Month: October 2005

The new president wants Israel “wiped off the map“. We knew that already, although it’s scandalous how the MSM downplay it. Ahmadinejad won’t withdraw the remark, because it is central to his ideology: “My words were the Iranian nation’s words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.” The term Islamo-fascism was never more appropriate.

Jeff Jarvis explains.

It’s in response to my insta-post of last night:

Andrew, you wrote: “If Fitzgerald doesn’t have enough evidence to indict Rove after two years, is it fair to prolong the agony?”

Yes, it’s fair. This was likely part of his reported discussions with the chief judge on Wednesday, to check if what he had on Rove was enough to keep the investigation going. This is very similar to his investigation of former Illinois governor George Ryan and the corruption in his offices over the course of years. What started with a fatal car accident eleven years ago has erupted into a trial putting an entire system of “doing business in Illinois” under a very public microscope. In that case, Fitzgerald repeatedly referred to “State Official A,” until he had enough to indict Ryan almost two years ago. That he would name Rove so early is not a good sign for the White House.

If the NYT is right, then there’s a high likelihood of a lot of smoke from Rove, but no flames yet. Libby, on the other hand… Fitzgerald is acting like any competent prosecutor here, picking one thread to pull on, and seeing what unravels.

Sure, but at some point, you have to stop, right? I guess we’ll soon find out enough to judge whether Fitzgerald has reasonably reached that point or not.

It’s a screed against market reforms in Europe. The European left is now among the most conservative forces in the world today. By conservative, I mean instinctively and somewhat fearfully opposed to change.

It’s a central case for our time, and certainly critical in understanding president Bush’s Supreme Court appointments. Emily Bazelon provides an excellent summary of what’s at stake in terms of individual liberty.

“Life is like a festival. Just as some come to the festival to compete, and some to ply their trade, while the best come as spectators, so in life the slavish men go hunting for fame, or gain, but the philosophers, for truth.” – Diogenes Laertius, The Life of Pythagoras. The press conference is scheduled for 2 pm.

“I want the president to look across the country and find the best man, woman, or minority that he can find.” – Senator Trent Lott, yesterday.

Every now and again, I have referred to the James Dobson veto over social policy in the Bush administration. I usually get several emails afterwards, telling me that’s nonsense and that one religious outsider does not have that much clout in the White House. And then you read articles like the WaPo tick-tock on the Miers nomination, and you come across passages like this:

Recognizing that conservatives might not find Miers exciting, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tried to lock up a few important figures who would back her, mainly James C. Dobson, head of the evangelical Focus on the Family. As Dobson later recalled it, Rove assured him “that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian [and] that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life.” That was enough for Dobson, and Dobson’s blessing was enough for Rove.

The person who gets that call is pretty powerful, don’t you think? It’s also clear that Rove used an explicitly religious test for a public office to get his most influential backer’s support. He did something that violates both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. We only know about it because it failed. Next time, when it succeeds, we should at least recognize what we have here: a toxic conflation of politics and religion, one that has also infected the judiciary. It seems to me that using explicitly religious criteria – rather than jurisprudential philosophy – for judicial nominations is yet another sign of how degenerate Bush’s brand of conservatism is. Much of it is not, in fact, conservative at all – but a profound betrayal of the entire tradition. I’m relieved that more and more people seem to be recognizing that.

For Kinsley.

If the New York Times’ version is correct (a big ‘if’ these days), then it seems to me to be a pretty horrible scenario for the president. You have Libby indicted and Cheney thereby under suspicion, with a raft of potential questions heading his way; and you have Rove still under threat from the Grand Jury, fighting for his legal and political life, but required to stay mum (and understandably distracted) if the prosecution continues. You don’t even get a clean break, and a chance to start over. I’ll ask something else: if Fitzgerald doesn’t have enough evidence to indict Rove after two years, is it fair to prolong the agony? Equally, is it fair for Rove to ask the president to keep him on when he is under such a cloud? I’m writing this with only the scantest of clues as to the full scope of what we’ll find out tomorrow. So allow me to revise these instant remarks in due course.