Corruption: Systems versus People

There are currently three stories of major corruption in Washington: the EPA corruption scandal (in which the White House changed reports, bullied administrators, and now issued a gag order); the DOJ corruption scandal (in which Monica Goodling, senior liaison to the White House, asked DOJ job applicants, "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" and "Why are you a Republican?" When one applicant expressed admiration of the Secretary of State, Goodling frowned: "But she's pro-choice." Goodling even committed crimes, as when she sacked Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen because of a rumor Hagen was gay), and now the Ted Stevens corruption scandal (the breaking news in which the aging Alaska senator was indicted on seven charges of corruption for taking kickbacks).

I wrote about this at BlueOregon this morning, but it bears repeating: this stuff is not usual. It is corruption of the kind functioning western democracies should never see, much less see in a single issue of a newspaper. The collective yawn directed at the first two does not bode well. Based on the early internet reaction, the Stevens news is getting more play, but that's probably because a bigger horse's ass has rarely served in the Senate; whenever a jerk goes down, there are always lots of rubberneckers.

But Stevens' corruption is usual, ironically. Throughout American history, there have always been pols on the take. More disturbing is the corruption of agencies of the government--this is far more damaging to the republic and not so easily remedied. Once the institutions of government have become corrupt, it's difficult to uncorrupt them. Power is like electricity--it flows along the course of least resistence. Once it become usual (and politically acceptable) to alter reports, apply loyalty tests, and lie to the public, it is hard to back off. Will Democrats use their power more wisely now that the Republicans have begun to remove resistence in the agencies of government?

Not Substantiated by Available Intelligence

Way back when--even before I knew what a blog was--I started keeping a journal of the crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush White House. It evolved into Notes on the Atrocities, the blog, which was really my way to document what I could about unspun reality of Washington. So it is no news to me that Bush lied about Iraq. But now it's official. This, from a memo by Jay Rockefeller, who just released two Senate reports (with long, bureaucratic titles): "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information" and "Report on Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq Conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans Within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy."

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
• The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Even in the gentle bureaucratese of Washington, "not substantiated by available intelligence" is well understood to mean "lies."

Let history be the judge.

A McCain Observation

Reacting to the news that straight-talkin' maverick John McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist to whom he later showered gubmint lucre, righties have two responses:

1. The NYT is corrupt, duh, and
2. Why didn't they run the story earlier?

First one who sees what's wrong with these positions gets a gold star.

(Hint: logical consistency has not been a hallmark of the current right wing smear machine.)

Would Should Schumer Do?

Chuck Schumer has egg on his face thanks to the Mukasey debacle. He recruited this guy, offered him as a decent conservative, and then discovered during committee hearings that the guy is pro-torture.* (Wise lawyers always say don't ask a witness a question unless you know the answer you're going to get; the political analogue: don't nominate a guy for AG unless you know he's anti-torture.) Now he's getting roasted for voting for Mukasey, both for being himself pro-torture and for being a toady and sell-out to the White House. The first charge is baseless, but the second has merit.

Schumer's not condoning torture. He arranged for Mukasey to become AG because he feared a worse nominee, who wouldn't have gotten Senate approval and whom Bush would install as a recess appointment. According to Schumer's logic, Bush's choice would arguably be worse than the Yoo-aided Gonzales regime. On all of this, I believe he's right. (Though it doesn't excuse his embarrassing orchestration of events.)

But on the second issue, I think the critics are right. While it's important not to go nuclear against the GOP (some adults have to step forward and govern), there are lines over which no Dem should ever step. Authorizing war with a non-threatening Iraq was one example, and Mukasey is another. In both cases, Dems become complicit in immoral and illegal acts. We are still in Iraq, and Bush is still in the White House, because the compromised Dems have not been able to find a unified position in the aftermath of their votes for the war. If Mukasey becomes AG, which is now almost a sure bet, the Democratic party, with majority in the Senate, will own whatever acts he authorizes. In two years time, the party will be saddled with the shame and responsibility of having signed off on this guy.

Yes, it would be catastrophic if Bush put in an AG on recess who conspired with the White House to commit further illegal acts and consolidate further power in the executive branch. But it would be Bush's crimes, and they would be correctable. Instead, this will usher in another chapter of presidential misdeeds for which there will be no accountability.

________________
*Yesterday on BlueOregon, Reed Poly Sci prof Paul Gronke disputed this characterization. I don't see how it's inaccurate or unfair, however. Bush nominated a guy who will--quite reasonably--not prosecute him for war crimes for, among other things, committing torture. Waterboarding's status isn't unclear: it's torture according to the Geneva conventions. And something more: we're not sure Bush's "coercive interrogations" were limited to waterboarding. So yeah, if you're the AG and you refuse to prevent the President from torturing people, spade a spade, you're pro torture.

Irony

There's a word for this.

