Bryan Strawser

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics

Politics

MG Webster speaks his mind

by ·

In today’s Washington Post, Major General William Webmaster had a few words to say about setting a date to leave Iraq:

A top American commander in Iraq on Wednesday denounced calls by some U.S. senators and others for a deadline on withdrawal from Iraq, calling that “a recipe for disaster” for the 2 -year-old war.

“Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I’ve lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain,” said Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq’s capital.

Do you want to see the deed through to the end? Or do you want to set a date to come home?

You can’t have both.

The right thing to do is to see this through to the end – a free Iraq that is able to protect itself both internally and externally from those that would wish a democratic government ill.

That might be three months from now, it could be three years from now, it may be ten years from now.

Setting an arbitrary date is ignorant, stupid, ill-conceived, and certainly doesn’t support the troops.

Want to have a reason for over two thousand men and women to have died in vain? Set a date to go home before the battle is won.

On Lewis Libby, Fitzgerald, and Law & Order

by ·

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame leak investigation this week, through a grand jury, indicted Lewis “Scooter” Libby on five counts related to the cover-up and obstruction of this investigation.

Fitzgerald, whom I had never seen speak in public before, gave a masterful everyman performance at the press conference he held announcing the indictment. Some tidbits:

At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby’s story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it’s required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president’s chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let’s let the process take place. Let’s take a deep breath and let justice process the system.

[…]

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

As someone who appreciates a strong prosecutor who will investigate and do what it takes to seek justice, I have a huge appreciation for men like Fitzgerald who has stopped at nothing to get to the bottom of this case. I respect him even more having watched his press conference.

As for Libby, well, why you would lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury is completely beyond my scope of understanding. It doesn’t look like any underlying offense is going to be charged here – so had he told the truth he would have probably walked away from this without an issues. Instead he’s looking at thirty years in federal prison if he is convicted. Idiot.

Where are your ethics?

There’s also been alot of mud thrown in the general direction of Fitzgerald from many criticizing his subpoenas issued to reporters in this case. I think Fitzgerald is entirely on-point with his response to that question from the press conference:

QUESTION: In the end, was it worth keeping Judy Miller in jail for 85 days in this case? And can you say how important her testimony was in producing this indictment?

FITZGERALD: Let me just say this: No one wanted to have a dispute with the New York Times or anyone else. We can’t talk generally about witnesses. There’s much said in the public record.

FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.

I didn’t have a vested interest in litigating it. I was not looking for a First Amendment showdown. I also have to say my job was to find out what happened here, make reasoned judgments about what testimony was necessary, and then pursue it.

And we couldn’t walk away from that. I could have not have told you a year ago that we think that there may be evidence that a crime is being committed here of obstruction, that there may be a crime behind it and we’re just going to walk away from it.

Our job was to find the information responsibly.

We then, when we issued the subpoenas, we thought long and hard before we did that. And I can tell you, there’s a lot of reporters whose reporting and contacts have touched upon this case that we never even talked to.

We didn’t bluff people. And what we decided to do was to make sure before we subpoenaed any reporter that we really needed that testimony.

[…]

At the end of the day, I don’t know how you could ever resolve this case, to walk into you a year ago and say, “You know what? Forget the reporters; we have someone telling us that they told Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller that they didn’t know if this information were true, they just heard it from other reporters, they didn’t even know if he had a wife,” and charge a person with perjury only to find out that’s what happened, that would be reckless.

On the other hand, if we walked away and said, “Well, there are indications that, in fact, this is not how the conversation would happen, there are indications that there might be perjury or obstruction of justice here,” but I were to fold up my tent and go home, that would not fulfill our mandate.

I tell you, I will say this: I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely. It should be an extraordinary case.

But if you’re dealing with a crime and what’s different here is the transaction is between a person and a reporter, they’re the eyewitness to the crime; if you walk away from that and don’t talk to the eyewitness, you are doing a reckless job of either charging someone with a crime that may not turn out to have been committed — and that frightens me, because there are things that you can learn from a reporter that would show you the crime wasn’t committed.

