tactic to push through disputed reforms.

Therare public disagreement between the two close allies comes as theshowdown over reforms at the UN's New York headquarters becomesincreasingly acrimonious.

Britain has rebuffed a Bolton move to join him inrefusing to pass the organisation's 2006 budget until member statesapprove wide-ranging management reforms.

To theirritation of Mr Bolton, many developing nations are bitterly opposedto changes that they claim are driven by American political pressure.He suggested last week that talks on the 2006 and 2007 budgets could bepostponed as a means to overcome the trenchant resistance from the"G77" bloc of developing countries. He also threatened that the UnitedStates could seek an alternative to the UN for solving internationalproblems in future.

Again, like all progressive bloggers warned during Bolton's nomination process, this was a very bad pick for U.S. Ambassador to the UN.  Who is going to take this guy seriously?  We are finding out very fast that not even our greatest ally wants to accept Bolton's radical platform.

With regard to Bolton's desire to "seek an alternative to the UN for solving international problems in the future," let's not forget that in 2002 the UN handled the Iraq situation very well.  The international body helped force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back into the country -- that was until Bush kicked them out to start the bombing prematurely. 

More CIA leak news

According to the December 5th edition of Time Magazine, columnist Viveca Novak will be the latest reporter to testify in the CIA leak case (AP):

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperatingwith Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leakof CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazinereported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath aboutconversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written orcontributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature ofwhat was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporterwho testified in the case.

This cooperation on the part of Viveca Novak comes just days after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied being Bob Woodward's source in the Washington Post editor's discovery about the identity of Valerie Plame.  Within the last week, Condoleezza Rice has also denied being the source.  Woodward has also said that he can say for sure that Bush was not the source of the leak.

Over the last seven days, Woodward has done a whole lot of talking about an investigation that is still ongoing.  It looks as if someone is trying to get some free advertising for an upcoming book!