Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Administration Opposes Plame Appeal
The Obama administration Wednesday took the side of top Bush administration officials - including most-vocal recent critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney - in the ongoing fight over the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Valerie Plame pulls out of her driveway on her way to work on Friday, Dec. 9, 2005 in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf) The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court not to hear an appeal of a lawsuit brought by Mrs. Plame and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, against several top Bush administration officials. The department's move continued the Bush administration's policy to fight the suit, which has already been dismissed by two lower courts.
"The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals," said the brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough. "Further review is unwarranted."
The Justice Department filing agreed with the lower courts that none of the Wilsons' several legal arguments gave an appropriate basis for such a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has not acted on the Wilsons' request that it hear the case.
The Wilsons filed suit in 2006 against top Bush administration officials who they say violated their constitutional rights by publicly disclosing that Mrs. Wilson was an undercover CIA operative. The lawsuit names Mr. Cheney, former White House senior adviser Karl Rove, former Chief of Staff to the Vice President I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.
"We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson," said Melanie Sloan, one of the couple's attorneys and the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The government's position cannot be reconciled with President Obama's oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."
The White House referred questions about the case to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.
The case follows a classic Washington scandal that has come to be known as "Plamegate."
Fallout from the controversy led to the conviction of Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury investigating the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity, though he was not charged with the actual leak. President George W. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence, without his having spent a day behind bars, after the sensational trial that peeked into the sometimes cozy and questionable relationship of Washington journalists and their politician sources.
The scandal had its roots in the 2003 State of the Union address, in which Mr. Bush said Saddam Hussein has recently tried to buy uranium in Africa. Mr. Wilson became a vocal and public critic of this claim, which the Wilsons say led the Bush administration to leak that information to columnist Robert Novak as an act of revenge. Mr. Armitage was later revealed to be the leaker.
Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
135 Comments so far
Show AllAnother day.
Another betrayal.
http://www.imeem.com/rockmusic2/music/9wjPX7Br/judy-collins-maratsade/
Vern, it was a betrayal only if you voted for Obama. I did not. And 4 years from now I will again cast my vote for a Green or independant candidate. Hopefully people who identify themselves with the Left will finally wake up and do the same!
Technically maybe.
There was the chance that he would at least be an improvement over Bush rather than an endorsement of him. It is easy to say your hands are clean when you don't know what your choice might evolve into once their foot is in the door. I know that in these parts, the Green Party SUCKS. They are an elite enclave who turn their nose up at class issues--in fact environmental issues if it impacts on working class communities. Perhaps infiltration knocked the wind out of their sails--but they are pretty irrelevant.
It was totally clear from the beginning that O was a total corporatist and liar. Why weren't you paying attention?
No, there always was the possibility that he might prove to be better than worse and now he is what he is. This armchair quarterbacking and the I-told-you-so retrospective scoldings are juvenile and only serve to splinter any united front opposing the here and now.
Agreed.
Obama will disappoint - they all do. Still, he was the better choice given the sad state of affairs in our plutocracy.
The sad fact at hand is that we have a system that represents itself, and we had better figure out a way to counter that (and the ballot is NOT the way, as we have seen time and again). Do we really need to keep rehashing this? Can we afford to?
The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Everythingtoeveryone Party, doesn't have a prayer, even if by some miracle they win an election. The system is rigged. The game is ginned. The Ponzi scheme works and we are at the bottom.
Our work is far more important than to waste our time on the results of one day every fourth year. I don't hear much of what folks here are doing to counter "What Is." Until I do, I tend to give a cursory glance at the postings, shrug, and move on.
Really--considering he could ever be considered preferrable to Hillary Clinton--once considered the heir apparent.
In keeping with the tone:
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair05212009.html
From the Counterpunch article:
"After little more than 100 days in office, the Democrats, under the leadership of Barack Obama, have unleashed a slew of anti-environmental policies that would have enraged any reasonable conservationist during the Bush years."
Yeah, well...aren't we all getting a little tired of being whipsawed by what we want to happen, what the media tells us does happen, and what really happens? And aren't we just a little wary of what we hear, never really knowing what really happens?
