Shakesville

More Rumors and Speculation

Larry C. Johnson:

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment . These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.

(Hat tip AMERICAblog.)

Hadley is not only a member of the WHIG, but is also involved in pursuing the idea of regime change in Iran. So, basically, he’d be a good one to get rid of, too.

Nothing really new or unexpected here, but I just can’t leave out the cookies and milk and go to bed already. I’m determined to stay wide awake until Christmas morning.

Question of the Day: Profane Irreverence Edition

My friend Joe and I were just talking about Condi possibly ascending to VP, and somehow we got around to talking about Vaginal Davis’ claim that Condi is a closeted lesbian who’s having an affair with Bush, a man with a small penis but blessed with a "giant mushroom headed knob.” That was enough to send me into fits of giggles, but then we got onto the infamous picture of Dick Cheney (yes, it’s real) in which he appears to be packing some serious heat:

I said I think it’s a colostomy bag, but Joe countered, “It looks like a bag of mini carrots,” which sent me completely over the edge into hysterics. So here’s the Question of the Day: Just what exactly is that in Cheney’s trousers?

Rumor Mongering

Nope, I’m not above it. No matter how unlikely. Not when the rumor is that Cheney may resign:

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[…]

The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008.

"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide.

The funny thing is that I’ve been predicting for a long time that Cheney would resign during the second term so they could set up Condi for an ’08 run, but I always thought the excuse would be his literal bad heart, not his figurative one.

The Madness of King George

President Bush listens to a reporter's question on the investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame and about the involvement of two of Bush's aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 17, 2005. The identities of those who disclosed Plame's name are vital pieces of evidence for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as he tries to track down leakers in the Bush administration. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Must Read

David Sirota on Partisan War Syndrome.

You know, he doesn't name names, but I suspect I just might know who he's talking about when he bemoans "progressive" bloggers who will sacrifice principle to win elections. Hmm.

I Loves Me Some Snarky Cynicism

Hence, the go-to snarky cynic, John Howard:

Iraq vote counts 'point to fraud'

I've been very critical of Bush and the war in Iraq in the past. But this news makes me see that I was wrong. If the Iraqis are already holding fraudulent elections, then they've already reached a point in their democracy that it took us over 200 years to get to here in America, so good for them.

Ha.

You Dirty Rat: John Hannah

Shaker Bill H. tipped me that the flipped snitch might be John Hannah, and, sure enough, Raw Story confirms that the likely guts-spiller is, indeed, John Hannah. I’m just devastated to hear that this lovely Scottish actor, of whom I’ve always been a fan, has had such sinister involvement with this despicable administration. I had no idea he was even serving as a senior aide to Dick Cheney, no less that he’d been a target of Fitzgerald’s investigation.

Oh, wait. Wrong John Hannah.

Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation.

Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a co-conspirator and may have cut a deal.

[…]

Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson, who had been a thorn in the side of the administration since May 2003, when he started questioning the administration’s claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East. The specifics of who issued those orders and what directives were given were not provided.

To many following the case, Hannah’s involvement will not come as a surprise. Wilson pointed to Hannah as a possible leaker in his book, The Politics of Truth.

“In fact, senior advisers close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their fingerprints off the crime,” Wilson writes.

“John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice-president’s office, have both been suggested as sources of the leak …Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without the authority from a higher level,” Wilson notes.

Looks like I can still enjoy Sliding Doors and keep on hating everyone involved with the Bush administration, after all.

Random Complaint

You know, I'm glad that Fitzgerald is pursuing this thing doggedly, and that even the Dark Lord Cheney isn't being considered a sacred cow. And I'm glad that the media is all over the idiot Miller and the collection of scumbags in the White House; I'm seeing the names Cheney, Libby, and Rove in a lot of headlines these days.

But I'm still annoyed that Bush can get away with refusing to discuss it.

I hope once the indictments, assuming there are some, are issued, he won't be able to escape commenting on the sad state of his administration.

Holy Harriet

Go read The Heretik for the latest on Miers.

Crybaby Conservative

Via AMERICAblog, I found this column written by David Keane, chairman of the American Conservative Union, who’s got his nose all out of joint because conservatives who oppose Miers’ nomination are finding themselves at the business end of the administration’s smear gun.

What is most troubling about this whole affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination. Since then, the ad hominem attacks on Miers’s conservative critics have been unconscionably heavy-handed and will haunt the president regardless of how the nomination fight turns out.

