no thanks, wolf

(art and story by tom tomorrow)

a "small price" ... for whom?

courtesy of brendan @ brendancalling.com:

if someone you love died in iraq, don’t expect sympathy from john boehner’s office a new jersey family paying "a small price" [ohio house republican] john boehner, playing golf after reading john boehner's outrageous comments that our dead troops are a "small price to pay" to stop al qaeda in iraq (you know, the terrorists that weren't there until we destroyed iraq's civil society), i knew it was time for another phone call. but i didn't want to do my usual complaining thing: instead, i decided i would pose as a bereaved relative of a dead soldier. blitzer: how much longer will u.s. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? the loss in blood, the americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require? boehner: i think general petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. we're making success. we need to firm up those successes. we need to continue our effort here because, wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the middle east, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids. unfortunately, his dc office won't speak to anyone calling from outside ohio, so i called his cincinatti office at (513) 779-5400. "hello," i said, "my name is brendan skwire. i'm calling because my cousin had his head shot off in iraq and i was wondering if representative boehner [always, always pronounce it "boner"] thinks that was a small price to pay?" "that's not what he said sir," said the woman on the other end of the line." "yes it is," i replied, "i have it righ —" "THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID," she repeated in all capital letters. "with all due respect ma'am, my cousin had his head shot off, leaving behind a widow and two children, one of who is an infant, and you're ARGUING with a grieving relative? i read what your boss said." "that's not what he said. what he MEANT was that given all the money we've spent so far the deaths of our soldiers is a small price if we want to win ..." it was unbelievable. this dumb cluck actually thinks we stand a shot at winning in iraq, never mind reducing human beings to nothing more than a matter of dollars. i wanna play poker with this idiot. "'win'? excuse me, but everyone except general petraeus thinks we're losing, including the gao and including petraeus's own boss admiral fallon at cent com." "sir, it's a small price to pay ..." and then the shouting match began "do you have any class?" "it's not what he meant" "my cousin lost her" "NOT WHAT HE "husband, has no idea how she's going" IT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT "to pay for childcare or how" IT'S NOT WHAT HE "she's going to raise the kids alone, and is out of her mind" ITS NOT WHAT HE "with grief. and you call this a small price to pay?" "it's not what he meant sir." "oh, ok then. so it's a small price to pay. how many of john boehner's kids are signed up for iraq, can you tell me that?" big pause. VERY big pause. "I can't tell you that sir." "mmm, i'll bet," i replied. "you know WHY you can't tell me that? BECAUSE NONE OF JOHN BOEHNER'S KIDS ARE SIGNED UP FOR IRAQ. NOT ONE. when do the boehners pay THEIR small price?" "sir, i have to go now." "and the worst part of this is, you spent half this conversation talking over me, arguing with someone who's lost a family member in the war your boss supports. that's real classy." click. she hung up the phone. a dollar says she doesn't have any children in iraq either. the party family values, my ass: try the party of immoral sociopaths and criminals.

alberto piñata

and lo, a new talking point is born ...

(video courtesy of talkingpointsmemo.com)

bring me the head of alberto gonzales

... and the ass of karl rove.

during the next two years, our nation must address critical questions affecting the investigation, pursuit, and prosecution of terrorism at home and abroad. in this effort, we must have a strong, credible attorney general who holds the confidence of congress and the american people. i do not believe alberto gonzales can fill that role. the president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership prosecuting the war on terrorism, running the department of justice, and working with the president and congress on important homeland security matters. senator john sununu (r-nh)

for the justice department to be effective before the u.s. senate, it would be helpful [if gonzales resigned]. senator gordon smith (r-or)