It's enough to drive one crazy. In fact, hasn't it already driven us all just a little crazy? Or a lot?
Maybe it's purely a defensive tactic on my part, used just to preserve what little sanity I may have left, but I have to take all this talk of who would have done what, when, and where with a grain of salt. Washington may as well be another planet. (Actually, I wouldn't defame another planet by comparing it to Washington.) Point is, it is out of our control. The ballot is rigged, so how on Earth do we expect to take back any power by electing folks to Washington?
Not to say that we shouldn't be wary of Washington and act to improve things or that we shouldn't get pissed off, but we shouldn't keep wasting our energy solely on who won the election and what they are doing, or not doing. It's really like setting up a straw man, then knocking it down and saying, "See, I told you so!" Washington doesn't work for us, in any sense of the word. Why keep rehashing this obvious point?
What can each of us do? Let's pretend Washington politics is so broken that even sending Jesus Christ Himself there (and some believe we have) wouldn't fix it. What do we do?
Maybe it's time we each sit down and make a plan. "What am I going to do...?"
Oh, one more thing: Of course we all know that the Washington Times is the Fox News of print newspaper, don't we? Not that it matters...
Ted,
How can anyone have a belief that they can work together with people who don't get it?
The more some people here pass off their now obvious mistake in voting Democratic or for Mr. Obama, the more suspect they become to people who saw threw the charade.
I can't trust people who shrug off their stupidity and want to Move On.
Reflection of ones mistakes is the only way to grow.
Obama morphed into Hillary as soon as he beat her down. Now he is morphing into McCain, even going so far as to want to tax employee health benefits.
Yes, 3rd party folks who scold the majority about their votes need some social skills.
If 3rd parties aren't organized to unite so that there can be an alternative, this is all about complaining.
"If you would have voted 3rd party?", if there was a viable alternative and united movement then there could be real possibilities.
When someone says vote for one of the 3rd parties, other than the protest votes (which is OK too) they can't win because they are not united to accomplish their goals.
This is hard for progressives to understand, but it is why we keep losing and sniping at each other.
Remember the slogan "the people united can not be defeated", this is a political truth, so if 3rd parties do not unite and find ways to get it together, they only help keep the status quo in power.
That is how I see it after 66 years. So 3rd party folks if you don't organize, you are not changing a thing.
-When someone says vote for one of the 3rd parties
have you stuck your head out of the US lately, I guess all those multiparty democracies out there are an aberration?
It baffles me why the American left can't get its act together, but what is the alternative, continuing to vote R and D? How is that working out for the (non millionaire) vast majority of Americans?
Got your healthcare? No.
Still fighting wars around the world, for a "chance" at a college education? Yes.
Can the government still kidnap, torture you and kill you at will? Yes.
way to go Obomanation!
Good post--the closest we have ever come was "we the people" led by quirky ross Peroe--maybe the same machine with a differen leader could win--after all even he garnered 19,000,00 votes
That is why i see the need for 3rd parties to unite, because they just serve as guaranteed losers until they realize this is not, I repeat this is not Europe.
If you just want to vote knowing you wont get what you want, then vote for one of many 3rd parties and split progressive votes.
You said "It baffles me why the American left can't get its act together, but what is the alternative, continuing to vote R and D? How is that working out for the (non millionaire) vast majority of Americans?"
I agree and that is my point too!
Europe has a different system... Not winner take all. Sorry about that.
Cheer up things will get worse.
"Yes, 3rd party folks who scold the majority about their votes need some social skills."
And how have Democratic supporters treated third parties, better? or much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, worse?
I agree that politeness is more persuasive, but if anything is deserving rage it's the mainstream treatment of third parties. When so-called progressives attack supporters of Nader, the Greens, or third parties for robbing votes from Democrats, they should stop calling themselves progressives or even left-wing. At that point, they are corporatists whether they like or not.
The majority of voters ("Corporatists" as you call them) will not take progressive 3rd parties seriously until they get it all together... voting is about numbers, adding votes. The majority doesn't care about being pure... they want to vote for someone who can do something to improve life, and get ELECTED!
