Antiwar.com Blog

It looks like Patrick J. Fitzgerald isn’t quite done:

“Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

“In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said “the investigation is continuing” and that “the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment” against Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.

“President George W. Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, was not indicted along with Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove remained under investigation and may still be charged.

“Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame’s position at the agency.

“Fitzgerald’s comments about bringing proceedings before a different grand jury were contained in court filings in which he backed off seeking a blanket order to keep all documents in the CIA leak case secret.”

This ought to dispel the notion — pushed by the Scooter Libby Fan Club — that the Fitzgerald investigation is much ado about nothing. Here is a special prosecutor determined to get to the bottom of Treason-gate — and more power to him!

Neocon media giant Conrad Black was indicted on multiple charges of fraud today. He could get up to 40 years in prison for allegedly stealing $52 million from Hollinger International (part of $80 million allegedly stolen overall). Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (yes, that Patrick Fitzgerald, acting in his normal capacity as US Attorney) will seek the extradition of Black and his accomplices from Canada if they do not surrender themselves voluntarily.

UPDATE: I wonder if a conviction will impede this libel suit. Hehehe.

National Review‘s Rod Dreher on Rep. John Murtha’s change of heart:

Don’t know how many of you caught Rep. John Murtha’s very angry, very moving speech just now in which he called on the White House to institute an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. CNN didn’t air the entire thing, but as I listened to it, I could feel the ground shift. Murtha, as you know, is not a Pelosi-style Chardonnay Democrat; he’s a crusty retired career Marine who reminds me of the kinds of beer-slugging Democrats we used to have before the cultural left took over the party. Murtha, a conservative Dem who voted for the war, talked in detail about the sacrifices being borne by our soldiers and their families, and about his visits out to Walter Reed to look after the maimed, and how we’ve had enough, it’s time to come home. He was hell on the president too.

If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to — and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who’s about the same age, and his hunting buddies — then the president is in big trouble. I’m sure there’s going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously.

Jonah Goldberg gets off to a bold start at the LA Times:

What if Bush did lie, big time? What, exactly, would that mean? If you listen to Bush’s critics, serious and moonbat alike, the answer is obvious: He’d be a criminal warmonger, a failed president and — most certainly — impeachment fodder. Even Bush’s defenders agree that if Bush lied, it would be a grave sin.

But they’d be wrong, see, because FDR lied a lot, too.

Even the most cursory reading of any presidential biography will tell you that statesmanship requires occasional duplicity. If great foreign policy could be conducted Boy Scout-style — “I will never tell a lie” — foreign policy would be easy (and Jimmy Carter would be hailed as the American Bismarck). This isn’t to say that the public’s trust should be breached lightly, but there are other competing goods involved in any complex situation. …

If Bush succeeds — still a big if — the painful irony for Bush’s critics is that he will go down in history as a great president, even if he lied, while they will take their paranoia to their graves.

This last bit doesn’t even make sense, of course, because it ain’t paranoia if it’s true, but Goldberg’s butter-fingered grasp of logic is the least of his problems. Great move, LA Times.

Laura Rozen lays into Dick Cheney, and it isn’t pretty:

“The guy supports torture. He hides out in bunkers. He conspires with big oil to deceive the Congress. His chief of staff has been indicted for covering up that office’s role in outing a CIA officer to the media as political revenge. He bought sci fi Iraq intelligence from whoever was selling. He obstructed a Senate Intelligence investigation of pre-war intelligence. Basically, I don’t think the Dems are going to have any problem continuing to let the public know about Cheney, whose popularity rating stands about as high as Saddam’s in Iraq, right? Only in Cheney’s Anbar province, Wyoming and Utah, does his approval rating break 50% …”

Ouch!

If the Republicans want to survive as a party, there’s just one course for the rational amongst them to take. As I put it last month: “Earth to Bush: Ditch Cheney.”

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), in a November 15 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, in Washington, D.C.

“The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years.”

He also said: “I believe the United States should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year” — essentially the same position as the bipartisan “Homeward Bound” resolution, which would begin withdrawing U.S. troops “no later than October 1, 2006.”

As antiwar momentum builds, we are beginning to see the reappearance of a species we all thought was extinct: the rational Republicans.