---

cafferty: ... and it's not enough that the attorney general of the united states is a glorified water boy for the white house. the bush administration also is admitting now that its number one political hack, karl rove, passed along complaints from republican lawmakers about u.s. attorneys to the justice department and to the white house counsel's office — a political adviser playing a role in the hiring and firing of u.s. attorneys. it's disgraceful. here's the question: should u.s. attorney general alberto gonzalez resign? e-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. if you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, wolf, you'll see alberto gonzales' picture there. blitzer: you don't like him? cafferty: that's correct. i don't. [snip] cafferty: don writes from florida: "jack, a better question is: how soon should alberto gonzales resign? and what should be the punishment for his crimes?" ralph writes: "nah. they would just replace him with somebody more dangerous, someone who knows how to run a police state without getting caught." john in philadelphia: "actually, he should have been fired. we all know how long that takes, though. remember rumsfeld? this worm is exactly the type of hatchet man that bush likes. don't ever do the people's work. just do my dirty work." larisa in seattle: "alberto gonzales should have resigned yesterday or last year or two years ago. look at the guy's legacy: torture memos, spying on americans, and now substituting gop cronies for lawyers who are supposed to be defending the public good and upholding the constitution." robert writes from ohio: "resign? he ought to be perp-walked." j. writes: "jack, of course he ought to resign, but we both know he won't. his role right now is to cover the backside of the most corrupt administration in history, which is a tall order for such a little man." jody in tennessee: "yes, he ought to, but that won't happen. he's a bush buddy. every time i see him on tv, he looks like he's laughing at us." and jenny in new york: "from this administration? no way. he's doing a heck of a job." we got no letters suggesting that alberto gonzales was doing a great job, and that we were out of line by quoting some of the people, like chuck schumer in the senate, who are calling for the man's resignation. nobody wrote and said, "this guy is doing a good job." blitzer: out of how many? about hundreds did we get, thousands? cafferty: i don't know. yes, it was 800, 900 e-mails. i didn't read eight or nine hundred of them, but i — i spun through probably a couple of hundred. there were none — none. nobody wrote to say, "alberto gonzales is doing a good job as the attorney general of the united states." i mean, that alone says something, doesn't it? blitzer: it certainly does. jack, thank you very much.

---

blitzer: let's check in with jack cafferty. he's got the cafferty file — jack: cafferty: i want to see patrick leahy interview karl rove under oath in front of the senate judiciary committee. i don't care who wins. i don't care who comes out of it unscathed. i just want to watch it. it would be — it would be like watching ali-frazier iv. it would just be terrific theater. blitzer: sort of like a pay-per-view moment. cafferty: the same idea, yeah, you know, like geraldo getting hit in the face with a chair.

---

leahy: ... in some cases i have not gotten answers that appear even to be honest. blitzer: well, do you think someone... leahy: i want to have those. blitzer: do you think someone committed perjury? leahy: well, we'll find that out. that's not always the easiest thing to prove. but we can certainly prove that we have not gotten complete answers. it's a lot more. i think the american public deserves to have answers on this, instead of every day a little bit more dribbling out. let's get all of the facts. but let's have it under oath. it's interesting, sometimes, when people are sworn in. it focuses their attention a little bit more. blitzer: the white house counsel, fred fielding, was up on the hill today. i don't know if you had a chance to meet with him. but he's not necessarily ruling out allowing some white house staffers, maybe even karl rove, to come and testify. do you want karl rove to testify before your panel? leahy: i've never met mr. fielding. i don't — frankly, i don't care whether he says he's going to allow people or not. we'll subpoena the people we want. if they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation i suspect they don't want to have. blitzer: well, will you subpoena ... leahy: i have ... blitzer: will you subpoena karl rove? leahy: yes. he can appear voluntarily if he wants. if he doesn't, i will subpoena him. and we had — the attorney general said well, there are some staff people or lower level people i'm not sure whether i want to allow them to testify or not. i said, frankly, mr. attorney general, it's not your decision. it's mine and the committee's. we will have subpoenas. i would hope that they will not try to stonewall subpoenas. blitzer: the white house, the president, the attorney general, they insist there was no politics involved in these decisions to get rid of these eight u.s. prosecutors. but you've seen some of the e-mail, the traffic, the paper trail, where there do appear to be some political decisions involved. what's going on? leahy: i'm surprised that they're saying that there's no politics involved and we're still two-and-a-half weeks away from april fool's day. there was obviously politics. i mean this is something both republicans and democrats know. you go in the cloak rooms, you hear both republicans and democrats saying it. everybody knows there's politics involved. everybody knows — in one instance — arkansas, you had a very highly rated u.s. attorney. they were told they had to get rid of him because karl rove had an acolyte of his that had to be put in his place. how can they possibly stand there with a straight face and say that's not politics. of course it's politics. blitzer: but is there anything illegal in putting one of karl rove's associates in and making him the u.s. attorney in arkansas? leahy: there's nothing illegal in a president firing, by itself, firing a u.s. attorney. what it does say, however, to law enforcement, you either play by our political rules — by our political rules, not by law enforcement rules, but by our political rules — or you're out of a job. what i am saying is that that hurts law enforcement, that hurts fighting against crime. and if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation — and this is something we don't know — if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area. blitzer: and so that's the focus of your investigation, whether or not somebody committed a crime? leahy: the first thing i want in my investigation is to find out exactly what happened, sort of the old just the facts. i want to find out what the facts are. but i don't want to have somebody come up in a briefing and say well, no, here's really what we think happened. no. i want them in public. i want both democrats and republicans able to ask the questions. but those answers are going to be under oath or they're not acceptable to me.