I like what you've said, and I agree. Except that I don't think -- in this case -- there was a risk of electing McCain.
By November 2, it was known that Obama would win by and electoral-vote blow-out. If informed progressives across the country had wised up and voted for Nader, he would easily have won 10% of the popular votes, and I don't think the electoral vote total would have changed by even one vote.
The closest races were in Indiana and North Carolina, where Obama won by 1% each, but there aren't enough progressives in Indiana and North Carolina to have made a difference.
In Minnesota and Iowa where Obama won by 10%, lots of progressives could have safely voted for Nader. Ditto in Wisconsin, where Obama won by 14%.
Then look at the big states: California (24%), New York (27%) and Illinois (25%). Millions of progressive voters in those states could have voted for Nader without endangering those Obama electoral-votes.
The same is true for many smaller states: Hawaii (45%), Vermont (37%), Massachusetts (26%), Connecticut (23%), Maryland (26%) and others. Progressives in those states could have safely voted for Nader, and they should have.
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Dec31.html
If Nader had won 10% of the votes (or more) do you think Obama would now have political cover to move to the left? Yes. Would Nader be given a voice in the media? Yes. Would he be a guest on the Sunday talk shows, countering the likes of Newt and Rush and George Will? Yes. Would more and more Americans become familiar with Nader and his agenda (which is shared by a majority of Americans, even though they don't know it.)? Yes. Would the entire political dynamic be changed? Yes.
But, thanks to the Nader-has-no-chance, self-fulfilling prophecy "progressives" and their short-sightedness, none of that happened. Instead, the Left is now marginalized in the corporate media as "crazies" and "loonies." And, Obama lurches ever Rightward.
I have observed 'Obama Voters' during the Texas primaries. I have never in my life in the USA encountered a more inconsiderate and extremist group of people. Their leader is in the same mold. When you rest on extremist support you cannot fail to support extremist positions such as indefinite/protective detention which is the hallmark of despots and their Bastille's.
Many Obama operatives were, and are, Republicans. (Hell, he even appointed them to his Cabinet.) But corporate Democrats can also be bullies and jerks.
You're right that "indefinite, protective detention" is an extremist position. It's the same policy that Bush/Cheney pursued, but Obama has given it a different name. Rachel Maddow discussed that on her show, the day of Obama's speech about it.
Many of us pointed out Obama's hypocrisy during the campaign, and were viciously attacked for it. You have to wonder how many "progressives" on this site are false flag operatives for corporate America.
Thanks for your latest Obama talking points Glover. But I don't find Obama imporving anything and HE DID get elected. Unless of course endless war escalation, occupation of Iraq indefinately, a fantasy called clean coal, TARP and FISA, dropping munitions on non combatants, appointing corporatists and assassination genrals to advance his "empathy" world-wide is your view of improving something.
Wake up, lad.
I trusted enough of you would elect The Bomber, so I voted for Ralph, I think... can't remember now. Too many good independents out there!
I also made sure Democrats over Republicans got my local vote, unless it was a landslide.
Strategic Voting!
More people would vote 3rd party is there was a run-off and we had a 1st choice AND a second choice. I you first choice has no chance then your second choice is the vote that counts.
"there always was the possibility that he might prove to be better..."
There's always the possibility that pigs will fly too.
Learning Obama's true agenda was simple: all you had to do was examine his Senate voting record -- as I pointed out repeatedly in theses forums in 2008.
People reading this who voted for Obama: YOU'RE THE PROBLEM! It's you -- with your Ralph-Nader-has-no-chance self-fulfilling prophecies and your least-worst "strategic" voting -- that got us here.
Based on the fact that a majority of Americans agree with Nader's agenda, it's logical that had they actively campaigned for him and then voted for him, he would have won -- especially in a three-way race.
Moreover, if only the most knowledgeable and conscientious among us had campaigned for and voted for Nader, he could easily have won 5 or 10 percent of the votes, and we would now have a political base from which to push Obama.
Instead, we are ignored, betrayed and derided as "crazies." Thanks a lot! Great "strategy," that strategic voting of yours.
