Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
NEXT STOP: SYRIA
From Information Clearing House:
(You may want to enlarge this for easier reading, that is if your eyes are like mine...bad.)
(You may want to enlarge this for easier reading, that is if your eyes are like mine...bad.)
We Have Been Warned
By U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
| Before the US House of Representatives, October 26, 2005 We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change – in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq. This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad. Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged. Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers. Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon. Secretary Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria – that we helped to create – as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria – including war. The statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch it won’t matter. As the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die. This escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the UN report concerning the Hariri death. When we need an excuse for our actions, it’s always nice to rely on the organization that our administration routinely condemns, one that brought us the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food scandal and sexual crimes by UN representatives. It’s easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is targeted for the next regime change. The UN once limited itself to disputes between nations; yet now it’s assumed the UN, like the United States, has a legal and moral right to inject itself into the internal policies of sovereign nations. Yet what is the source of this presumed wisdom? Where is the moral imperative that allows us to become the judge and jury of a domestic murder in a country 6,000 miles from our shores? Moral, constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign policy receive little attention in Washington. But the law of unintended consequences serves as a thorough teacher for the slow learners and the morally impaired.
If we can’t leave now, we’ll surely not leave then – we’ll be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just. We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It’s time we do some rethinking as well. October 28, 2005 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. |
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
BUSH: LIBBY INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILT
It's surprising how Bush's view of the Constitution has changed since one of his own has been charged with a crime.
From Information Clearing House:
Scooter Meet José Padilla
Suddenly, Bush Embraces Right of Fair Trials
By DAVE LINDORFF
10/28/05 "Counterpunch" -- -- When President Bush was confronted by reporters as he left the White House for Camp David following the announcement of the five indictments of, and the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney chief of state I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, he offered up a lame comment, which at the same time exposed him as a grotesque hypocrite.
"In our system," he said, "each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial."
Sure. That's what will happen with Scooter, and with Karl Rove if he gets indicted when the other shoe drops.
But what about Jose Padilla? This U.S. citizen, picked up at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport back in 2001, has been held in a military brig without charge, without access to an attorney, and in solitary confinement without any contact with family members for four years because President Bush has claimed the right, on his sole authority, to declare any American citizen to be an "enemy combatant" and to revoke their Constitutional rights and rights of citizenship.
No formal charges have been filed against Padilla. Instead, the Justice Department has just made unsupported statements claiming first that he was planning to build and detonate a dirty-nuke bomb, then dropping that and claiming that he planned to blow up gas lines in apartment buildings. Since Padilla is unable to contest these charges-or really even to know what the charges are or who has been testifying against him-no one can know their veracity.
The same thing was been done to another American-born citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was ultimately stripped of his birthright and deported to his parent's homeland, Saudi Arabia, after the government had to admit that it didn't have the evidence to try him as a terrorist. (The weakness of the President's case in revoking Hamdi's citizenship rights and his right to the fair trial Bush so ardently insists on as Libby's right, is that the government has said it's willing to allow Hamdi to return to the U.S. with his family to visit Disneyworld.)
And what, for that matter, about the thousands of Muslim residents in America who have been rounded up and deported over the last few years without even a hearing, often on charges of minor traffic or visa violations which they were not given a chance to contest in court?
Clearly Bush does not really believe that everyone in America has a right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial-only people in his administration who are charged with serious crimes.
But as the noose starts to tighten on this administration for its lies in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and for its many other crimes, from initiating a war on a country that posed no threat to the U.S. to subverting the electoral system and violating the Geneva Convention against torture, it is understandable that this President is suddenly invoking the very Constitution and Bill of Rights he has been trashing for the last five years.
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
From Information Clearing House:
Scooter Meet José Padilla
Suddenly, Bush Embraces Right of Fair Trials
By DAVE LINDORFF
10/28/05 "Counterpunch" -- -- When President Bush was confronted by reporters as he left the White House for Camp David following the announcement of the five indictments of, and the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney chief of state I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, he offered up a lame comment, which at the same time exposed him as a grotesque hypocrite.
"In our system," he said, "each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial."
Sure. That's what will happen with Scooter, and with Karl Rove if he gets indicted when the other shoe drops.
But what about Jose Padilla? This U.S. citizen, picked up at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport back in 2001, has been held in a military brig without charge, without access to an attorney, and in solitary confinement without any contact with family members for four years because President Bush has claimed the right, on his sole authority, to declare any American citizen to be an "enemy combatant" and to revoke their Constitutional rights and rights of citizenship.
No formal charges have been filed against Padilla. Instead, the Justice Department has just made unsupported statements claiming first that he was planning to build and detonate a dirty-nuke bomb, then dropping that and claiming that he planned to blow up gas lines in apartment buildings. Since Padilla is unable to contest these charges-or really even to know what the charges are or who has been testifying against him-no one can know their veracity.