---

the new e-mails show conclusively that karl rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning. it is now imperative that he testify before congress and give all the details of his involvement both in the proposal to fire the 93 u.s. attorneys at the beginning of george bush's second term and his involvement in the firings of the individual eight u.s. attorneys who were fired throughout 2006. the bottom line is: if the white house prevents karl rove from testifying, it will be thumbing its nose at the american people and at the rule of law. and the reason it's so imperative that people testify under oath is that every time new information comes out, it proves that the white house was not telling the truth in their previous statements. white house presss secretary tony snow told people on tuesday that miers had suggested the 93 — firing the 93 — and quote: "it was her idea only." now it's clear that karl rove is involved. so statements from the white house press office and others involved proved to be false, false, false, time after time after time. the only way that we can get to the truth and clear up this sorry mess is when the white house and the justice department release all the documents involved in the firing of the u.s. attorneys and when the parties who were involved testify under oath before congress.

has it been six months yet?

not quite, according to new york times columnist tom friedman:

the next six months in iraq — which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there — are the most important six months in u.s. foreign policy in a long, long time. — new york times, "the chant not heard", november 30, 2003

what i absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a un-approved iraqi-caretaker government made up of — i know a lot of these guys — reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. i don't get it. it might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? can we let this play out, please? — npr fresh air, june 3, 2004

what we're gonna find out, bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war. — cbs face the nation, october 3, 2004

improv time is over. this is crunch time. iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. but it won't be won with high rhetoric. it will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile. — new york times, "the last mile", november 28, 2004

i think we're in the end game now. ... i think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt i think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one. — nbc meet the press, september 25, 2005

maybe the cynical europeans were right. maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. that will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the sunnis in iraq intend to be. if they come around, a decent outcome in iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. if they won't, then we are wasting our time. — new york times, "the endgame in iraq", september 28, 2005

we've teed up this situation for iraqis, and i think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together. — cbs face the nation, december 18, 2005

we're at the beginning of, i think, the decisive, i would say, six months in iraq, ok, because i feel like this election — you know, i felt from the beginning iraq was going to be ultimately, charlie, what iraqis make of it. — pbs charlie rose show, december 20, 2005

the only thing i am certain of is that in the wake of this election, iraq will be what iraqis make of it — and the next six months will tell us a lot. i remain guardedly hopeful. — new york times, "the measure of success", december 21, 2005

i think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. in which case, i think the american people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand. — oprah winfrey show, january 23, 2006

i think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, bob. we've got for the first time an iraqi government elected on the basis of an iraqi constitution. either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case america will stick with it, or they're not, in which case i think the bottom's going to fall out. — cbs, january 31, 2006

i think we are in the end game. the next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in iraq. — msnbc today show, march 2, 2006

can iraqis get this government together? if they do, i think the american public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable iraq. but if they don't, then i think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole iraq endeavor. so one way or another, i think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an iraq there worth investing in. and that is something only iraqis can tell us. — cnn late edition with wolf blitzer, april 23, 2006

well, i think that we're going to find out, chris, in the next year to six months — probably sooner — whether a decent outcome is possible there, and i think we're going to have to just let this play out. — msnbc hardball with chris matthews, may 11, 2006

yes, folks, you've heard tom's song before. it's sung to the tune of "turn, turn, turn".

