Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Recent History of Abortion
Recently, some reader(s) have made comments regarding the Republicans not being tough on abortion. I did a Google search and found this. It is a straight copy and paste job...and all the links within the text are the same links you would find if you go to the website of origin.
On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the first-ever federal ban on abortion, despite a June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found similar bans to be unconstitutional. To learn more about the 2000 case, see Stenberg v. Carhart.

See the In the Courts section for details on our current challenge to the Federal Abortion Ban. Read the full text of the bill - Bill Number: HR760.

Efforts to Pass a Federal Abortion Ban

  • 1995-1996 - The U.S. Congress passed the first nationwide ban on abortion, which was vetoed by President Clinton. Although abortion foes were able to override the President's veto in the House, Senators sustained the President's action and prevented the act from becoming law.
  • 1997 - Congress passed a slightly amended version of the law, which was again immediately vetoed by President Clinton.
  • 1998 - The House once again overrode the President's veto and the Senate sustained the President's action.
  • 1999-2000 - The Senate and House passed the 1997 version. With the end of the Congressional session, the bill died.
  • June 2000 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska abortion ban, which had been modeled on the federal ban. The case was argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
  • 2001 - Neither the House nor the Senate introduced an abortion ban in the 2001 legislative session, though Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus in Congress, said that a federal ban was a top priority for him.
  • 2002 - A new abortion ban that fails to remedy the flaws in the law found unconstitutional in Carhart was passed in the House of Representatives.
  • 2003 - Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the first federal law banning abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy. The Center for Reproductive Rights immediately challenged the bill in the same federal court and before the same judge who heard the Center's earlier suit against the Nebraska law. Judge Richard Kopf immediately blocked enforcement of the federal law in order to protect doctors’ rights and women’s health while the case proceeds.
  • 2003 - 2004 – The Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood of America challenge the Federal Abortion Ban in three separate cases. The law is declared unconstitutional in all trial and appellate courts.
  • 2006 – The Supreme Court agrees to review the Center for Reproductive Rights case, Gonzales v. Carhart
It looks like Republican's are trying to make abortion illegal to me. You judge for yourself.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, September 29, 2006
Keep Abortion Legal!!!
An interesting article appeared in the USA Today a couple days ago..
Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month.
Uh oh…the fascists are taking over the old-fashioned way. For those of you who don’t know, children tend to vote the same way their parents voted. Here’s a little tidbit on that…
Political scientists have long found that 4 out of 5 people with a party preference grow up to vote the way their parents voted. In fact, while many people experience a temporary rejection of their parents' politics in very early adulthood, virtually nothing is more predictive of your political ideology than that of your parents -- it's more of a determining factor than income, education or any other societal yardstick.
So how many more Republican children are there?

GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district.

Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively few children. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or, to a lesser extent, African-American.

Sorry Democrats, but abortion has come back to kick you in the ass. You are exterminating your future voting base. This fact has made me pro-choice. I would say I was pro-abortion, but I am really only pro-liberal-abortion, so pro-choice is what I will label myself as.

Not all is lost my Democratic friends. Think of it this way, by killing yourselves you are taking away pleasure from Bush (a.k.a. Nazi) from doing the job himself. Abortion empowers you. Keep up the good work!

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Kissinger: Great American, or Great Satan
This made me laugh…

Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

In Wallace’s interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the reporter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush.

OHHHH…so THAT’S why our foreign policy is so messed up!

Kissinger reminds me of Cheney because many Democrats have an unbridled hatred for both of them…which is why I love them both.

As for the book...I think I may have to read it.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Newt Wins Welfare Debate Once and For All
Ali G isn't a push over...good job Newt!!!


StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Pakistan Surrenders...Terrorists ...err...Democrats Claim Victory

A story that has been swept under the rug by the media (no doubt strong evidence against the liberal media bias) points to a significant strategic victory for Democrats and all peace loving people around the world.

Intelligence analysts woke up on September 5 to unsettling news. The government of Pakistan, they learned, had entered into a peace agreement with the Taliban insurgency that essentially cedes authority in North Waziristan, the mountainous tribal region bordering Afghanistan, to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Just ten days later, the blow was compounded when the government of Pakistan released a large number of jihadists from prison. Together, these events may constitute the most significant development in the global war on terror in the past year--yet the media have taken little notice.

