Waxman has written to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Libby case, expressing concern that core questions about how the White House handled the whole affair remain unresolved.
Waxman has asked Fitzgerald to meet with him to discuss possible testimony before the oversight committee by the prosecutor.
“The trial proceedings raise questions about whether senior White House officials, including the Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information,” Waxman explained in his letter to Fitzgerald. “They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important.”
Waxman had previously sent a letter to the Whitehouse asking who knew what and when, and why did they behave the way they did. Libby’s lies are not something that happened in a vacuum. When people lie in situations such as Libby’s they do so for one reason and only one reason, to hide something – to cover up. Was there ever conversation in which someone said to Libby, hey as a friend would you lie and take a fall for the team. Friends don’t ask friends to take a fall, a real friend would never ask someone to do that.
I read about the FBI revelations just after yesterday’s post and was going to update, but time just didn’t permit,The FBI’s lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush
That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here — and it is quite significant — has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I’ve seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a “signing statement” as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act’s renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.
Again the real issue here is not whether the government can take certain measures to put people under electronic or physical surveillance, the issue is the law versus George W. Bush. Bush thinks that he is the law.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ”a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ”signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ”impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
Funny thing about the Constitution is that it wasn’t written for one person or one generation it was written for a country and its future. Changes or interpretations of it are not and never have been the exclusive province of one individual or one party. Even non-Americans can see the cloud of hubris that follows Bush wherever he goes, Mayan priests to purge Bush’s evil after he leaves
“That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture.”
Say it isn’t so. The administration might be fudging the facts on the escalation, Reports of Progress In Iraq Challenged
President Bush on Tuesday cited “encouraging signs” of military and political progress in Iraq as his new strategy gets underway. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that “things are going reasonably well.” And on Thursday, Rice’s special coordinator for Iraq, David M. Satterfield, described a “dramatic decrease” in sectarian attacks in Baghdad since Bush’s plan was announced in January.
But a number of analysts and critics said this week that some of those signs indicate less progress than the administration has suggested. Sectarian attacks in Baghdad are down at the moment, but the deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops have increased outside the capital. Though Iraqi leaders have agreed on a new framework law for oil resources, the details of how the oil revenue will be divided among competing Iraqi groups remain unresolved.
“If I were the president, I’d probably seize on every encouraging sign,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “As an analyst, that isn’t what we do.”
Ray: As I explained before, we think the spirit of a 17th century Moldavian tyrant is alive and well in a painting at the Manhattan Museum of Art.
Psychiatrist: Uh-huh, and are there any other paintings in the museum with bad spirits in them?
Egon: You’re wasting valuable time. He’s drawing strength from a psychomagnotheric slime flow that’s been collecting under the city.
Psychiatrist: Yes, tell me about the slime.
Winston: It’s very potent stuff. We made a toaster dance with it.
[motions to Peter]
Winston: And a bathtub tried to eat his friend’s baby.
Psychiatrist: A bathtub?
Peter Venkman: [with his head buried in his arms in despair] Don’t look at me. I think these people are completely nuts
from the movie Ghostbusters II (1989)