"What I do know is that Republicans, as they have in the past, when you have members that have problems or scandals and they are found guilty--the Republican Party does the right thing and kicks them out."

That's Tom DeLay, who is speaking without apparent reference to his own situation, perfectly ignorant to the stunning irony he invokes. Yeah, this is a party on the move.

Gonzo Bids Adieu

A satisfying way to begin the day: Alberto Gonzales' resignation. Yet I remain ambivilent; as when Ari Fleischer stepped down, the Dems lose an unpopular figure to kick around. Since this is analysis-proof (what're you gonna say?), here's a smattering of the reax from around the right-o-sphere, where unintentional irony and delusion are the order of the day:

Hindrocket/Powerline
"Gonzales's only real offense seems to have been mediocrity. But mediocrity in an Attorney General is nothing new (think Janet Reno), and any blame for this occurrence properly attaches to the White House."

Robert Bork
The price to America of driving Alberto Gonzales from office, if such a scenario unfolds, will be heightened polarization and peril.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO
Gonzales is now available for a SCOTUS nomination.

[An unintentionally funny righty makes an intentional (and funny) joke.]

President Bush
"Al Gonzales is a man of integrity, decency and principle. ...After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision. It's sad that ... his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

[Words fail.]

Protein Wisdom
"In other words, after having smeared a man into ruin, I knew the left would turn around and immediately affect a conciliatory tone, and press the President to join them in their sudden need to raise the level of discourse."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
"I thank Alberto Gonzales for his public service and wish him well in his future endeavors. It is my hope that whomever President Bush selects as the next attorney general, he or she is not subjected to the same poisonous partisanship that we've sadly grown accustomed to over the past eight months."

[Almost cosmically ironic.]

Captain's Quarters
A lot of politicians have accused Gonzales of crimes without providing any evidence, and in the end, they couldn't find any even with unfettered room to conduct investigations for half a year. The Democrats have wound up empty on both investigations and legislation, and now they have little to show for the first half of this session.

[Not true. The Times actually ran a piece yesterday documenting the number of laws passed in this session--it far outweighs the previous, GOP-led Congress. But I digress.]

Orrin Hatch
"I hope that history will remember Attorney General Gonzales for his honorable service to his country, rather than for the absurd political theater to which some critics have subjected him."

[Yes, that's exactly what they're remember him for.]

Brit Hume
“He was a man almost without fans in Washington…he was, simply, a crony.”

Rove's Legacy

I don't know that I would say anything different than I did on BlueOregon, so here's that post...

Last week, the feds announced that they planned to precipitously increase logging on Bureau of Land Management lands across Oregon, including on lands inhabited by the Northern Spotted Owl and including old-growth stands. The proposal will be held open for public comment through next year, allowing Oregon's old wounds to open up and fester again just in time for the November election. I don't have any evidence that the the motivation behind the proposal is to boost Republican chances in the US Senate and Presidential race, but it's exactly what we've come to expect from the Bush administration--a corrupt, politicized style that favors elective wins above good governance. From the way it has run the justice department to the Plame leak the current furor over the Klamath river salmon kill, everything this administration does is designed to increase its political advantage.

We have Karl Rove to thank. He announced today that he's going to leave the White House, but it's a good six years too late.

Rove was a genius of sorts. He managed to get George W. Bush, a man of no accomplishment or vision, elected not only to the Texas governorship, but to the White House--twice. Rove had an instinctive sense about how to divide voters so that just a bare majority supported his woeful candidate, and a knowledge of election tactics that has been unequaled in the last couple decades. Unfortunately, that same "genius" led him to infect the policies of government. There was no policy he couldn't tinker with to punish Democrats or rally Republicans, whether the subject was tax cuts or terrorism.

The short-term result was a series of catastrophic failures of governance and the most incompetent administration in a century. Long term, the results may even worse. Trust has been absolutely undermined between the parties and among citizens. Punitive politics is the currency of the day; genuine bipartisanship and serious consideration of solution-based policies a thing of a quaint, distant past. It will take years or decades to clean up this mess.

I would love to celebrate the departure of this most malign, nasty figure in American politics. Unfortunately, his legacy is such that I don't have any confidence that his successors will be any different.

Tin-Pot "Democracy"

A reminder, from one of the bloggers who impugned the antiwar left in the run up to the war:

But when you have an unhinged, incompetent fanatic in power, unable to recognize let alone govern reality, sometimes you have to pick the least worst option. And when the "conservatives" explode entitlements, lose wars, legalize torture, violate the Constitution or abuse it for electioneering, what's a real conservative supposed to do? Sometimes, punishing a party for its betrayal of core principles is a necessary act of cleansing.

Yes, he's a Republican, albeit a gay, English-immigrant Republican (still no movement in the Texas wing of the party). What he's talking about can be seen in the testimony given by Sara Taylor last week, which I've been meaning to post for days now. It is a rather shocking spectacle and will remain in my memory as one of those pitch-perfect metaphors for our current government:

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: And then you said, "I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously." Did you mean, perhaps, that you took an oath to the Constitution?