If you want a strong political base work to unite the 3rd parties,
Nader was splitting his votes with other parties who wanted Peace and Justice and were very progressive.
by calling the majority the "Problem" you have guaranteed you wont convince a soul out there who is not already a 3rd party voter. So the majority may be the problem in your eyes but they determine who wins, So until you show the majority that progressives know how to organize and appeal to the majority, you are your own problem.
Read carefully: "People reading this who voted for Obama: YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!"
I don't think a "majority" of voters have read my post. The remainder of my argument follows logically.
As for Nader "splitting votes," Nader was the only third-party candidate with name recognition in the race. We'll probably never see as strong a third-party candidate again in our lifetimes. Grousing that he was splitting votes is just another lame version of the self-fulfilling prophecy "he-has-no-chance." It's neither a reason nor an excuse: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Try this: instead of laboring, as you have, to persuade people that Nader-has-no-chance (unless we all unite, or the heavens open, or pigs fly or whatever), put that same time and energy into persuading people that you are voting for Nader because he's the best candidate and he can win. (After all, it's true! Even a dolt like Jesse Ventura won, with more than 33% of the vote in a three-way race.) Not-so-amazingly, if everyone of your self-fulfilling prophecy ilk would have done the same we'd have President Nader now.
The longest journey -- remember the rest? -- begins with a single step? It doesn't begin by sitting at home and blogging "it can't be done!"
Vern, okay, there was a chance Obama would be better than Bush. There was also a chance that McCain would be better than Bush, so what? Saying there's a "chance" is like saying "well, golly gee, anything's possible". Admit it, your fears made you believe in a fantasy world.
These so-called "betrayals" are not news to people who bothered to read the policy statements issued by the Obama campaign prior to the election - meanwhile you were busy being giddy-headed with hope and chastising us for risking a McCain victory. Face facts, what has Obama done differently than McCain? At least McCain would be unpopular. You are like the guy who voted for Bush because "he looks like the type of guy I'd like to have a beer with".
It's ironic that you are talking about a "united front". The last time I heard that, guys like you were trying to get me to vote for Obama, and no one wanted to hear what he stood for. So spare me your lectures, how about an apology for your prior ignorance?
Are you ready to try a "united front" for a party NOT dedicated to war, torture, and corporatism? Or in four years will you, once again, be fearfully urging people to vote democrat?
But he had such dang good PR [and he's a cousin to Dick Cheney and George Bush], and catchy slogans [and he's a member of the CFR], and children sang songs praising him! How could one not vote for him? Oh, you mean if they were awake, aware, and had their bull$#!t detectors functioning?
Most people still don't realize that Obama's administration is from Wall Street, or Bush's cabinet.
Well lickety: Probably because McCain was a total corporatist and liar. As disapointing as Obama has been I shrudder to imagine McCain as president. What if he croaked and we had President Palin? Yes Obama is Bushlite, but at least we are sure to get a candidate for the supreme court who doesn't think people and dinosaurs roamed the planet together 5,000 years ago.
What would McCain be doing differently?
Name something...
It strikes me as ironic that your initial post is knocking Obama while your follow up is defending him via proxy by trashing the only alternative to the status quo. Something like a cognitive bi-polar disorder?
Futhermore, nothing could be more irrelevant than electing Obama and his bloody, non environmental coal loving, corporate owned, war intoxicated, brethren.
Give me a break.
Hate to break this to you Vern, but your threw your vote away.
Third parties are not a real alternative until they unite for victory.
We are talking about a big nation, 50 million votes are needed just to have a chance.
Remember the old saying "Get your Shit together"?
Well now is the time.
What exactly is a "real alternative?" I take it that in your view it is Obama?
An alternative without a prayer to win is no real alternative. Time marches on and if you want to find an alternative you need to WORK to unite the people. Sniping at the majority for how they vote is self defeating.
If this means in 4 years the 3rd parties split votes again, that is no alternative to the majority and never will be.
if we want someone else to win next time, we need to work very hard for it.
So to be brief, who is your real alternative?
My Real Alternative is: We need to think about how to unite Progressives without the blame game.