For four years, the Pakistani military engaged in a campaign to assert governmental control over Wazir istan. The cost to Pakistan has been considerable; some intelligence sources believe this fighting has exacted a higher death toll on the Pakistani military than U.S. forces have sustained in Iraq. It is in this context that Pakistan gave up on South Waziristan last spring, abandoning its effort to control that area. Thereafter, sharia law was declared in South Waziristan, and the Taliban began to rule openly.

Yet even in the wake of Pakistan's earlier surrender of South Waziristan, this new agreement, known as the Waziristan Accord, is surprising. It entails a virtually unconditional surrender of Waziristan.

I saw this story a couple weeks ago on Drudge. The next day, Drudge ran a story with the president of Pakistan saying that it was not a surrender and before I knew it, I had completely forgotten about it.

I would venture to say that most American’s would consider this a failure. Regardless of whom they blame – whether it be President Bush or Pakistan – Americans can not like the idea of our strongest ally in the War on Terrorism giving up. Yet, this is what many Democrats want us to do in Iraq.

This brings back the question: whom are we fighting in Iraq? Are we fighting poor Iraqi farmers who would be harvesting potatoes were it not for US occupation? Are farmers capable of the insurgency that has taken place in Iraq? I think the answer to these questions is obvious. We are not fighting normal people in Iraq. We are fighting military trained and state sponsored terrorists in Iraq. Therefore, if the US were to withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it would be a terrorist victory. There would be no difference between the US pulling out of Iraq, and what Pakistan did two weeks ago.

We need to get our act together. Democrats need to shut the hell up about wiretapping, conspiracy theories, and uncomfortable air conditioning in Gitmo and start coming up with some better ideas on how to fight the War on Terrorism. Bush needs to stop talking about "hard work" and "there’s been real progress" and double the amount of troops we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Say what you like about Joe Biden, but the guy is at least trying to come up with some alternative plans for Iraq.)

Back to my original point…Democrats should love this surrender. It represents a step towards peace. After all, Bush has fabricated most of the "terrorist threat". So not only is this not a loss (you can’t lose a war that doesn’t exist), but it is a victory (peace is the ultimate goal after all).

One last point…there was a rumor that Osama had recently died. However, that idea has already been shot down.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Sunday that Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was still alive, despite a newspaper report citing French intelligence that he might have died.

"To my knowledge, Osama bin Laden is not dead. It is quite simple," he told French television's Grand Jury RTL-Le Figaro-CLI programme. "It's the truth," he said.

He was reacting to a French media report on Saturday that bin Laden might have died of typhoid in a hideout in Pakistan -- a claim that was greeted with scepticism around the world.

One could only dream…

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, September 24, 2006
50 Cent A Republican?
I always knew there was something I liked about him...

Rapper 50 CENT describes himself as the GEORGE W BUSH of hip-hop - because they are both unpopular. The IN DA CLUB star is a massive fan of the Republican leader, who he calls his "homeboy". He says, "You wanna know something? I actually like Bush. "In some ways, I'm the George W Bush of hip hop - nobody likes me, but I'm still gonna run it for the next four years." But the rapper has no aspirations to emulate his hero. He adds, "I don't need that kind of pressure. All I need is a sequel to my video game and a new hit single."

Say what you like about "family values", but if I could choose one rapper to be Republican, it would be 50. Why? He is what rap is all about. Not like that bitch Kanye that grew up in an upper middle class home. Certainly not like Eminem who fabricated most of his problems so that he could have something to rap about. 50 was shot 9 times...PERIOD.

Here is one more tidbit from 50 regarding Hurricane Katrina.

Rap feuds aren't usually about differing opinions on President Bush. However, that appears to be the case between 50 Cent and Kanye West.

50 says he disagrees with West's infamous statement that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," proclaimed during a September telethon for Hurricane Katrina victims.

"I think people responded to it the best way they can," 50 told ContactMusic.com. "What Kanye West was saying, I don't know where that came from."