Welcome to our world, you dosey prick. That’s Tactic #1 for the Bush gang, who have been utilizing it against liberal and moderate dissenters (not to mention their opposition—go ask John McCain) since before they even stepped foot inside the White House. Considering you’ve had no problem with this schoolyard bully strategy all along, I can’t imagine why on earth should anyone else be concerned on your behalf now, just because it’s being used against you. If you had no inclination that at the first sign of stumbling out of lockstep, you’d be treated to the same dishonorable tactics, then you’re not only a hypocrite, but foolish, too.

Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We’ve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we’ve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We’ve been there for him because we’ve considered ourselves part of his team.

No more.

Let’s be honest here. You swallowed policies to which you might otherwise have objected because all you care about is criminalizing abortion—and at the zenith of your 30-year movement to do just that, Bush blinked (or so you fear), so now you’re mad. Well, most of America is pro-choice and does not share your view that abortion is more important than war, rampant fiscal irresponsibility, criminal behavior at the highest levels of government, wanton cronyism, jobs, gas prices, etc. The fact that you chose to overlook disastrous governmental failures in the mere hope that Roe would be overturned, thinking, foolishly, that you were “part of his team,” rather than just a pack of rabid dogs to be exploited come election time to help re-elect him, so he could pursue his agenda on behalf of his real team—corporations, the wealthy, and the lobbyists—is something for which you ought to be ashamed. You allowed him to fuck the entire country and gave it your stamp of approval, and only now you’re complaining about the bitter taste in your mouth, because your king hasn’t delivered on the wet dream wish fulfillment you were promised. Tough.

From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.

How insincere can it get? First, it’s reminding the president they have marched in lockstep with him, even going along with policies to which they might otherwise have objected, and now it’s moaning that no one wants to be part of a team which requires marching in lockstep. Again, let’s be honest here. Marching in lockstep was just fine, as long as you thought you were going to get what you thought you were owed. You traded a blank check for criminalized abortion, and now that you’re worried you might not get it, you want your money back. Boo hoo. Do shady business with crooked characters, and you’re gonna get screwed.

I’m not sure from whom Mr. Keane is going to get the sympathy he so clearly desires. The Bush administration doesn’t give a crap about anyone except themselves and their fatcat, no-bid contract friends. Liberals saw through this game long ago and tried to warn those who would sacrifice the rest of us in pursuit of a single issue platform that most Americans don’t support. Moderate Republicans rejected Bush as a genuine conservative long ago and issued warnings of their own. American voters are leaving this guy in droves, seeing him—finally—for the abject failure he is.

Mr. Keane, I’m afraid you’re on your own.

Flip of a Snitch

Raw Story reports:

The case of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame is set to explode.

The New York Daily News is set to report in Tuesday editions that a well-placed source interviewed by the newspaper believes a senior White House official has flipped and may be helping the prosecutor in the case, RAW STORY has learned.

[…]

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

So I head on over to the Daily News to check it out, and sure enough:

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

"They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday.

Yowza. I wonder who the snitch is. Probably Rove, that rat!

UPDATE: And the WaPo reports that Fitzgerald has “assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame,” and reiterates that Cheney was the ringleader of the White House campaign to “convince Congress and the American public that invading Iraq was central to defeating terrorists worldwide. Cheney, a longtime proponent of toppling Saddam Hussein, led the White House effort to build the case that Iraq was an imminent threat because it possessed a dangerous arsenal of weapons.”

So...

...did you watch The Colbert Report last night? What did you think? I thought it was freakin' hilarious. A particularly good send-up of O'Reilly with "The Wørd."

Caption This Photo

(As an aside, the Reuters caption for this photo is: Former U.S. president George Bush (R) and his wife Barbara Bush (L) are seen kissing on a giant electronic screen in center field showing the 'Kiss Cam' during the middle of the sixth inning in Game 4 between the Houston Astros and the St. Louis Cardinals in the National League Championship Series in Houston, Texas, October 16, 2005. Houston won the game 2-1 and lead the series three games to one. REUTERS/Mike Segar—I love that they felt compelled to identify who was who.)

A New Paradigm: Health at Every Size

This shit drives me insane:

Losing a little weight can do wonders for your sex life. So says Duke University psychologist Martin Binks, who presented a study Monday at a meeting of The Obesity Society showing that shedding a few pounds can improve things in the bedroom by making people feel better about their bodies.

"You reap a lot of benefit from a moderate weight loss of 10 percent," Binks said. "It's a wonderful message. You don't have to reach some ideal weight to be healthy and happy."

It is one of the few studies to examine the mental and emotional problems that obesity can cause for intimacy, not just the physical troubles such as hormone imbalances or impotence.