The same thing was been done to another American-born citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was ultimately stripped of his birthright and deported to his parent's homeland, Saudi Arabia, after the government had to admit that it didn't have the evidence to try him as a terrorist. (The weakness of the President's case in revoking Hamdi's citizenship rights and his right to the fair trial Bush so ardently insists on as Libby's right, is that the government has said it's willing to allow Hamdi to return to the U.S. with his family to visit Disneyworld.)
And what, for that matter, about the thousands of Muslim residents in America who have been rounded up and deported over the last few years without even a hearing, often on charges of minor traffic or visa violations which they were not given a chance to contest in court?
Clearly Bush does not really believe that everyone in America has a right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial-only people in his administration who are charged with serious crimes.
But as the noose starts to tighten on this administration for its lies in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and for its many other crimes, from initiating a war on a country that posed no threat to the U.S. to subverting the electoral system and violating the Geneva Convention against torture, it is understandable that this President is suddenly invoking the very Constitution and Bill of Rights he has been trashing for the last five years.
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
IT'S TIME TO START THE IMPEACHMENT
As a country, we were led into an illegal war on the lies and fallacies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others. Congress is the only government institution with the power to declare war, and then only when the United States has been attacked directly by a foreign power.
From the Kennebec Journal in Maine:
Illegal Iraq war justifies impeachment proceedings
The case of the impeachment of George W. Bush is a valid one because he lied us into the illegal war with Iraq without consulting Congress, which is in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states, "The Congress shall have the power ... to declare War."
Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have the Power
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
Supreme Court of the United States (1849), "The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful and the power to declare war was not conferred upon Congress for purposes of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the rights of its citizens.", and never for any other reason.
Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason and bribery were the worst offences in the public life of England at that time. By a later provision of the Constitution the many and vague treasons in English law were reduced in this country to two definite faults: (1) waging war against the United States, or (2) adhering to its enemies. In 1787, while the Constitutional Convention was in session, Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal, was by the House of Commons impeached "of high crimes and misdemeanors." Hence, probably, the same words in our Constitution. As the charges against Hastings were of confiscation of property and oppressiveness in government, the English definition of the words may be inferred from the accusation. The managers of the impeachment of President Johnson contended that "an impeachable crime or misdemeanor... may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives, or from any improper purpose."
From the Kennebec Journal in Maine:
Illegal Iraq war justifies impeachment proceedings
The case of the impeachment of George W. Bush is a valid one because he lied us into the illegal war with Iraq without consulting Congress, which is in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states, "The Congress shall have the power ... to declare War."
Sadly, like Congress, the judiciary also ignored its constitutional responsibility in this case. It refused to intervene and uphold the Constitution.
The only instance in which the Constitution gives a president the right to wage war without congressional consent is if this country is suddenly attacked. But this country was never attacked by Iraq, nor was Saddam Hussein a threat.
The fabrication that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida originates with Karl Rove, Bush's brain and advisor, who lacks soul, who is well experienced in stabbing political opponents in the back, and who led the nation into an illegal war in order to improve the political prospects of the president. Bush has taken the assumption that he can declare war against any country of his choosing.
Since the Iraq war was unwarranted and promoted deceptively, impeachment proceedings are justified, not only against the president but also members of his administration, the likes of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, under Article 11, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Dee C. Brown Jr.
From the Constitution of the United States of America:Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have the Power
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
Supreme Court of the United States (1849), "The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful and the power to declare war was not conferred upon Congress for purposes of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the rights of its citizens.", and never for any other reason.
Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason and bribery were the worst offences in the public life of England at that time. By a later provision of the Constitution the many and vague treasons in English law were reduced in this country to two definite faults: (1) waging war against the United States, or (2) adhering to its enemies. In 1787, while the Constitutional Convention was in session, Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal, was by the House of Commons impeached "of high crimes and misdemeanors." Hence, probably, the same words in our Constitution. As the charges against Hastings were of confiscation of property and oppressiveness in government, the English definition of the words may be inferred from the accusation. The managers of the impeachment of President Johnson contended that "an impeachable crime or misdemeanor... may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives, or from any improper purpose."
FITZ ISN'T DONE WITH TURD BLOSSUM JUST YET
For those of you who were disappointed Friday to find out that the only indictment handed down by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was that of Scooter Libby, take heart Fitz isn't done with Rove just yet.
From the Associated Press via Salon.
From the Associated Press via Salon.
'Official A' Stands Out in Indictment
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
October 28,2005 | WASHINGTON -- In a sign of the trouble lingering for the Bush administration, the indictment handed up Friday in the CIA leak probe refers to someone at the White House known as "Official A."
The unidentified official could become a courtroom witness against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who left his job as vice presidential aide shortly after his indictment on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.