If you think about it, Republican rappers aren't all that farfetched. After all, they are rich. Not to mention, 50 is predisposed to Republican ideas because he is a bad ass.

Speaking of Kanye, here is Mencia's take on him...notice the reference to 50. There is a stark contrast between the two.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Party of Corruption and Stolen Elections


I seriously don’t know what to say to this

The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.

The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.

The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans.

The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010. It was among the recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.

This is self-explanatory. The party that complains about stolen elections is the same party against basic measures to ensure that the people voting are who they say they are.

I seriously can’t wrap my brain around this. To me, there are only three real possibilities that Dems don’t want picture ID’s as a requirement to vote.

  1. They think that their scaremongering of blacks (by use of the race card) will help them retain control over the black vote.
  2. They think that a lot of their constituents vote more than once or possibly, vote when they aren’t legally allowed to (illegal immigrants and felons).
  3. They simply want to obstruct Republican legislation.

The Dems don’t state any of these reasons when arguing against voter ID’s, but the one reason they do give is bogus. Apparently, although it isn’t mentioned in this article (perhaps because of how absurd it is) some Dems fear that blacks in the South were born at home and never obtained a birth certificate as a result. I think this scenario probably applies to about 15 people in the continental US. Get real…

Here is another Dem (dumb) argument against the legislation...

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people."

A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.

Isn’t it the exact opposite? Aren’t Dems trying to appeal to the fear that some blacks have about white oppression? Also, aren’t Dems being "prejudice" by "prejudging" Republicans and assuming their motives are racist?

As for the "show me examples" comment…I’d like to see some examples of convictions regarding Democratic complaints of voting fraud (most of their complaints involve voting machines). I don't think we need to suffer huge cases of voter fraud in order to close huge loopholes that we can foresee. We should be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to ensuring fair elections.

Let’s face it, the Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They scream "stolen elections" every time President Bush wins, but when it’s time to crack down on voter fraud, they are MIA.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Who Ended the Cold War?

If you’ve ever doubted that Reagan ended the Cold War, here’s a little something to ponder…

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday he supported tough measures taken by Russian President Vladimir Putin and wished he had adopted them.

Gorbachev, whose political reforms led to the collapse of the communist empire, said he should have squashed the challenge from Boris Yeltsin, his arch-rival and subsequently first Russian president, by sending him into diplomatic exile.

For those of you who don’t know, some people claim that it was Gorbachev that ended the Cold War, not Reagan. The idea is that without Gorbachev, Russia would have stayed on their communist path. Gorbachev, in his infinite wisdom, decided to reform and as a result, ended the war. Backwards - to say the least

It’s like saying that it wasn’t Truman’s decision to drop nukes that ended the war against Japan, it was Emperor Hirohito’s wisdom. After all, had Hirohito not been so sensible, he would never have surrendered and therefore, he should get the credit for the ending of the war.

Obviously that is complete lunacy. Hirohito knew Japan couldn’t win, and he knew that because of Truman’s decision to drop the bomb. It wouldn’t take a genius or an extraordinarily benevolent dictator to understand that.

Similarly, Gorbachev surrendered because his country was getting its ass kicked economically. Gorbachev knew he couldn’t keep pace with American defense spending, and was forced to reform.

I understand that historians need to come up with crackpot ideas to sell books. I also understand that playing devil’s advocate is an important step in bringing all ideas to the forefront of the academic debate. Unfortunately, I don’t think devil’s advocate is the reason that some despise Reagan’s foreign policy.

Many people just hate the idea that spending billions on defense forced the Russians into submission. The idea that a weapons race could make us safer is scary. I’m sorry, but you people need to get over your childlike views. It would be nice if we could turn the other cheek with our enemies, but that doesn’t work on such large scales.

Oh yea, don’t forget the SDI/Star Wars factor…that drives the libs CRAZY!!! The fact that there is a remote possibility that SDI played any role in America's victory over the Soviet Union...it kills them. hahahaha

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, September 18, 2006
Anti-communist Propaganda
To quote my favorite political movie...

America...fuck yea!!!

Speaking of America, I was browsing YouTube and stumbled across this video. I think this proves we need more, not less, propaganda...enjoy!!!


StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Plan B: Fit for a Monkey

I hate to say I told you so…ok that’s a lie…

Giving women the morning-after pill makes no difference to either the pregnancy rate or the abortion rate, a family planning expert says today.

Contrary to assumptions, says Anna Glasier, director of the Lothian primary care NHS trust in Edinburgh, several studies - including one that she herself led - have shown that even giving women packets of morning-after pills to keep at home in case they need them does not reduce the proportions having unplanned babies or terminations.

Often the problem is not with the pills but in the way they are used.

"When reasons for not using emergency contraception, despite having a supply at home, were documented, three out of every four women said they did not realise they had put themselves at risk of pregnancy," she writes in the British Medical Journal today.

Lawrence H. Summers is looking pretty smart right about now.

The focus should be on getting people to take precautions before or during sex rather than afterwards, she argues.

During sex? Is this a reference to the pullout method?

There has never been a placebo-controlled trial of the morning-after pill for ethical reasons. "Despite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the UK. They have risen from 11 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1984 (136,388 abortions) to 17.8 per 1,000 in 2004 (185,400 abortions)," she writes. Sweden shows the same pattern, she says. The estimates of efficacy could well be skewed by the inadequacy of the information researchers are given by some women using the pill. "Many women using emergency contraception have recently had unprotected intercourse more than once, many are vague about the date of their last period, and a few were too drunk to be sure they had even had sex."

Well well well….this is the monkey sex I was referring to in my last blog about the morning after pill. If you can’t teach a monkey to use birth control, good luck with these women.

If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution…

I told you so!!!
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Crazy Canadian
Here is a disturbing story out of Canada

A man with a black trench coat whose shooting rampage in a Montreal college killed one person and wounded 19 others before he was slain by police said on a blog in his name that he liked to play a role-playing Internet game about the Columbine shootings.

The gunman who opened fire at Dawson College on Wednesday was Kimveer Gill, 25, of Laval, near Montreal, a police official said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because authorities were not ready to announce it publicly yet.

Where to begin…

First of all, I think its funny that a police official leaked information like this. What’s the point? I never really got leakers. They seem like attention-seeking whores to me. Take some pride in your job for goodness sake.

On to the real story though, this Kimveer Gill guy was obviously extremely disturbed. If you read that whole article about his blog, it reveals some disturbing info regarding this man’s character.

One photo has a tombstone with his name printed on it - below it the phrase: "Lived fast died young. Left a mangled corpse."

Or how about this one…

He wrote [on his blog] that he hates jocks, preppies, country music and hip-hop.

"Work sucks ... school sucks ... life sucks ... what else can I say? ... Life is a video game you've got to die sometime.

I think 9 out of 10 people could agree that both work and school sucks. On certain days, I could agree that life sucks, yet I have never come close to going on a shooting rampage. So essentially, this guy felt the same way I feel on my worst days. The difference is that instead of being depressed for hours or days like the average person, he was probably depressed for months or years.

I actually feel sorry for the murderer.

What ever happened to mental evaluations?

Menace to society

His haircut was one of many major character flaws

One last disturbing bit of information...

A neighbor who lives across the street from the home said Gill was a loner.

"There were never any friends," Louise Leykauf said. "He kept to himself. He always wore dark clothing."

I never got how someone could be a loner by choice. It is one thing to have a couple friends here and there, or maybe even one good friend…but to have NO friends? I just don’t get it.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Me and My Dumb Theories
I have actually gotten sick of politics. So sick I could vomit. Don’t hold me to it though, because I’d rather not. So rather than talk about politics, I have decided to share something I thought about just the other day. I’m sure someone else has thought of this before, but I’ve never heard it argued. Just don’t go thinking that I think I’m a big genius for coming up with this.

Anyways, I was thinking about art the other day. Art, at least by my understanding of it, is supposed to be the opposite of science. Science is absolute, while the beauty (or lack thereof) of art is left to the eye of the beholder. If this were actually true, then how could the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, or the Michelangelo’s David be considered art? You can’t argue against them being beautiful pieces of art without being labeled an uneducated boob (I'll admit it, I don't like the Mona Lisa). So how can they be considered art if everyone likes it?