What if, in fact, the allegations turned out to be true that he said, “Hey, I sourced it to other reporters, I don’t know if it’s true”?

So I think the only way you can do an investigation like this is to hear from all the witnesses.

I wish Ms. Miller spent not a second in jail. I wish we didn’t have to spend time arguing very, very important issues and just got down to the brass tacks and made the call of where we were. But I think it had to be done.

I wouldn’t want to have had to subpoena a reporter into court and deal with the 1st Amendment ramifications of doing so — but if they were a key witness to a crime, aren’t they obligated to do so? I think so. And the courts held so in this case repeatedly.

I’m not a fan of a reporter’s shield law for cases like this either. Believe me, I understand the role of the press and want them to have those freedoms – but when there’s a crime committed, there’s a higher cause to be considered here….

In terms of aftermath of this indictment, there’s much in the mainstream media this weekend about the White House in turmoil and so on. While waiting on the press conference on Friday, I saw a couple liberal columnists on CNN talking about how this was similar to the investigation of Bill Clinton that led to his impeachment in the 1990’s.

And I laughed.

I’m sorry, but even though Libby was a key aide to the VP and the President, this is nowhere near the same as the President of the United States getting blown by a intern in the White House.. then lying about it.. then misleading (or “lying”, pick your poison) to the grand jury.. then lying to your staff (including the cabinet) and having them go out and defend you against these allegations.. and on and on…

I believe that in the end, justice will be done in this case. Libby will be convicted.

2000

by ·

There’s something deep in me that wanted to write about the 2,000th death of an American servicemember in Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the words simply weren’t coming.

Then tonight, I read Lex’s post “On Tragedy and Round Numbers”. And he said all that I was thinking and then some.

I don’t want to lose this war because we lack the will to fight it.

On Courage

by ·

Chap recently reminded me through one of his posts about this man:

Laun

A very long time ago, I described him as quite possibly the bravest man that I had ever seen.

I just hope that if the time ever came, that I would have the courage to do as he did.

Bill Whittle: Tribes

by ·

The incredible Bill Whittle is at it again with his latest: Tribes

A couple tidbits:

That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal. My Tribe consists of people who know that sometimes bad things happen, and that these are an opportunity to show ourselves what we are made of. My people go into burning buildings. My Tribe consists of organizers and self-starters, proud and self-reliant people who do not need to be told what to do in a crisis. My Tribe is not fearless; they are something better. They are courageous. My Tribe is honorable, and decent, and kind, and inventive. My Tribe knows how to give orders, and how to follow them. My Tribe knows enough about how the world works to figure out ways to boil water, ration food, repair structures, build and maintain makeshift latrines, and care for the wounded and the dead with respect and compassion.

There are some things my Tribe is not good at at all. My Tribe doesn’t make excuses. My Tribe will analyze failure and assign blame, but that is to make sure that we do better next time, and we never, ever waste valuable energy and time doing so while people are still in danger. My Tribe says, and in their heart completely believes that it’s the other guy that’s the hero. My Tribe does not believe that a single Man can cause, prevent or steer Hurricanes, and my Tribe does not and has never made someone else responsible for their own safety, and that of their loved ones.

My Tribe doesn’t fire on people risking their lives, coming to help us. My Tribe doesn’t curse such people because they arrived on Day Four, when we felt they should have been here before breakfast on Day One. We are grateful, not to say indebted, that they have come at all. My Tribe can’t eat Nike’s and we don’t know how to feed seven by boiling a wide-screen TV. My Tribe doesn’t give a sweet God Damn about what color the looters are, or what color the rescuers are, because we can plainly see before our very eyes that both those Tribes have colors enough to cover everyone in glory or in shame. My Tribe doesn’t see black and white skins. My Tribe only sees black and white hats, and the hat we choose to wear is the most personal decision we can make.

That’s the other thing, too – the most important thing. My Tribe thinks that while you are born into a Tribe, you do not have to stay there. Good people can join bad Tribes, and bad people can choose good ones. My Tribe thinks you choose your Tribe. That, more than anything, is what makes my Tribe unique.

