Okay, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, you have spent all this time demeaning the idea of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as a form of absurd distraction.

Should you now consider the relevance of impeachment in view of Scott McClellan's latest comments and what they, along with other available evidence, portend for the future of this nation?

Think of what has been ignored thus far.  The team of Cheney and Bush has been permitted to attack another nation in direct violation of international law America propounded at the Nuremberg Trials.  

This violation occurred when America attacked Iraq on unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons that he was preparing to use against the United States.  Such an attack against Iraq was therefore allegedly predicated on self-defense.

As someone who has voiced frequent criticism at the current mainstream media it was gratifying to read today's (July 3) New York Times editorial on George W. Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month sentence and praise it as trenchant and a model of precise logic and reason.

The Times begins by zeroing in on Bush's lofty declarations during his first presidential campaign in 2000, when he sought to establish a clear-cut distinction between his self-pronounced law-abiding morality with that of President Bill Clinton.  Candidate Bush asserted, "(P)olitics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better."

An excellent point raised was the distinction Bush clearly draws between crime when committed by "common folk" as opposed to political cronies.  While Texas' governor Bush reportedly devoted 15 minutes to evaluating capital punishment cases.  

It was none other than conservative talk show host and columnist Tucker Carlson who reported the incident when Bush joked about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row, and whose sentence commutation to life without possibility of parole was supported by Pat Robertson along with many others on both sides of the political divide.  

There is an ad currently running on Comedy Central for David Spade's show in which the comic says that Michael Jackson is having a 50 foot robot of himself built which will roam the desert shooting laser beams from it's eyes. He then asks the viewer, "Wouldn't we be more shocked if he didn't?"

Looking around the net this morning and perusing a few of the thousands of "will Bush pardon Scooter?" stories, that ad kept popping into my mind.

I think that Bush will pardon Scooter, I will be shocked if he doesn't, the real question, for me, is when?

You can be sure the question is being discussed in hushed tones in the West Wing this morning, but the hand wringing is audible out here in the heartland.

"Obviously, there'd be a significant political price to pay," said William P. Barr, who as attorney general to President George H.W. Bush remembers the controversy raised by the post-election pardons for several Iran-contra figures in 1992. "I personally am very sympathetic to Scooter Libby. But it would be a tough call to do it at this stage."

In the West Wing, Pardon Is A Topic Too Sensitive to Mention
By Peter Baker - Washington Post

Notwithstanding testimony a week ago by James Knodell, Director of the White House Office of Security, evidence suggests that the White House did, actually, investigate the leak of classified information about Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity; but, only after President Bush revised security clearance laws in ways that would get leakers - and himself - off the hook. Rather than have Knodell investigate, it appears Bush tasked Joshua Bolten, then Director of the Office of Managment and Budget (OMB), to provide oversight of the process, per a little noticed Executive Order.

Overall, the evidence suggests a deliberate attempt by the President to legitimize staff leaks and to insulate the leakers from meaningful accountability.

Nothing fills a Cheney-Bush Republican with swelling pride more than running the stars and stripes up the flagpole.  This act is performed with a glorious declaration that their form of Republicanism holds a monopoly on traditional American values.

The issue comes down to what is a definable American value and if Bushies qualify as standard bearers for the tried, true, and ultimately patriotic.  Does the Cheney-Bush brand of Republicanism fit the historical definition of conservatism?

What neo-con chairman of the board Cheney along with perpetual preppy cheerleader Bush and company do not want you to know is that on certain basic issues, particularly those that relate to human liberties, traditional conservatives are closely akin to liberals in promoting and perpetuating rights of privacy.  

A true conservative of the Edwin Burke mold would fulminate loudly and lengthily against allowing authorities to arrest and indefinitely detain someone suspected of committing a crime while refusing to prefer charges or even allow that individual to see an attorney.

It was a veritable champagne popping occasion at the Weekly Standard after Robert Luskin, lawyer to Karl Rove in the continuing CIA Leak Case, announced last Tuesday that that he had been told by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that his client will not be charged.  

The Weekly Standard's editor, Fred Barnes, could not contain his glee in stating that Rove's "vindication" was a blow to Democrats in the 2006 campaign and welcome news to the White House in particular and Republicans in general.

Barnes was correct as far as the political spin is concerned arising from Luskin's announcement, and politics is the area of the right wing Republican journalistic partisan's concern, which gives him something in common with Rove.  

If there is one area where Karl Rove has made himself abundantly clear, it is in the all-important area of spin control and the valued place it holds in a Cheney-Bush political strategy context.

The real story behind Rove's demotion yesterday was not that he was "spread too thin" or that he needs to "focus on the midterms," as the traditional media universally reported.  The real story is that there remains a substantial chance that Rove will be indicted by Fitzgerald in the Plamegate investgation, and the White House needs to put as much distance between Bush and Rove as possible before that event occurs.

In a breaking article today, reporter Jason Leopold managed to get Rove lawyer Robert Luskin on the record confirming that a Rove indictment remains a strong possibility:

Update [2006-4-8 0:15:51 by Tom Ball]: This article was presciently posted back in February. It's relevance to current events required that I revive it for the masses.

The Executive's authority to classify or declassify information does not come from Congressional statute.  Rather, Presidents have long held that it is part of the President's inherent authority. Courts have concurred.

THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS BROAD AUTHORITY IN CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS

In 1951, President Truman signed Executive Order 10290 (pdf), the President relied on his Constitutional authority as President of the United States to enact a classification scheme.

In Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), the Supreme Court stated in its dicta that the authority to control access to sensitive information is vested in the President of the United States.  Accordingly, an argument can be made that the President need not "ask permission" from the CIA or NSA or anyone when it comes to classifying or declassifying information. This is because the CIA or NSA do not have any power to deal with classified information that does not emanate from the President himself:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

Since World War I, the Executive Branch has engaged in efforts to protect national security information by means of a classification system graded according to sensitivity. See Note, Developments in the Law - The National Security Interest and Civil Liberties, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1130, 1193-1194 (1972). After World War II, certain civilian agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Atomic Energy Commission, were entrusted with gathering, protecting, or creating information bearing on national security. Presidents, in a series of Executive Orders, have sought to protect sensitive information and to ensure its proper classification throughout the Executive Branch by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies. See Exec. Order No. 10290, 3 CFR 789 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 10501, 3 CFR 979 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 11652, 3 CFR 678 (1971-1975 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979); Exec. Order No. 12356, 4.1(a), 3 CFR 174 (1983).

It should be obvious that no one has a "right" to a security clearance.

Notice the passivity of such agencies. They're "entrusted" with national secrets and are "delegated" authority by the President. But such authority rests only in the President. Keep that in mind as we now go through President Bush's executive orders on classification.

More below...

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- President Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

The most insidious of traitors!!

I wonder what H. W. Bush thinks of his son after these latest revelations.

At first, it seemed that George Junior was toeing his family's line on the Plame-leak issue -- assuming a staunchly intolerant stance, publicly proclaiming that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of intelligence related to the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

But, after some consideration, and perhaps a bit of Rovial prodding, Bush jacked up the firing threshold from 'involved' to 'committed a crime' -- offering a significant buffer for those involved in the leak. President Bush on July 15, 2005, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

At that point it was clear that Bush knew something that we did not. Little did anyone fathom that Bush's original statement would have likely required him to fire... himself.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Washington, DC (APE) - Pundits  and administration supporters alike were left sputtering yesterday with the release of court transcripts from the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation that revealed that authorization for the leaking of classified intelligence which resulted in the destruction of Valerie Plame's undercover status with the CIA came from none other than president Bush himself. Common speculation is that this will be the lynch-pin of Libby's defense, implying that all involved in the incident are absolved of any wrongdoing because it was an executive order that was being carried out. This appears to be a position that the Bush administration has apparently embraced, as a White House aide jokingly put it, "Screw it, We all did it!"

There are still many unsolved mysteries in Plamegate. The biggest? We still do not know the identity of the original leaker who disclosed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent to Robert Novak (Reporters have referred to this person as the mysterious "Mr. X").

Despite all that has been written about the story, and despite the fact that we have now learned much about Scooter Libby's unlawful leaking and subsequent perjury, as well as about Karl Rove's similar conduct (which remains under investigation), the identity of the Senior Administration Official who set this whole debacle in motion remains unknown.

Well, in the Libby Court hearing before Judge Walton  yesterday, we learned a little bit more.

First, The Washington Post mistakenly thinks itself a member of a sanctified priesthood.

Second, The Post blew smoke out its journalistic ass to confuse readers throughout the Nov. 20 "mea culpa" self-examination article by ombudsman Deborah Howell - and assumed we wouldn't notice.

Third, despite the confessional, breathless language employed in Howell's faux contrition piece, there is no recognition that there truly is a serious institutional, systemic problem that needs to be addressed, either at the Washington Post specifically or by mainstream media generally.

The Language and Sanctimony of the Priestly Caste

Let's take a look at some of the language Howell used to explain Bob Woodward's withholding of vital information from Patrick Fitzgerald, Post editors and (oh, yeah, the afterthought) the public.

Bob Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by not telling his editor at the WaPo that a top Bush administration official had told him the name of a CIA officer, the newspaper's ombudsman said.

Hmmm.  I wonder if Larry King will ask Woodward about this tonight?

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman in question had some pointed other barbs at Woody:

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff - even if he's rich and famous," wrote Deborah Howell in The Post's Sunday editions. She said Woodward made another mistake by publicly commenting on the case on CNN's "Larry King Live" and on National Public Radio without disclosing his knowledge of the CIA leak case.

Howell wrote that Woodward's decision to keep the information from Downie "is a deeply serious sin ... the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a very long time."

And while Woodward is listed as an assistant managing editor, Howell said he has no management duties. "He comes and goes as he pleases, mostly writing his best-selling books on what happens behind the doors of power and he reports only to ... Downie," she wrote. "He is allowed to keep juicy stories to himself until his latest book is unveiled on the front page of The Post. He is a master of the anonymous source."

She said Downie should either work more closely with Woodward or assign him another editor at the paper. "The Post needs to exercise more oversight," she wrote.

Let's see if anything changes, including whether or not Woody acknowledges this.

Raw Story is reporting that Stephen Hadley is Woodward's Mystery Source!

"Sources who identified Hadley as Woodward's source dismiss denials"

Attorneys close to the CIA leak investigation reasserted late Thursday that Hadley approached Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment and alerted him to the June 2003 conversation he had with Woodward, and that he subsequently told Woodward he could testify.

When pressed further, the sources told RAW STORY there is a record at the National Security Council of Hadley's meeting with Woodward.

I've been following all the excellent analysis and commentary surrounding Bob "I didn't want to get subpoenaed" Woodward and yet I kept thinking things weren't adding up. So a parsing I went...

And what I found leads me to believe these two "masters of the universe" really think we're stupid. And Woodward is no journalist. And Downie is no editor.