The Dish

"In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems …

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk," – John S. Koppel, a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981, in the Denver Post.

Greg Djerejian pens an open blog-post to David Brooks. Money quote:

Yes, historians will analyze for decades hence how it came to be that the attack of the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan led to 18 year old kids from the American heartland patrolling mixed Sunni-Shi’a neigborhoods in Baghad, acting like local gendarmarie, in a struggle of which they know almost nothing, and which has little impact on our national security…

But, regardless, please Mr. Brooks, do not lay this bloody denouement at the doorstep of those who, if belatedly, were at least trying mightily to extricate us, in a reasonably responsible manner, from a failed engagement, rather than those who were advocating insertion of 28,000 men into Iraq as some possible panacea for a raging civil war, without being accompanied by sustained diplomatic engagement with the very states that could have the most influence on Iraq’s stability. You called that plan "serious", but it had more the trappings of bull-headed stubborness, no matter the talents of General Petreaus (which are considerable), or the chest-beating of Beltway dead-enders.

Berlin, Germany, 4.45 pm.

The prosecutor is not barred from discussing what the president and vice-president told him outside the formal Grand Jury process. TPM has a useful video-clip of the Sunday talk-shows, Plamegate and the next moves in the attempt to hold the administration accountable.

A reader writes:

We’ve been hearing for a while about the Sunni tribes in Anbar turning against al-Qaeda. But we’ve also been hearing, for practically ever, that if we leave Iraq it will become an al-Qaeda base.

Okay, which part of Iraq is al-Qaeda likely to take over, if we leave?  It seems doubtful that Shia regions will host them:  al-Qaeda considers the Shia apostates, and has been busily killing them. The Kurds probably won’t shelter al-Qaeda, either: US patronage seems to be all the Kurds have going for them. As for the Sunni in Anbar: are they actually fed up with al-Qaeda, or do they merely see us as a more reliable ally against the Shia?  If the latter, does the Anbaris’ widely touted change of allegiance really represent "progress"?

My sense is that the Anbar tribes are both repelled by al Qaeda’s excesses (ably chronicled here by Michael Yon) and see the US as a decent short-term ally in their eternal war with the Shia. So they’re worth backing … for a while. I’ve come to believe that the larger attempt to create a viable, normal state out of post-Saddam Iraq is a mug’s game. Only a serious imperial power could do it – with sufficient troop levels (close to three times what we have available) and Saddam-levels of brutality. Our options are therefore now limited to the old enemy-of-my-enemy game. Mercifully, this is the Middle East, and so the supply of temporary, untrustworthy enemies of our enemies is close to endless. We should get out of Iraq central and try and play a smart game of picking the enemies-of-our-enemies-du-jour. Of course, a smart game requires another administration and another president. And you lose a war with the president you have, not the president you might like. Oh, and don’t blame me. I endorsed the other guy.

Useful perspective when trying to judge whether the right’s famous blogger is an honest broker:

"Yet from the start, the [Nixon] library had trouble being taken seriously. Its first director, Hugh Hewitt, announced that researchers deemed unfriendly would be banned from the archives, singling out the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward as a candidate for exclusion. Scholars cried foul; Hewitt revoked the plan."

A photo worth linking to. But not posting.

I posted about the dyke-terrorism swooping over the country, as reported by Fox News’ most popular host, here. It’s a terrifying story of the gay agenda’s war on children, small animals, butterflies and civilization in general. Radley Balko investigates further. I’m not sure that "Pink Pistols" is exactly what O’Reilly had in mind. I’m not sure that he’s going to correct anything either. Here’s the original clip. It would be a career-ender on a cable news operation committed to journalism:

Ambers finds several nuggets in the Gore daughter’s roman a clef about a former president in the White House:

The President’s wife Fiona "had a reputation for being fiercely loyal to her husband and aggressively protective of his interests." Among her inner circle, her "paranoia was legendary, though her staff did everything they could to prevent ousiders from getting wind of it."

There’s also a continuing subplot involving New York Times reporter "Chick Wallrey," who "described everything the administration did in the darkest and most cynical terms." She is "short and rotund, with dyed black hair and raccoon eyes courtesy of heavy eyeliner." The press office posits that Wallrey is "deeply unhappy in her personal life" and "bitter towards everyone."

Calling her "Chick" seems particularly, er, bitter?

(Photo: Amy Sussman/Getty.)

"These go to eleven."