Now, I’m not disputing that many people would be healthier if they lost weight, and I’ve made it no secret around here that my fat arse could stand to lose a few pounds. But for crying out loud, this study is utter bullshit. For obese people who have mental and emotional problems associated with intimacy, obesity itself is rarely the root of the problem—the constant drumbeat that the obese should be ashamed of themselves is the problem.

Those who disdain proponents of fat acceptance love to say that if people love themselves in spite of being overweight, they will never be motivated to lose the weight. But, in reality, as Ampersand has pointed out:

there has never been a diet that's been shown in a peer-reviewed study to lead to healthy, sustainable weight loss in most fat people over the long run. Much more often than not, weight loss dieting leads to depression, damaged self-esteem, moodiness, long-term weight gain, and in some cases the ill effects of weight cycling - but not to long-term weight loss.

Indeed, the referenced article about how losing weight can improve one’s sex life notes that those enrolled in the diet program “regained some of the pounds they initially shed.” So what, exactly, does that mean for the sustainability of the mental and emotional problems that weight loss is supposed to cure?

For the vast majority of overweight people, a Health at Every Size approach is better, because the fact is, some people will never be able to lose and keep off weight, even if they increase their healthfulness, which everyone can do. When we look at every fat person as the same, tar them immediately with the unhealthy brush, and scream that fat acceptance is the same as encouraging bad health, we’re discounting what is likely the best solution for most overweight people—being healthy at their current weights. And not just physically healthy, but mentally and emotionally healthy, too. Ampersand again:

Given the incredibly high failure rate of weight-loss diets over the long run - and the damage done by failed weight-loss diets not only to physical well-being, but also to self-esteem and mental health - I don't believe that pushing weight-loss as a remedy is justified. Weight-loss fanatics have dominated the conversation about fat for over half a century; what can they show for their efforts? Are Americans now less fat? Are we happier about our weights and our bodies?

Pressuring Americans to be thinner has a record of utter failure for longer than most of us have been alive. If people were capable of thinking reasonably about weight, that would be enough to convince most of us that it's time to try a different approach. But anti-fat ideology is too powerful, much more powerful than logic. It doesn't matter how much the new data differs from the old: the remedy is always the same. Diet, diet, diet, weight, weight, weight.

I say the time for a new approach has arrived. The insistence on associating self-esteem with weight is not helping people get thinner or healthier. It’s only making people feel like shit. Health at every size, beauty at every size, self-acceptance at every size. I’m never going to be a size 2, and you know what? I don’t have to be. Not to be happy, and not to get laid. This body—fat arse and big tits and all—has never been a liability, because I don’t believe it is…in spite of the barrage of messages I get every day telling me differently. Pfft.

Tom DeLay, Meet Jack McCoy

DeLay's lawyer says that Earle tried to get him to cut a deal and indicted him when he refused. In Republican bizarro universe that's somehow evidence of bad faith on Earle's part.

See, now I don’t really think that Tom DeLay, and especially not his lawyer, are stupid enough to believe that when an alleged criminal is offered a deal and refuses, that means the district attorney ought to immediately acknowledge his innocence of any wrongdoing, because, as everyone knows, all guilty men take pleas and all innocent men go to trial. I do, however, think they believe that the media is stupid enough to publish a story so idiotic that it makes it look as though, by offering a plea and then choosing to indict when it’s rejected, Earle was being sneaky. And, they are right.

I also think they believe that that the American public is stupid enough to believe that idiotic story. On this, they are wrong. One doesn’t need to be a trained legal scholar to understand what a prosecutor’s job is. In fact, any dumbo who’s watched an episode of Law and Order knows how this stuff works. Sometimes, we even hope the heinous crook will turn down Jack McCoy’s offer of a plea bargain, just to watch the vermin squirm in the courtroom. So there.

UPDATE: Kathy from Birmingham Blues had a similar thought. See, DeLay? We're onto your tricks. You can blame Dick Wolf. Ga-gong.

Aww, Screw It

I’m becoming a Republican.

(Hat tip to Catherine at Daily Pepper.)

More on Gore

For those who aren’t fans of Hillary Clinton, and would like to see just about anyone get the nomination besides her (and I know there are none too few of you hanging out around here), you may be interested in the latest from The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza, who suggests that Al Gore may be the only possible candidate who can beat Clinton.