In my mind, true art would allow for no consensus. Some people would hate it, and some people would love it. To me - even though I hate it 9 times out of 10 - this is why contemporary art is true art. There is no consensus. In fact, most the people I know hate it and don’t consider it art.

True art...though I would never put it on my wall...

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Bush Recruits Al- Jazeera to Nazi Intel Network

Thanks to the boys over at Loose Change, we now know that anyone who supports the Bush/Nazi regime’s official story of 9/11 is part of a vast conspiracy.

That lengthy list of conspirators got a little longer today

The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."

The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

We all know that the president has made the world hate the United States and that he needs to work harder at creating allies. Al-Jezeera 's defection to the Republican/Nazi intelligence network is unexpected, but it changes nothing. There is no doubt in my mind that the Al-Jezeera was part of a coalition that was bribed and coerced, much like the 35 countries that helped us unilaterally invade Iraq. I digress…

It’s going to be hard for him to top Al-Jezeera.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Chocolate City on a Hill: One Year Later
Just one year ago, hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Our good friends at Blame Bush! have written a nice reflection on that fateful event...

This week marked the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which means it’s time for white Americans to look into the mirror and ask themselves what they have done to make life easier for the millions of impoverished Blacks they allowed to drown in New Orleans. The answer is, to put it bluntly, diddly squat. Despite all the promises to rebuild the Chocolate City and restore it to its original chocolatey [sic] goodness, houses ripped from their foundations still rest in the middle of the streets, with large crowds of local politicians standing around wondering what Bush is going to do about it. Parts of the Gulf of Mexico are still completely underwater. The thousands who fled Louisiana haven't been offered enough cash incentives to come back, and the grinning skeletons of entire Black families who remained behind carpet the rooftops to this day, patiently waiting for rescue teams that will never come.

Blame Bush! is spot on as usual...

For those of you who never had a chance to go to the Chocolate City before it was destroyed, here are some before and after pictures.

The beautiful trees


People in the Chocolate City before the chocolate levee broke


The rivers flowed with milk and chocolate


Then Katrina - a.k.a. kill the black people - stuck with a force that the world had never seen


As you can see, the chocolate river flooded the city


Now there are no more children eating from the candy trees


Thank you Mayor Wonka

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Democrats to the Rescue!!!
This is a perfect story to use satire with, but I’ll do my best to stay serious...

Preliminary drilling tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico indicate that the site could boost U.S. oil and natural gas reserves by 50 percent. The Jack 2 well was drilled by San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron, along with Devon Energy of Oklahoma City and Norway's Statoil.

"The results of the Jack test are very encouraging," said Stephen Hadden, senior vice president of exploration and production. "They further support our positive view of the lower Tertiary trend and demonstrate the growth potential of our high-impact exploration strategy on long-term production, reserves, and value."

According to published reports, the Gulf of Mexico's lower-Tertiary formations could hold up to 15 billion barrels' worth of oil and gas reserves. By comparison, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. oil field, has produced 13 billion barrels of oil since 1977, with an estimated 3 billion recoverable barrels remaining. Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--not yet in production due to opposition from environmental activists--has an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Statistics from the Energy Information Administration peg current U.S. oil and gas reserves at around 30 billion barrels. Currently, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels a day.

So let me get this straight…the 15 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico are good, but the 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWAR are bad.

Come on liberals...save the sand in the Gulf of Mexico. These oil companies only care about money, stop them before they destroy the Gulf!

GO DEMOCRATS...YAY!!!

I'm trying my best to control myself, I really am. Seriously, what is the deal? Why aren't the Dems complaining about this oil find? Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico would affect more humans and wildlife than an oil spill in Alaska. I don't know why I am trying to understand these people. They are freaks.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Plame Game Update
This is from the New York Times.

An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Plame Game
This is from an op-ed in the Washington Post.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

His identity was known

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Not only did Bush’s posse not do anything illegal, they did not do anything unethical. If anyone acted unethically, it was Joe Wilson.

I am waiting for an apology, but I will not hold my breath.

This reminds me of the ENRON scandal. I remember people saying Ken Lay would get away with his crimes because he was the president’s friend. That outrageous claim did not pan out either.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!