(hat tip to the media researchniks at f.a.i.r.)

seven days in may

(cross-posted at daily kos)

what if they had a war and nobody came?

in his recent post "does the debate over iran matter?", constitutional law litigator glenn greenwald points out that there is frankly nothing — no law, no political body — that might stand in the way should bush decide to launch the attack, whether conventional or nuclear, that he has been threatening over the past weeks.

bush's attorneys have argued that even if the president lacks the congressional authority for such an attack — a position that they do not concede — he does have the inherent constitutional authority under article ii to exercise, unilaterally, any force he deems necessary in the conduct of his global war on terror:

we conclude that the constitution vests the president with the plenary authority, as commander in chief and the sole organ of the nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad — especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the united states. — "yoo memorandum", september 25, 2001

since congress has yet to formally challenge this assertion, and since congress has already demonstrated during the nsa hearings its fawning acquiescence to the white house's expanding exercises of power, we cannot expect any potent resistance from that quarter, certainly not while congress remains under the control of the president's party.

but even if congress were today populated entirely by jealous and power-hungry democrats hellbent on obstructing bush's tiniest move, there exists no legal or procedural mechanism it can invoke that would bar the chief executive from unilaterally dispatching any kind of military action anywhere in the world, especially when this particular chief executive is fiercely determined to demonstrate his authority and his ability to exercise it. congress may decide to punish him afterwards, in any number of ways, from defunding his operation all the way up to impeachment, but it has no means to preemptively block such an action. the world's "sole superpower" truly sits under the sword of damocles, now dangled by a man whose constituents deem an "incompetent", an "idiot" and a "liar". and no one can predict whether the threat of that sword will serve to prevent or precipitate its fall.

a curious development at this phase of what appears to be a somnambulant second act to the iraq war is the never-before-seen and growing number of senior military personnel now taking the stage — on television, the radio and in print — to voice opposition to its civilian leadership and to specifically demand the resignation of secretary of defense donald rumsfeld:

army lieutenant general john riggs, retired, former director, objective force task force:

everyone pretty much thinks rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out. [they] made fools of themselves.

army major general charles swannack, retired, former airborne commander in iraq:

i feel that he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives. i really believe that we need a new secretary of defense.

army major general john batiste, retired, former division commander in iraq:

i believe we need a fresh start in the pentagon. we need a leader who understands team work, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation. a leader that conforms and practices the letter and the law of the goldwater-nichols act ... it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the department of defense ... when decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes. when we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril.

army general george joulwan, retired, former nato supreme allied commander:

it's our responsibility as military leaders to stand up and be counted on tough issues ... i think we've got to get more officers to stand up and be counted at the table, when they're on active duty. i think you're going to see more of that because there is a degree of frustration with the way things are going ... blitzer: what are you hearing from your friends at the pentagon, the top three, four-star generals right now behind the scenes? how frustrated, how angry are they with rumsfeld? joulwan: many of them very much so, particularly the last two or three years. the issue was, they don't trust us. the team that secretary rumsfeld has surrounded himself with doesn't trust the military. blitzer: ... would the country be better off, would the u.s. military be better off right now if the president found a new defense secretary? joulwan: i'm going to leave that up to the president of the united states.

army major general paul eaton, retired, former office of security transition commander in iraq:

defense secretary donald rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. first, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called “old europe” has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in iraq than necessary. second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input. in sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in iraq. mr. rumsfeld must step down. in the five years mr. rumsfeld has presided over the pentagon, i have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership ... donald rumsfeld demands more than loyalty. he wants fealty. and he has hired men who give it ... more vital in the longer term, congress must assert itself. too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. congress should remember it still has the power of the purse ...

marine lieutenant general greg newbold, retired, director of operations, joint chiefs of staff:

i think i was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. but i now regret that i did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat — al-qaeda. i retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. until now, i have resisted speaking out in public. i've been silent long enough ... with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, i offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't — or don't have the opportunity to — speak. enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the constitution. the distinction is important ... the bush administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. members of congress — from both parties — defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former central command chiefs joe hoar and tony zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views ... we need fresh ideas and fresh faces. that means, as a first step, replacing rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach.