In a round of calls with Democratic strategists, I could find few signs that Gore is doing much of anything to ready himself for a presidential run. But what I did find is that many Democrats think there is a powerful case for Gore to get into the race. In fact, Gore may be the only Democrat who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Lizza notes that Clinton “comes to the race with all of the benefits that historically accrue only to sitting vice presidents”—name recognition, star power, an enviable and unrivalled fundraising network, pull among key constituencies—and has been maneuvering herself in such a way—hawkishness on Iraq, social centrism, photo ops with conservative adversaries—that is “hailed by pundits and Democratic strategists as brilliant politics.” Those are, I would assume, the same Democratic strategists whose own brilliant strategies have handed the presidency and both houses of Congress to the GOP, making it completely unsurprising that they are, once again, out of step with many liberals, who cite the same maneuvering as reasons for disliking (and distrusting) Clinton. Lizza continues:

In fact, the anti-Hillary field is already carved up into two camps: those who are positioning themselves based on the electability argument and those poised to mount an ideological challenge from the left. Senators Joe Biden and Evan Bayh, as well as a cadre of red-state governors like Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson, are in the electability camp. War critics like Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark are in the ideological camp.
But Gore is the only anti-Hillary candidate who can credibly attack her on both fronts.

According to Lizza, Gore can mount a strong electability challenge as both someone with a competitive donor network (and the associated name recognition) and someone who is now viewed as a Washington “outsider,” which may be an essential component of the 2008 election, as it has been during other times of broad dissatisfaction with the Beltway regulars. As for an ideological challenge on what may be the biggest election issue, the Iraq War:

Gore might be the only Democrat who can solve a vexing issue facing the party: How does a candidate establish a reputation for toughness on national security while simultaneously criticizing the war? Gore supported the Gulf War and, in most Clinton administration battles over the use of force, he took the more hawkish position. He is the party's only credible antiwar hawk.

I would argue that Wesley Clark is probably widely regarded as credible on this issue, too, if not specifically as an antiwar hawk, but this would be, undoubtedly, one of Gore’s political strengths.

Lizza also suggests that Gore’s got ideological cred, as it were, because he would instantly be the netroots’ favored candidate—owing to a reverence for Gore built on lingering bitterness over the 2000 campaign and recount, Gore’s endorsement of Dean, and his choice of Moveon.org as the forum for his most important speeches. I think that’s a bit of a miscalculation, rooted as it is in the mistaken but popular assumption that the netroots spontaneously emerged as a single organism, throbbing to the beat of its own soaring, collective voice chanting “Dean!” and “Moveon!” That’s not to suggest Gore might not end up, as I hope him to be, the favored candidate of the liberal netroots, should he decide to run, but considering Gore isn’t yet the instant favorite even of readers of this blog, no less across the blogosphere, I think it’s little more than the mythical reimagining of Dean as a universal choice; he was not.

Dean came to be a favorite because of his strong antiwar stance and his willingness to take on the Bush administration with both barrels at a time when no other candidate seemed capable of the same ferocity. He also advocated gay rights, fiscal responsibility, universal healthcare, and lots of other positions that were in alignment with modern liberal ideology. The ideological case for Gore is not that support for him avenges 2000, or that he will walk a fabled trail blazed by another candidate four years earlier; it is that Gore has advocated the same himself during his long political career. When one of the primary criticisms of the presumed nominee, Clinton, is disingenuous opportunism, a long-term politician whose liberal positions don’t change with the breeze offers plenty of reasons to support him, aside from his endorsements. And that’s important, because the netroots aren’t unanimous, and will never be. Gore’s got to have real reasons to earn their vote. I think he does.

The Idiotization of America

PZ Meyers has written a fantastic post (hat tip Green Knight) about Charles P. Pierce’s Greetings from Idiot America from the latest Esquire. The whole thing is really worth your time to read, so I won’t comment much, although I’d like to highlight one of PZ’s thoughts:

You would be surprised at how much email is sent to me telling me to stop being so derisive, that harsh language and ridicule turn people off and repel the very ones we're trying to persuade. My reply is like the one above; by refusing to ridicule the ridiculous, by watering down every criticism into a mannered circumlocution, we have created an environment where idiots thrive unchallenged. We have a twit for a president because so many people made apologies for his ludicrous lack of qualifications—we need more people unabashedly pointing out fools.

I'm doing my part to fight Idiot America. I hope more people join me.

I couldn’t agree more. In addition to the regular missives I receive about my foul language, I also get similar comments regarding my refusal to take anything but a hard line on any issue on which I feel accommodating the “alternative” viewpoint indulges the idiotization of America. As I’ve said before, I’ve got no problem if someone wants to personally believe in Intelligent Design and teach it to their own children; I do, however, have a big problem as soon as that person asserts it ought to be taught in a science class—and that has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about Intelligent Design and everything to do with my belief that only science ought to be taught in science classes. I’m not dogmatic; I’m pedantic.