Although other officials are mentioned but not named in the indictment, all were identified Friday afternoon during briefings at the Justice Department.
Except for "Official A."
The mysterious official is identified in the indictment only as "a senior official in the White House."
No mention is made of Karl Rove, the president's political adviser who remains under investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.
It has been known that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Rove on July 9, 2003, saying he planned to report over the weekend that Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, had worked for the CIA. Rove told the columnist he had heard similar information.
Friday's indictment says "Official A" is a "senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003" about a chat with Novak about his upcoming column in which Plame would be identified as a CIA employee.
Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.
SCOOTER LIBBY'S OBSESSION
Did VP Cheney's aide, Scooter Libby, have an obsession with Valerie Plame?
Salon seems to think so.
Salon seems to think so.
Was Libby obsessed with Wilson? Fitzgerald seems to think so
It has been reported previously that Scooter Libby was so obsessed with Joseph Wilson that other White House aides found themselves "puzzled" by it. The press release issued today by Patrick Fitzgerald certainly seems to confirm as much:
May 6, 2003: The New York Times publishes a Nicholas Kristof column that raises questions about the Iraq-Niger connection set forth in George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and says that an unnamed former ambassador who had been sent to investigate the claims had reported back that they were wrong.
On or about May 29, 2003: Libby asks an undersecretary of state for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's trip to Niger. The undersecretary investigates and provides Libby periodic oral reports, eventually advising him that Wilson was the former ambassador in question.
On or about June 9, 2003: Libby and "another person in the vice president's office" receives classified documents from the CIA that discuss Wilson's trip but don't identify him by name. Libby writes "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.
On or about June 11 or 12, 2003: Libby is advised by an undersecretary of state that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and that State Department personnel said that Wilson's wife was involved in the organization of his trip to Niger.
On or about June 11, 2003: Libby gets similar information about Wilson's wife from a CIA official.
Prior to June 12, 2003: Libby participates in discussion within the vice president's office about how to respond to an inquiry about Wilson's trip from Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.
On or about June 12, 2003: Dick Cheney tells Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in its Counterproliferation Division.
On or about June 14, 2003: Libby meets with a CIA briefer, complains that CIA officials are making comments critical of the vice president, and discusses both Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, by name.
On or about June 19, 2003: After the New Republic publishes an article titled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War," Libby speaks with his principal deputy, who asks whether criticism of Cheney's office could be rebutted by sharing information about Wilson's trip with the press. Libby says there would be trouble with the CIA if the information were leaked -- and that he couldn't discuss the matter further on a nonsecure telephone.
On or about June 23, 2003: Libby tells the New York Times' Judy Miller that Wilson's wife might work at the CIA.
On or about July 7, 2003: A day after Wilson's Op-Ed appears in the New York Times, Libby tells Ari Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA -- but that the information isn't widely known.
On or about July 8, 2003: Libby talks with Miller again about Wilson and his wife, this time asking that he be identified in print not as a White House official but as a "former Hill staffer." The same day, Libby asks Cheney's counsel about documents that might exist about Wilson's trip to Niger.
Between June 2003 and July 8, 2003: The assistant to the vice president for public affairs tells Libby that he has learned that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.
On July 10 or July 11, 2003: Libby talks with a senior White House official, identified by Fitzgerald only as "Official A," who tells him that he has discussed Wilson's wife with Robert Novak.
On or about July 12, 2003: Libby confirms for Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife works for the CIA.
On or about July 12, 2003: Libby talks about Wilson and his wife with Miller once again.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
INVADING IRAQ WASN'T A MISTAKE PEOPLE, IT WAS TREASON
Go read this Enough already with calling Iraq a “mistake” from The Next Hurrah via Somadude at The Obfuscation Report
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
2000 NEEDLESS DEATHS
Today, in a military press release, it was announced that the 2000th member of the US military died this last weekend in Texas from wounds received earlier this month while serving in Iraq.
From Reuters:
US military death toll in Iraq war hits 2,000
Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:17 PM BST
From Reuters:
US military death toll in Iraq war hits 2,000
Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:17 PM BST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military death toll in the 2 1/2 year Iraq war reached the milestone of 2,000 on Tuesday with the announcement by the Pentagon of a U.S. soldier who died at a hospital in Texas over the weekend.
The Pentagon said Staff Sgt. George Alexander Jr., 34, of Killeen, Texas, died at Brooke Army Medical Centre in San Antonio, Texas, last Saturday of injuries sustained on October 17 in Samarra, Iraq, when a roadside bomb planted by insurgents detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
In the Iraq war, which began in March 2003, more than 15,000 U.S. troops also have been wounded in action.
By the time you read this, the total number of US military deaths will likely have surpassed 2000. The number of wounded will also be much greater than the 15,000 mentioned in the above article.