newbold's avowal that "an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the constitution" and joulwan's call for officers to speak out while on active duty are almost incendiary. active duty officers are rigidly constrained in the proper channels and activities available to them for voicing opposition to an order or program or policy. participating in any overtly political activity of any kind is all but entirely verboten. express obedience is not merely the norm but the heart and spine of any military organization. deference to civilian authority is a fundamental safeguard of our republic. the implications of congress' abdication of its constitutional responsibilities have not been lost on them, who now shoulder an unfair burden. just how much longer will the fighting men dutifully follow the orders of demonstrably inept flight-suited civilians who will not listen to them and who do not trust them? will they really follow them over the cliff and into iran?

in the quiet 1964 drama seven days in may, the joint chiefs of staff, fearing soviet treachery, conspire to take command of the government before an unpopular president can succeed in passing a nuclear disarmament treaty. in that tale, of course, the joint chiefs are the bad guys, representing the same sinister forces president eisenhower warned the nation against three years earlier, in the final days of his term. he had been the first president to negotiate strategies for disarmament with the soviets:

we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. we should take nothing for granted.

what rich irony then, that the world's only hope against an insatiable corporate-industrial complex, led by a saber-rattling president, just might depend upon a mutiny by a disaffected military establishment!

as extraordinary and momentous as it might be to actually witness, do not expect this revolution to be televised. the white house would never allow the public to learn of bush's emasculation, nor would the pentagon allow itself to be brought before congress for treason. instead, a quiet agreement would be reached under the cover of an announcement, with great fanfare, of a "breakthrough in secret talks" with iran.

unfortunately, it is, of course, far more likely that bush will be able to find a boykin or a bork ¹ to wage his iranian campaign. it is a big military, after all, with plenty of room for advancement. let us hope then, for the world's sake, that there is also plenty more room for dissent.

if there is any irony left to be had in this mad lurch towards nuclear armageddon, we shall know within the next few weeks.

---

¹ a "bork" is a subordinate called to fulfill a legally or morally questionable task that his superiors refuse to perform. the term comes from robert bork, who fired watergate special prosecutor archibald cox at president nixon's insistence, when he assumed the role of acting attorney general after his superior john ruckelshaus was fired and ruckelshaus' superior elliot richardson had resigned. this series of firings and resignations became known as the "saturday night massacre".

endgame

the bush presidency, to borrow a phrase from its dour deputy, is in its last throes.

32 years ago it was a "second-rate burglary" that brought down the highest office in the land. today it appears, at first glance, far less — mere snippets of "almost gossip", delivered, we are told, in an "offhand, casual manner" — that now threaten again to collapse an office already on its knees beneath a debilitating barrage of ceaseless scandal.

bush's folly can be traced from his team's opening moves, when the texas governor, taking advantage of the climate lingering after clinton's impeachment, made a campaign mantra out of a sacred and solemn promise to usher in an age of honor:

august 11, 2000: i will swear to uphold the laws of the land. but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. august 13, 2000: americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the white house. september 15, 2000: americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the white house. october 17, 2000: should i be fortunate enough to become your president, when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. november 3, 2000: i want to conclude by telling you i understand the awesome responsibilities of this job. i understand the serious undertaking. i understand that when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of this land, but to answer the calls of the mothers and dads who i see all the time around america, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, "governor, i'm here to say, never let us down again," to hear those calls. i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god.

it was a promise he would not forget to reiterate as he swore in his staff:

january 22, 2001: we must remember the high standards that come with high office. this begins with careful adherence to the rules. i expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. this means avoiding even the appearance of problems. this means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. this means never compromising those rules. no one in the white house should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well. we are all accountable to one another. and above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the american people.

but my, what a difference 1900 days make!