I am so utterly and unabashedly proud of my Tribe, that my words haunt and mock me for their pale weakness and shameful inadequacy.

[…]

I made my decision by about 9:30 eastern on September 11th, 2001. I have never regretted it.

It takes courage to fight oncoming storms. Courage.

Courage isn’t free. It is taught, taught by certain tribes who have been around enough and seen enough incoming storms to know what one looks like. And I think the people of this nation, and those of New Orleans, specifically, desire and deserve some fundamental lessons in courage.

Because we are going to need it.

Privacy Paramount for Chief Justice

by ·

Yesterday’s Washington Post had an article delving into the Chief Justice’s decision to keep his medical condition a private matter. Some great quotes:

During his 1986 Senate confirmation hearings for chief justice, Rehnquist, who had been hospitalized in 1982 for withdrawal symptoms related to a reduction in the dosage of his prescription pain medications, said that “so long as I am able to perform my duties, I do not think I have any obligation to give the press a health briefing.”

Later in 1986, when a reporter asked him if the court could give out more health data, Rehnquist replied, “You people behave like a bunch of vultures.”

Lileks on the Rove / Plame Story

by ·

Eventually, I suspect that I’ll get around to writing about this, but it’s interesting to watch reactions as more and more facts trickle out. In any event, Lileks, as usual, says things far better than I ever can:

Anyway. The arguments over the Rove / Plame affair are best hashed out elsewhere. was nearly swayed by an interview with noted thinker and finger-painter Ted Rall today, until he said he wouldn’t believe the administration if they said the sky was blue. People say this as if it proves their bonafides as a critic, but really, that’s a rather easy thing to verify. If the sky is indeed blue and Scott McClellan makes that point, you could assume that they have painted the windows, I guess. In any case I’m amused how this Scandal seems disconnected from the issue of yellowcake in light of the post 9/11 atmosphere. Given all the tales in the 90s about the threat Saddam faced – a threat everyone accepted when Clinton was launching strikes and pulling serious faces – the idea that the whole Niger-yellowcake nexus should have gotten a big shrug in 2002, when the WTC rubble still smoked, seems to be another act of willful amnesia. If anyone in 02 could have thought we’d be parsing who said what about which agent re a politically motivated rewrite of the intel, they’d have heaved a sigh of relief: so we didn’t get hit again.

It’s all a luxury that seems vapid only after something bad happens again. You’ll note that when Blair gives a press conference nowadays the press doesn’t bring up the Downing Street Memo. Give them time, though; in due course the press will shake off that ill-fitting caot of national solidarity and start asking why the bombers weren’t detected by orbital satellites the day they were born. The role of the press is to reset the clock to yesterday morn, ferret out the slightest hint of imperfection, and splash the front page with the words that give them that priapic prang: Ongoing Investigation. Questions remain. But sources say.

[…]

Well: what of the families of the charter airline pilots?

You may recall the story. The xx ran big piece on a charter airline the CIA was using to transport suspects. This isn’t just outing a covert operative; it was outing a covert operation. In the case of Wilson / Plame, we had an attempt to point out how two opponents of the adminstration were trying to thwart the foreign policy of the US government via the pages of the NYT and Vanity Fair; in the case of the airline, we had an attempt to peel back the Tupperware lid of secrecy of an anti-terrorist organization in order to ruin – I’m sorry, let the people know what they needed to know about the operation. Did anyone wonder whether the families of the people in that charter airline might be harmed in anyway? Did anyone wonder whether this information might compromise attempts to interrogate suspects? Did anyone ask what the devil was served by running this story?

Imagine the war was prosecuted by a Democratic administration; imagine a GOP operative blowing the charter airline’s cover to make a point about billing irregularies. Imagine the GOP operative slipping photos of the planes on the tarmac, tailfin numbers visible, to the press.

Imagine the press running with the covert-ops story, outraged that the Democratic administration had covered up this crucial story. Can you see that happening? You can?

The air on Bizzaro World – what does it smell like, exactly? As fresh and sweet as one can only dream?