The fabricated evolution v. ID debate is only one part of a larger movement to frame irrationality not just as the definitive opposite of rationality, but as an equally viable, opposing epistemological process. It is a rejection in whole of critical thought—the attempt to undo the successes of the Age of Enlightenment. Who needs the rigors of logic when you’ve got faith-based reasoning?

There is, however, a secret truth behind the Irrationalist Movement. Most of those who purport to subscribe to such instinctual, or inspired, reasoning, don’t. It’s not their faith that guides them, but authority. The encouragement to eschew facts in favor of faith, or instinct, or inspiration, is, for most people, little more than a justification for intellectual laziness. Bush tells them he gets divine inspiration from God, and so they listen to what he (Bush, not God) says. And Bush may make outrageous claims about what God tells him, but, in the end, his decisions are suspiciously well-aligned with the interests of his base. It seems if God, or his gut, is telling him anything, it’s “Play politics.”

Bush is coldly calculating, not divinely inspired. And he and his team know that faith-based reasoning is a sham—a righteous delusion that puts a friendly mask on the ugly mug of authoritarianism.

It’s the same mask used by a particular breed of preachers who instruct dutiful compliance, not expansive love, who rain down on the bowed heads of their parishioners, week after week, the fire and brimstone of an angry and vengeful God. These men of the cloth are useful servants indeed to the Bush administration, conditioning their flocks with a predisposition toward tyrannical benevolence, telling them not to question, encouraging them to eradicate all threats to their fragile faith. And all the while, the justification for, and legitimization of, such blind belief is being insidiously woven into the national discourse. Make way for the faithful…and their dictator.

This is not an argument against religion; it’s an argument against granting equal footing in the national discourse to a particular type of thought associated with a particular brand of religion. And I will not water down my criticism into a mannered circumlocution, because the future of this country may very well depend on those of us who don’t. Authoritarianism is the enemy of democracy, and I don’t give a shit what mask it’s wearing when it comes to my doorstep.

Political Fiction

In commenting on Christopher Lehmann's Washington Monthly essay, on the problem with American political fiction, Brad Plumer notes:

[M]aybe it's hard to write good political fiction because the real-life plots are so outlandish, and the characters so twisted, that there's no sense trying to top reality—any book that included Tom Coburn, Andy Card, and Michael Brown's Arabian Horse trade would be pretty quickly dismissed as a crude absurdity.

Ain’t that the truth?

Meanwhile, Ezra pulls something, which I haven’t yet identified as more humorous or scary, from the NY Post:

THEY'RE saying the President, spending inordinate time working on handling his multiple problems of Iraq, Supreme Court, Karl Rove, gas prices, sliding polls, economy, has begun rehearsing answers to questions that might come up at a press conference. More importantly, he's even watching reruns of "West Wing."

Rather convoluted, to be sure, but it seems that the current reality is that our president is learning how to do his job from a television show, making the truth both stranger than, and apparently informed by fiction.

Funny Business

The Wall Street Journal reports that two conservative judges, Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge, participated in am October 3 conference call regarding Miers’ nomination during which they reassured participants that Miers would overturn Roe. Someone on the call took extensive notes, which have been turned over to the WSJ’s John Fund.

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister…

According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced [the two sitting judges] by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Aside from raising some serious questions about the ethics of Justices Hecht and Kinkeade, this also casts a different light on what the administration knew about Miers’ position on abortion. As you’ll recall, the president said he had never discussed Roe with Miers, and yet the conference call with Justices Hecht and Kinkeade was arranged at the suggestion of—surprise!—Karl Rove.

Kinkeade is declining to discuss his role in the conference call; Hecht has a vicious case of Reaganitis and “can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it.” He also says he answered “I don’t know” regarding how Miers would vote on Roe, although Fund asserts that several participants have confirmed to him that both jurists stated she would overturn it.

This is a text book example of how this White House operates. The president says he never discussed something with someone, even though anyone with a semi-functioning brain can easily discern he wouldn’t have taken the action in question without first having ascertained the information he denies having. Then, while the president continues to assert his ignorance, questions about some dodgy business surface, and the name of the president’s closest advisor, Karl Rove, pops up in association. But the president didn’t know. Doesn’t know. Knows nothing. Nothing to do with it. The people involved in the dodgy business get a collective case of amnesia. It’s ridiculous. And anyone who thinks that Bush is still just an unwitting accomplice is sorely mistaken. This pattern is so patently obvious by now that if he didn’t overtly condone Rove’s shenanigans, he would have fired him, before the entire administration is crushed under the weight of a two-ton turd blossom.