even without such stultifying failures as the iraq occupation, the stillborn response to hurricane katrina and the dubious dubai port deal, the grinding investigation into the july 2003 outing of cia agent valerie plame seemed destined to erode the one asset that pundits continue to insist the president still commands:

blitzer: here's what you write in the book. you write: "candidates have to look closely at george w. bush and realize that they cannot win by running away from the leader of their party. rather, they have to identify the single greatest strength the president embodies and put it front and center in their campaigns." "that greatest strength," you write, "is, in fact, trustworthiness." now, we looked at our most recent cnn/"usa today"/gallup poll. in february 2004, two years ago, 55 percent thought bush was honest and trustworthy. that has gone down now, in february 2006, to 47 percent, not even a majority. hewitt: yes. but that's still much better than most of his other numbers on performance. it's his strongest calling card. — the situation room, cnn, march 31, 2006

just as nixon had at the beginning of watergate, bush, speaking through press secretary scott mcclellan, denied all involvement and knowledge in the scandal. he even declared the leak a firing offense ...

september 29, 2003: the president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. he's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

... and speaking on his own, hinted suspiciously, that despite his sincerest efforts, the leaker might never be found:

september 30, 2003: there’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, i want to know who it is. october 7, 2003: i want to know the truth. … i have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. october 28, 2003: i’d like to know if somebody in my white house did leak sensitive information.

the press, however, failed the president, despite his sincerest hints. unwilling to suffer jail for contempt, time magazine reporter matthew cooper revealed that both karl rove and scooter libby were his sources on the plame story, forcing bush the next day to refine his position:

july 18, 2005: it's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. i don't know all the facts. i want to know all the facts. i would like this to end as quickly as possible. if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

but cooper's revelation had dealt bush's credibility a solid blow; an abc news poll found that only 25% believed that the white house was fully cooperating with fitzgerald's investigation and that 75% thought that rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.

by the time fitzgerald finally handed down his indictment of scooter libby on charges of obstruction and perjury, scott mcclellan informed the press that the white house had decided that the best defense was now no defense at all:

october 28, 2005 : because of the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings, at the direction of the white house counsel's office, all white house officials, including myself, are not going to be able to respond to questions or discuss the factual circumstances of the matter, except as requested by the special counsel, or in consultation with the white house counsel's office.

bush himself issued only his regrets at libby's resignation. a week later came the announcement of an eight-part refresher course on ethics for the staff, no doubt to the collective rolling of eyes from coast to coast.

but as embarrassing as the scandal grew, as tight as the noose became, the president himself remained unimplicated in the leak.

this, of course, would soon change.

explosively.

ironically, it would be libby himself (considered by many the "firewall" between the prosecutor and his employers) who secured the knot, as revealed in fitzgerald's bombshell april filing in response to libby's request for documents for his own defense:

april 6, 2006: mr. libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed mr. cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. however, according to the vice presidential aide, mr. cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from mr. bush. "defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the [national intelligence estimate]," the prosecution filing said.

after several days of silence, bush would admit, in a cheneyesque display of sophistry, that while he had indeed authorized the leak, not only was the intel no longer classified, but his authorization meant that the leak wasn't really a leak at all:

april 10, 2006: i decided to declassify the nie for a reason. i wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on, so i wanted people to see the truth.

such noble sentiment. nonetheless, bush's noose is threatening to become a gibbet, as the fitzgerald filing also bluntly revealed a basis for conspiracy charges all around:

april 7, 2006: [libby] wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit wilson, according to his court filings. fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. in light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of white house efforts to 'punish' wilson."

it appears that the game the white house has been playing over the last five years is drawing to a desperate close. it was a game in which honor and dignity were nothing more than chips and tokens; morals and ethics just a strategem. it is an old gambit, to be sure, and if there remains anyone left at all surprised by the endgame, it is probably only bush and his once-swaggering team. but now the entire board itself is in near total ruin, with his pawns being stripped, one by one, while the king himself stands naked:

pew research center: until now, the most frequently offered word to describe the president was "honest," but this comes up far less often today than in the past. other positive traits such as "integrity" are also cited less, and virtually no respondent used superlatives such as "excellent" or "great", terms that came up fairly often in previous surveys. the single word most frequently associated with george w. bush today is "incompetent," and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." all three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago. newsweek's johnathan alter: there are not a lot of people who expect him to move very much in the polls. and once you're tagged as an incompetent, that's pretty hard to recover from. gop pollster tony fabrizio : these numbers are scary. we’ve lost every advantage we’ve ever had.

checkmate.