Month: November 2005

Profiles in cowardice:

“A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq ‘at the earliest practicable date.’ Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill.”

In spite of the pro-Pelosi spin given by Newsweek, this contemptible cowardice on the Democratic House leader’s part makes me ashamed to be a San Franciscan. While Pelosi — who shows up to constituent meetings in $10,000 outfits, bedecked in jewels like some Oriental potentate — keeps her distance, she vicariously gets to enjoy the embarrassment of the Bushies, as she scotches any vote on Murtha’s pro-withdrawal resolution in the House Democratic caucus.

Aside from that, she has yet to apologize to her constituents for voting to endorse the invasion of Iraq. As Stephen Zunes, a professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, points out:

“The day the war broke out in March, San Francisco’s downtown business district was shut down by thousands of anti-war protesters in a spontaneous act of massive civil disobedience. In response, Pelosi denounced the protesters and rushed to the defense of President George W. Bush, voting in favor of a resolution declaring the House of Representatives’ ‘unequivocal support and appreciation to the president …for his firm leadership and decisive action.’ She personally pressed a number of skeptical Democratic lawmakers to support the resolution as well.”

When oh when will the City by the Bay wake up and demand some answers from their Congresswoman?

Meanwhile, this immoral and disgusting war goes on, and we have to continue living in a Bizarro World where phosphorous isn’t a chemical weapon — except when it is.

Send Pelosi and the cowardly Democrats a message: give her a call, and ask her when she’s going to acquire a backbone: 202-225-4965

Benjamin Alpers of Historians Against the War is guest blogging over at the always interesting Liberty & Power.

It looks like Patrick J. Fitzgerald isn’t quite done:

“Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

“In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said “the investigation is continuing” and that “the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment” against Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.

“President George W. Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, was not indicted along with Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove remained under investigation and may still be charged.

“Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame’s position at the agency.

“Fitzgerald’s comments about bringing proceedings before a different grand jury were contained in court filings in which he backed off seeking a blanket order to keep all documents in the CIA leak case secret.”

This ought to dispel the notion — pushed by the Scooter Libby Fan Club — that the Fitzgerald investigation is much ado about nothing. Here is a special prosecutor determined to get to the bottom of Treason-gate — and more power to him!

Neocon media giant Conrad Black was indicted on multiple charges of fraud today. He could get up to 40 years in prison for allegedly stealing $52 million from Hollinger International (part of $80 million allegedly stolen overall). Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (yes, that Patrick Fitzgerald, acting in his normal capacity as US Attorney) will seek the extradition of Black and his accomplices from Canada if they do not surrender themselves voluntarily.

UPDATE: I wonder if a conviction will impede this libel suit. Hehehe.

National Review‘s Rod Dreher on Rep. John Murtha’s change of heart:

Don’t know how many of you caught Rep. John Murtha’s very angry, very moving speech just now in which he called on the White House to institute an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. CNN didn’t air the entire thing, but as I listened to it, I could feel the ground shift. Murtha, as you know, is not a Pelosi-style Chardonnay Democrat; he’s a crusty retired career Marine who reminds me of the kinds of beer-slugging Democrats we used to have before the cultural left took over the party. Murtha, a conservative Dem who voted for the war, talked in detail about the sacrifices being borne by our soldiers and their families, and about his visits out to Walter Reed to look after the maimed, and how we’ve had enough, it’s time to come home. He was hell on the president too.

If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to — and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who’s about the same age, and his hunting buddies — then the president is in big trouble. I’m sure there’s going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously.

Jonah Goldberg gets off to a bold start at the LA Times:

What if Bush did lie, big time? What, exactly, would that mean? If you listen to Bush’s critics, serious and moonbat alike, the answer is obvious: He’d be a criminal warmonger, a failed president and — most certainly — impeachment fodder. Even Bush’s defenders agree that if Bush lied, it would be a grave sin.

But they’d be wrong, see, because FDR lied a lot, too.

Even the most cursory reading of any presidential biography will tell you that statesmanship requires occasional duplicity. If great foreign policy could be conducted Boy Scout-style — “I will never tell a lie” — foreign policy would be easy (and Jimmy Carter would be hailed as the American Bismarck). This isn’t to say that the public’s trust should be breached lightly, but there are other competing goods involved in any complex situation. …

If Bush succeeds — still a big if — the painful irony for Bush’s critics is that he will go down in history as a great president, even if he lied, while they will take their paranoia to their graves.

This last bit doesn’t even make sense, of course, because it ain’t paranoia if it’s true, but Goldberg’s butter-fingered grasp of logic is the least of his problems. Great move, LA Times.