The Dish

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.

Some more nuances from National Journal’s Murray Waas:

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources…

[A]dministration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.

I’m not sure what the salience of this new information is. But if Libby is indicted Friday, a critical question will be the role of the vice-president in the actions of his chief-of-staff. This may be a political rather than legal question. How credible is it that Libby would have done what he did without Cheney’s knowledge? They were joined at the hip in what was, to my mind, an understandable post-9/11 attempt to make sure that the CIA wasn’t being complacent about Saddam’s WMD program. But what if they over-reached in the process? Or unwittingly or wittingly set Colin Powell up at the U.N.? Or stupidly broke the law and lied about it? I don’t see Cheney escaping without damage.

“I’m an avid reader of your blog, but today I was a little upset that you gave a Moore award to Cole for pointing out what so many war supporters simply ignore, that we unleashed more violence in Iraq than was there previously, especially if you just consider the past 10 years of Saddam’s rule. That is obvious and proven. In a moral world, a nation and its leaders take responsibility for that. If Saddam were still in power, thousand upon thousands would still be alive who probably weren’t interested in dying for Saddam facing trial and a thrown together constitution. I’m fine with people arguing that things will be eventually better for the people of Iraq (even if I think that is wishful thinking) but you could at least have the decency to recognize the deaths of the Iraqis and the fact that our action has led to an increase in their collective suffering.”