"Your stupid presidency's dead, Jim --- er, George." Good stuff on dKos.

[iconoclastic cat]

Yep. I think so. But be careful, because he's getting desperate.

Read these for your morning pickup:

Bush's Splendid Little War

by Armando
Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 00:55:05 EDT

adigal has already pointed us to Frank Rich's momentous column on the Iraq Debacle. While it is of course worthy of a number of full readings, three parts stood out for me.

First:

In an interview with Tim Russert early last year, Mr. Bush said, "The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me, as I look back, was it was a political war," adding that the "essential" lesson he learned from Vietnam was to not have "politicians making military decisions." But by then Mr. Bush had disastrously ignored that very lesson; he had let Mr. Rumsfeld publicly rebuke the Army's chief of staff, Eric Shinseki, after the general dared tell the truth: that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq. To this day it's our failure to provide that security that has turned the country into the terrorist haven it hadn't been before 9/11 - "the central front in the war on terror," as Mr. Bush keeps reminding us, as if that might make us forget he's the one who recklessly created it.

(more)

Next:

WaPo Says BushCo Lowering Expectationsby Coldblue Steele
Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 23:20:41 EDT

(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page)

The wheels are coming off and fast. The contradicting views on Iraq that GW and the Pentagon expressed this past week are about to explode. From tomorrows Washington Post; Page A01

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

But I thought we were told that "we're makin' progress"? No?

And this:

Rove Is Toast - The Intelligence Identities Protection Act

by brainwave
Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 17:54:24 EDT

Update <2005-8-13 17:54:24 by Armando>: From the diaries by Armando. How do you prove criminal intent? By direct and circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not a criminal lawyer, but proving intent is done in the same manner in civil cases, except the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In certain civil actions, for example, proving an antitrust conspiracy, the SCOTUS has created artificial evidentiary burdens for "policy" reasons. Indeed, it is my view that it is easier to be convicted of criminal antitrust violations than be found liable for some civil antitrust violations. So the notion that it will be difficult to prove intent always rang false to me. This diary discusses this fact in detail quite effectively. Is Rove Toast? Who knows. But a good diary.

Which nail to hang Rove, Libby, and the rest of the cabal on? On the leak itself, that is, as opposed to the cover up, which is a crime unto itself (lest we forget). Elizabeth de la Vega at TomDispatch.Com and in an op-ed in the LA Times lays down the case for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Read on... (nerd alert: I'm adding a bonus discussion - TraitorGate for philosophy nerds!)

The debate has been raging over the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 vs. section 793 of the Espionage Act of 1917. John Dean famously made the case for the Espionage Act; a recent diary by seesdifferent argues to the same effect. A few weeks ago, an excellent diary by davidgmills laid out the case for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Now Elizabeth de la Vega at TomDispatch.Com and in an op-ed in the LA Times drives home the same points David did, in a crisp and quite forceful fashion.

(If ever you get lost in the Plame Affair jungle, I recommend the comprehensive and as always up-to-the-minute Wikipedia summary.) Who's Elizabeth de la Vega?

ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA recently retired after more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Northern California. A longer version of this article is appears on www.TomDispatch.com

I've never heard of her, but I swear I'll remember her name now. But let's begin at the beginning. There appears to be little doubt that the Plame leak should be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) in an ideal world, as this is exactly the kind of case IIPA was designed for. In a nutshell, IIPA says:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent`s intelligence relationship to the U.S. ."

(more)

And finally, this:

David Margolis Another Patrick Fitzgerald (Bad News for Rove)

by pontificator
Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 10:03:09 EDT

UCLA Public Policy Professor Mark A.R. Kleiman has been blogging about Plame-Gate practically since Novak's infamous article first came out. His blog post yesterday should lay to rest any worries about the appointment of David Margolis to supervise Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation.

It appears Kleiman knows the guy:

On his way out the door, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who chose junkyard dog Patrick Fitzgerald to run the Plame scandal investigation, has chosen senior junkyard dog David Margolis to supervise Fitzgerald once Comey leaves.

This is truly bad news -- for the bad guys.

Margolis made his prosecutorial bones doing organized crime cases, eventually rising to Chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, from which position he supervised the seventeen Organized Crime Strike Forces which more or less won the war on the Mafia. (That's when I got to know him.) Margolis has a stratospheric IQ, has been known to wear Willie Nelson t-shirts to work, is used to long investigations using somewhat edgy investigative techniques, and can't be intimidated by anybody.