Your presuppositions about me are as ignorant as your lost vote for Obama, now flushed down the shiter. I see you are trying to wrest my argument, and turn it back on me - typical, if not original.
I've worked to build the Green Party and for Instant Run Off Voting. Futhermore, Ive worked in the non profit world for sub-standard pay for over 25 years.
The continued obfuscations ad nausea reflect your own ignorance on the subject. Its called denial. Obama has proved he is owned by the military industrain establishment, and corporations: conclusion, he IS NOT an alternative.
So, in your words, who is an alternative? Look in the mirror before lecturing those who are LIVING IT on the front lines.
Your ilk is good at paying lip service to your failed ideology, but noting more. I guess Obama Central issued their latest orders to swamp the progressvie news wire with obfuscation and talking points that ignore others questions. Better check your own social skills which are lacking.
I second that!
elohim, You have to ask yourself why every four years Americans get suckered into voting for the war and corporation party, take your pick. If Americans don't vote every scum bag out of office, who sold out America by keeping the war going, not impeaching the little deserter,sold out to the bankers and insurance companieys, then it's all over for America.
Obama has not disappointed me one bit. His actions are exactly as I expected. There were enough warning signs. He was the first politician I can recall advocating expanding the war into Pakistan, and now he is trying to foment civil war in that country armed with nuclear weapons. What the hell is wrong with this country? And he voted consistently for more war funding. And he voted for amnesty for the telephone/spy companies. And he voted for the FISA bill letting Bush off the hook for multiple felonies. No. I can't say I am one bit disappointed in his administration so far. -
Well reasoned.
I wonder, though, if you voted for someone else. If so, how is that choice doing?
Sioux Rose
VERN: That was exactly my sentiment. How does this guy look in the mirror? I wonder if his fate resembled the hot shot lawyer who decided to represent the Mafia, but then couldn't get out safely because, well, he knew too much. Threats to one's wife and children are powerful motivational tools.
If you let a wild animal out of a cage it behaves like a wild animal.
If you elect a fascist president it behaves like a fascist.
When US Senator Obama voted to enhance spying on citizens and zealously promoted and voted to unconditionally hand over billions of taxpayer dollars to the perpetrators of the economic meltdown, it should have been apparent to any reasonable person that he was a fascist.
OBAMA = BUSH BUSH = OBAMA
-------- OK folks its past the 100 day limit for I told you so.
If you have not checked yet YOU BOTH LOST.
Obama has been the best recruitor for the third party vote( as Bush was for Terrorist, O is no slouch either)
As another poster wrote I will vote for a democratic president again even if the Repug was Genghis Khan.
ALL the third paties need to unite behind one candidate and there needs to be watchdogs on the vote tally.
Plus massive civil disobedience.
Yes glen.
Said. If he keeps going along this path them we might just see a repug president in 2012.
And what would be the difference between the repug or a democrat prez? Apparently the course these two parties follow is the same. Isn't Obomber following in Bush's steps? I think this team mentality that one team is better than the other is what is causing us a great misery and will continue to cause misery to this country.
Frankly, I don't care anymore. I will tend my garden and hope I can get through the rest of my life w/o these corrupt, savage fools doing me in.
Tending one's garden is a good thing, and something I am doing as well.
I hope, however, that tending one's garden starts from one's nose and moves outward. If we expect others to do as we say, not as we do, we're pissing in the wind.
I hope, also, that we include our community, our country, our world, as parts of our gardens. If we don't, then we're just pissing on our gardens (which is not a bad thing for the plants, but it's a handy metaphor).
I am ashamed to say that I am doing the same, but I care. No matter what we do things will be done their way.
I know one person can make a difference. A friend of mine is working herself into an early grave just for the benefit of other people, and on a local level she has worked wonders. I don't have that kind of energy, and maybe I don't care as much as I wish I did.
Obama, why didn't you just get rich practicing law? I expect to be screwed by the likes of Cheney, may he rot in hell, but you looked so good and promised so much and disappointed so profoundly.
You should have compared his Senate voting record to Hillary's before voting for him. It was obvious he was no progressive. And contrary to popular belief and media spin, her voting record was surprisingly progressive.