2000 Americans dead, and 15,000 wounded, and how many maimed for life both physically and mentally.
How many Iraqis have died during this time? I don't think anyone really knows. Tens of thousands dead, and tens of thousands maimed. Thousands of children without a parent, or both, here and in Iraq. Parents without children. Orphans wandering the streets in Iraq, dying daily due to starvation, sickness, or disease.
All of this for what? For oil? So Bush could get even with Saddam for "trying to kill my dad" as he said before? Saddam's WMD's...the 9/11 conection...the Saddam-AlQaeda conection, all a pack of lies. All BULLSHIT from a bullshit beady-eyed lying little twerp from Texas that thinks he's the president! Well, the SOB isn't MY president. And for any of you who don't like that statement, I remind you that Gen. Norman Shwartzkoff said the exact same thing about President William Jefferson Clinton.
Too many American lives have been lost or permanently damaged. Way too many Iraqi lives have been wasted and permanently damaged. The time has come for all good freedom loving people to take a stand and tell the government that we will not put up with this fiasco founded lies any longer. It is time to get out and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
Monday, October 24, 2005
IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK ALOT LIKE FITZMAS
Fitz has been doing a wonderful job working on nailing Rove, Libby, and their bosses.
Here's a little ditty from Ginger at Daily Pepper called a Fitzmas carol. Go take a look.
Here's a little ditty from Ginger at Daily Pepper called a Fitzmas carol. Go take a look.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
MORE MIERS' PROBLEMS FOR BUSH
Here's even more problems for Bush and his SCOTUS nominee.
From Salon.
Follow the links, there's some real interesting stuff.
From Salon.
Follow the links, there's some real interesting stuff.
The Miers nomination: A "political blunder of the first order"?
How much worse can it get for Harriet Miers?
The Supreme Court nominee praised as "meticulous" and "detail-oriented" had to admit on her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that she had been suspended from the District of Columbia bar because she'd forgotten to pay her dues. And then, in a follow-up letter, she had to admit that she'd forgotten to mention in her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that she'd also been suspended from the Texas bar after having forgotten to pay dues there. Embarrassing.
What was her qualification for the Supreme Court again?
In an editorial today, the Wall Street Journal declares that George W. Bush's second Supreme Court nomination has proved to be a "political blunder of the first order." The Journal stops short of calling on Bush to withdraw Miers' nomination -- maybe she will "prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation" -- but it says that Miers is already suffering from the perception, "fairly or not," that she is "simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations."
The Journal says that Bush has squandered a chance to engage the country in a serious debate about its future. "Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission."
At that point, the Journal drops in a reference to John Fund's latest column -- the one in which he explains the bizarre way in which Jerome "Swift Boat" Corsi and Ben "Bush got special TANG treatment" Barnes could play a role in Miers' confirmation process.
Did we mention that there are some problems here?
And we haven't even gotten to the question of the strangely huge payments Miers' law firm received from Bush's gubernatorial campaigns.
At the Washington Post, Charles Babington wonders how a White House that hit a "home run" with John Roberts seems to have struck out with Harriet Miers. At the National Review Online, Byron York says conference calls among Miers' would-be supporters have slowly devolved into near silence; some wonder if Miers should stop paying visits to senators so that she doesn't do any more damage along the way. Rich Lowry says it's time for some Republican senators to pay a visit to the president and tell him to withdraw the nomination. "In the John Roberts nomination, a modified stealth strategy reached its height, giving the Court what is likely to be a conservative chief justice for the next 30 years," Lowry writes. "In the Harriet Miers nomination, the stealth strategy has all but collapsed, producing what might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency."
ROVE + LIBBY = LIES AND DEATH
In his column this morning, New York Times columnist makes alot of excellent points on the how's and why's of Bush's rush into a war in Iraq.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda on 9/11. There was scant Pentagon planning for securing the peace should bad stuff happen after America invaded. Why, exactly, did we go to war in Iraq?
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda on 9/11. There was scant Pentagon planning for securing the peace should bad stuff happen after America invaded. Why, exactly, did we go to war in Iraq?
Maybe. But the leak investigation now reaching its climax in Washington continues to offer big clues. We don't yet know whether Lewis (Scooter) Libby or Karl Rove has committed a crime, but the more we learn about their desperate efforts to take down a bit player like Joseph Wilson, the more we learn about the real secret they wanted to protect: the "why" of the war.
To piece that story together, you have to follow each man's history before the invasion of Iraq - before anyone had ever heard of Valerie Plame Wilson, let alone leaked her identity as a C.I.A. officer. It is not an accident that Mr. Libby's and Mr. Rove's very different trajectories - one of a Washington policy intellectual, the other of a Texas political operative - would collide before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. They are very different men who play very different White House roles, but they are bound together now by the sordid shared past that the Wilson affair has exposed.
Go read the rest of Frank Rich's column.
Hat-tip to Gordon at