SARA TAYLOR: I ahh, ahh, I--yes. Yeah, you're correct; I took an oath to the Constitution, but what--

LEAHY: Did you take a second oath to the President?

TAYLOR: I did not. What I should have said--

LEAHY: So the answer was incorrect.

TAYLOR: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said was I took an oath, I took that oath seriously, and I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.

LEAHY: No, the oath is that you take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know the President refers to the govenment as being his government, but it's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.

President, Führer, constitution. It's all the same, right?

Biggest Crime?

Question: is the White House orchestrated firing of federal prosecutors the biggest crime Bush is accused of?

Answer: Yes.

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress. . . .

Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

The test of a real democracy is the independence of its judiciary. Bush sought to subvert it for purely political gain. Watergate looks like a fraternity prank by comparison.

Time For Congressional Hearings

The best result from the Scooter Libby trial would not be seeing Scoot sit in the pokey. Americans may want a pound of flesh for the crimes, lies, and guile of the administration and its incredible con job about Iraq, but we don't want it from Lewis Libby. Until this scandal broke, no one even knew his name. He may be the highest official convicted of crimes in modern American history, but that doesn't mean he's a significant player in the larger drama. In fact, the whole Plame affair turned out to be a distraction and a proxy battle for the investigations that should now ensue:

• Did the Bush administration commit any crimes when it rigged the evidence to support an invasion of Iraq?
  
• Were crimes committed when the administration farmed out its war in no-bid contracts to major donors (and past employers) of the White House?
• Did the administration break laws in its covert torture efforts (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, secret rendition, black sites)?
• Did the administration illegally spy on Americans?

The current case about fired prosecutors is instructive. Respected judges were fired because they failed to carry the White House's water:

The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday. . . .

Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.

Normally, the vacancies would be filled by nominees approved by the Senate, but the White House had managed to subvert this via the Patriot Act, that grab-bag of executive giveaways:

Democrats say the administration is exploiting a little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to select new federal prosecutors without getting Senate confirmation. Critics say the Justice Department targeted those who did not bend to the demands of either the White House or top GOP lawmakers.

The White House has used its office, a compliant GOP Congress, and the bombings of 9/11 to subvert the law at every opportunity. Hell, Bush admits as much in his 600-plus "signing statements," in which Bush approves a law but exempts himself from it.

The rule of law functions in the US because we have checks on branches of power. Scooter Libby's conviction means little in the scope of administration malfeasance, but it could become a powerful symbol that the other branches still protect the Constitution. The Congress should use this moment--and the Libby conviction--as an opportunity to begin holding serious hearings to find out what actual violence the Bush administration has committed against the Constitution.

Libby Guilty; Pokey in Future?

We won't have Scooter Libby to kick around any more; he was found guilty today on four of five charges:

A federal jury today convicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, finding the vice president's former chief of staff guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice, while acquitting him of single count of lying to the FBI.

The verdict, reached by the 11 jurors on the 10th day of deliberations, culminated the seven-week trial of the highest-ranking White House official to be indicted on criminal charges in modern times.

Question: will he serve a day for this, or is his Presidential pardon all but guaranteed? Probably guaranteed--but wouldn't a pardon indicate presidential complicity? Maybe Bush doesn't care.

Nancy Pelosi, who has a blog (who knew?), piled on:

This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

Good news, I suppose, but what will we all talk about now?

Sweet Irony

1.
"A federal judge today ordered former Congressman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) to serve 30 months in prison for accepting gifts, favors and campaign contributions in exchange for official actions, making the six-term congressman the first elected official to be sent to prison in the influence-peddling investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities."

2.
"Senate Democrats and Republicans broke a difficult stalemate last night and approved 96 to 2 expansive legislation to curtail the influence of lobbyists, tighten congressional ethics rules and prevent the spouses of senators from lobbying senators and their staffs."

A Few Words on FISA

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful."
--President Bush, Jan 15, 2005

Here in Oregon, we had a rare snowstorm that blanketed the ground with a dense four inches, effectively shutting the city down for two days. Thus have I been lounging. However, this little bit of news did manage to register on my drowsy radar:

The Bush administration said yesterday that it has agreed to disband a controversial warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency, replacing it with a new effort that will be overseen by the secret court that governs clandestine spying in the United States.

It turns out we did have an "accountability moment"--it just came in '06, not '04. The drumbeats of this moment have only begun, but it appears Bush is taking no chances--he's trying to scurry back to the right side of the law. Maybe it will work. He's a crook, but the legal accountability now rests with the Congress who, for six years, have let the President break whatever laws didn't tickle his fancy. My cynicism prevents me from regarding this with a lot of hope.

Take what we can get, I guess....