Semi-Daily Journal

We forget that what broke open the Watergate case was not brilliant investigation by the Congress nor even the much-hyped coverage of Woodward and Bernstein. What broke it open were a few decent people, or at least people with shreds of decency. Alexander Butterfield, who answered honestly and did not cover for the Administration. John Dean, who warned the president and ultimately served as the principal witness against Nixon. Judge Sirica, who probably broke a few laws in the course of getting the Watergate defendants to crack.

Oh, and staff. Lots of staff going over and over White House claims looking for hints as to what Nixon was hiding.

Although one is tempted to give up hope with this crowd, to believe that there is not one honorable person among them, recall that one person has already denied the Administration vital cover by reporting that two White House officials called six reporters.

We forget how bad Nixon really was.

"We forget how bad Nixon really was."

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and I'm not so sure anymore. If you had a choice to vote for George W. or Nixon, who would you pick? Who would be a better custodian of the public trust? Who would better advance American interests at home and abroad? Would we be better off with Kissengerian realpolitic or Condian realfuktup?

What a dismal time that leads to thoughts such as these.

Nixon was evil, but at least he was the author of his own mendacity. He'd worked very hard (and slimed a lot of people) to get to the presidency from humble origins, so by the time he got to be President he had a vast knowledge of politics and government. His foreign policy was also evil, but it was not primarily motivated by a desire to enrich cronies.

I hold Dubya in deeper contempt than Nixon (and that's saying something) because he's lazy and ignorant as well as evil. I don't think he's even smart enough to come up with his own lies. With Nixon, you knew he was there at the heart of all malfeasance, fully informed and in control. With Dubya, it's actually plausible that he was out of the loop in the initial stages of the Plame affair.

Shall we judge by intent or results? Nixon bombed Cambodia. I'm not confident we even have a good estimate of how many civilians died. Wasn't it under Nixon that "Too Tall" Tom Enders got his start, using an outdated map to radio bombing targets from the basement of the US embassy in Saigon, 'cause the Pentagon couldn't get caught sending the orders - the orders were illegal.

Bush, for all his ignorance and cavalier "bring it on" attitude toward his own troops, at least told us about the war we were fighting. He simplied lied about why. Nixon lied about a whole war. For all his sophistication about foreign affairs, that sophistication led Nixon to believe that killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians, at the further cost of tens of thousands of US lives, was worth it to show the world we were serious about confronting communism. Then we lost, and had to live with the notion ever since (helped by Reagan's behavior in Lebanon) that killing a few US troops would mean the US would turn tail. Rotten, rotten outcome, despite all the interest in foreign affairs one could hope for in a president. No thank you. Now let's dump this "Nixon lite" before he screws up again.

1 - What question is being asked? Do you have any documents or records? or Are you aware of any information? If it's just the first, the answer is to just check "no" on the information request ("I've already destroyed them.").

2 - Are these documents being vetted for national security? ie, are documents about a leak violating national security on matters concerning national security being checked to make sure they say nothing jeopardizing national security? I say just put the whole pile in the shredder.

The move to pull management of Iraq affairs into the White House, right now, seems odd. On its face, it suggests dissatisfaction with the job that Rumsfeld is doing at DoD. Beyond that, management of Iraq is being pulled into the hornets' nest. If Condi is on the inside of the Plame thing, this brings one of Bush's big vulnerabilities into direct contact with another. Even if Confi is not on the inside, if she doesn't know who the leakers were, she is still vulnerable to DoJ (and eventually, perhaps Congressional) subpoena. Is Bush that confident this investigation is not going to be a distraction, or is he really, really dissatisfied with Rumsfeld's management of "post-war" Iraq?

Isn't it amazing how when the White House party boys wanted to "prove" General Clark was a liar they could scan all of Karl Rove's phone logs and definitely determine that Rove never called Clark. In a few hours.

However they were doing it for the Weekly Standard. A much higher authority, we presume.

I hope y'all saw this little tidbit from Howard Kurtz, WashPost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27207-2003Oct1.html

quote:
MSNBC's Olbermann read Wilson a quote from a January 2003 Esquire article: " 'Sources close to the former president,' that referring to the former previous President Bush, 'say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak.' That's a pretty odd coincidence, is it not?"
unquote

tjallen

Michael Robinson asks, "If you had a choice to vote for George W. or Nixon, who would you pick?"

Delta.

JimBob says, "I hold Dubya in deeper contempt than Nixon (and that's saying something) because he's lazy and ignorant as well as evil."

His acting talent is better than you give him credit for. George W. Bush may be arrogant (and hence lazy on intellectual matters), but he's very disciplined physically, except for the drinking. As for ignorance, that helps when your goal is plunder. Knowing too much about the victims, both American and foreign, simply gets in the way of the heist.

K Harris says, "Bush, for all his ignorance and cavalier 'bring it on' attitude toward his own troops, at least told us about the war we were fighting. He simplied lied about why. Nixon lied about a whole war."

Yes, not mentioning the fact that the United States had invaded Cambodia required more than a little brass on Nixon's part. And most people still don't know about Laos, which began under Kennedy. Nixon's lies were grander, and GW's known lies are narrower and more carefully lawyered. But remember, we know most of what Nixon did. Many of GW's worst actions may well still be secret. And remember, too, that this is GW's *first* term. Even Nixon was relatively well behaved in his first term.

TJ Allen mentions the Mosbacher case, and Rove's involvement in trashing him and then lying in denying it. The parallel is striking, isn't it.

The aggregate misery caused by this administration will put that of any other president's to shame.

Even the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is saying that Bush should apologize to Plame for his subordinate having destroyed her career (if not more)- she *was* an agent acting in service of her country, after all. BushCo may have bought some time for ass-coverage, but lots of people are unhappy about this nastiness, and the two-week delay will help keep it fresh in peoples' minds.

Not only is this information going to be in the hands of the White House, specifically this Gonzales fellow who was responsible for Bush having the drivers license number 00000001. Isn’t that a public record, aren’t there laws against altering legal documents and expunging the prior record, even for a Governor. His other claim to fame, going to extraordinaire lengths to avoid answering the questionnaire to serve on jury duty, might have been an embarrassment to Bush.

Question: How does George Bush go from knowing *less* than anybody ("What, me worry?) to knowing *more* than anybody (this was definitely a "criminal action") overnight?

Hmmm.