I'm feeling giddy -- LOL!
(more)

But don't worry. These bastards have some nasty crap up their sleeves, I'm sure.

[blue sky at night]

1. wow, nice work, now all I need is a study guide.......

and the rest of the day to go over this. But it really looks good from a quick first read. I am nominating it.

[glitch]

2. Wow - I hope this is true about Margolis. The people to take on bushco

need to be experienced in organized crime and racketeering.
This guy sounds perfect.

[bvar22]

3. Combine All of that with:

Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, and the arrest of Jack Abramoff ,
and we had a pretty good week.

The WHEELS ARE falling off!

NOW is NOT the time to move to the Center!
NOW is the time to RALLY the BASE and drive a STAKE through the Cold, Black, Heart of Corporatism!

[Peace Patriot]

4. Recommended! Must reads! They'll put that twinkle back in your eyes!

I think it's hilarious that an old leftie like me is cheering on the CIA and hardass prosecutors! I guess even us lefties have to learn not to color everybody with the same crayons.

-----

Now we have the "good CIA" which is apparently trying to prevent a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, and the "bad, Bush-purged CIA" which is trying to create one; and the "good FBI" which was trying to track Bush/Saudi money and get into Zacharias Mousaoui's computer before 9/11--and the "bad, Bush-purged FBI" which is trying to keep the 9/11 dyke from bursting, and is meanwhile rousting US citizens out of their beds with allegations of "terrorism" because they can't seem to read fingerprints correctly any more. Let's hope Bushite incompetence--lack of interest in good government and in facts--will do them in.

Speaking of Bushite incompetence...

Doesn't anybody else think it was crazy, the way they outed Plame--involving at least SIX reporters, and many top Bushites, and circulating the Plame memo on AF-1, etc.--putting them all at high risk of treason charges, just to "punish" Wilson? Why the rush?

Here's my guess, in a nutshell: On July 7, 2003, Tony Blair was informed that the Brits' top WMD expert, David Kelly, who had been whistleblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" intel, "could say some uncomfortable things." Could say. Not HAD said. (It's in the Hutton report.) Spec: Blair calls Bush. Panic on AF-1. 'Call everybody you know; get her outed NOW--don't wait. No time to consult lawyers; no time to get our cover stories just right--do it NOW!' July 14: Plame outed (by Novak). July 18: Kelly found dead, under extremely suspicious circumstances; his office and computers searched. July 22: The SECOND Plame outing, of the entire CIA WMD operation--Brewster Jennings (Novak).

WHAT HAPPENED? Spec: Kelly had stumbled upon, and perhaps helped foil a plot to PLANT nukes or other WMDs in Iraq for the enormous political gain (and to rescue Judith Miller's news career); Plame/CIA/Brewster Jennings--covert eyes and ears on WMDs around the world--were in a position to find out, or had also helped foil their dirty little plan. They found some connection in Kelly's computers. Thus, the second outing of the entire WMD project, on July 22.

Good theory--holds up really well.

Note: I do think they had a plot to "get" Wilson and the CIA--but there is evidence that his article was expected, and no obvious reason for the haste and stupidity in the way they outed Plame, and for compounding their crime by outing BJ as well. I suspect that the two things--Plame and Kelly--intersected on July 7, and that the info about Kelly greatly accelerated the plot to disable Plame/BJ, leading to reckless and foolish actions that opened them all to prosecution. Wilson published on July 6, but I I think the real trigger for their high risk actions came the next day, July 7, when Blair was warned about what Kelly "could say."

As I said, it holds up well. It suits the Kelly story really well (his character and motives, and why he might have been killed--what ELSE he knew), and it solves a number of mysteries in the Plame affair--like why the entire regime seems to have gotten into it, and why so much outside risk was permitted (a half a dozen journalist witnesses). The Bush Cartel usually covers its tracks better than that. (Granted, one of the motives may have been to point the finger away from Cheney on the Niger forgeries--i.e., that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, not Cheney. Still, there had to have been less risky ways to get that done. Rove is supposed to be a genius at dirty tricks, right?)

[Tuesday_Morning]

5. I agree

It's a good theory.

And it makes sense, doesn't it, that they would have been making plans to plant WMDs in Iraq? It probably seemed so simple and would justify everything.