The Wall Street Journal reports that Fitzgerald’s CIA Plame leak investigation may be broadening its scope: sights on WHIG?

 

"Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy."

"Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims."

 

WSJ via Truth Out http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101205I.shtml

 

WHIG was formed by WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August, 2002.  In addition to the POTUS and VPOTUS, it included Karl Rove, communications aides Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson, legislative aide Nicholas E. Calio, then-NSA Condi Rice, her deputy Stephen Hadley, and VP Cheney’s COS “Scooter” Libby.

 

As others have noted, if this is true, it would touch many in the Bush White House, just as many who worked in the Clinton White House were drawn into legal scrutiny.  Beyond this core group, the web for the Plame leak may involve 21 Bush administration employees.

 

But Clinton wasn’t conducting an enormously expensive and increasingly unpopular war, nor accused of manipulating if not manufacturing evidence (who forged the Niger ‘yellowcake’ doc?) to justify preemptive invasion, was seen as competent and overly attentive to issues, and wasn’t tainted by corporate corruption and cronyism in appointments to many government agencies, as well as the Supreme Court.

 

And recall, as all these scandals seem to implode simultaneously, that this wave of just-desserts comes amid a GOP-controlled Congress. Imagine what might be in the media and under investigation if Democrats in Congress had subpoena powers.  

 

So it is no wonder the President’s body language indicates a great deal of stress and avoidance these days, especially unscripted.

Under stress, body language speaks volumes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101577.html

 

BTW, the Matt Lauer interview with Bush on the Today show yesterday was persistent one-on-one; given past media deference, Lauer didn’t fade after the first good ol boy brush-off, and Bush got a wee defensive. The MSM didn’t cover this, but the web certainly did.

 

I applaud Bush being more involved in post-Katrina reconstruction and insisting that local interests and plans will dominate. With past history in mind, it remains to be seen whether that occurs, or if this is more lip service. His frequent self-serving photo ops in the Gulf region notwithstanding, this is the kind of project in which Dubya has a genuine interest and is more comfortable ‘selling’…from those good old days as a governor.  Yet it’s been a month since he announced a Gulf Opportunity Zone, and FEMA is fending off complaints that no-bid contracts favored administration favorites once again.

 

Unfortunately, Bush is responsible for much more than Texas now and accountable for many things he’d rather avoid. Amid the “Quag-Mier” of his practice of favoritism, there is more criticism that the White House “cherry picked” war intelligence to suit its agenda: 

CIA review faults pre-war plans http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-11-cia-iraq-report_x.htm

 

Don’t forget that this weekend’s elections in Iraq will, like it or not, provide bellwether markers on Bush’s War, that FEMA will soon stop paying for the Katrina homeless’ hotel bills, the new bankruptcy bill takes effect, home and business owners find that loan applications are stalled, interest rates and credit card minimum payments are rising - all just as the weather turns cold in many parts of the country. People are worried about higher gas prices, soaring utilities, entrenched debt, job insecurity, health and terror scares and national security in general, all while Thanksgiving and the holiday shopping season descend upon us.  That’s a potent cocktail of sociopolitical influenza for winter 2005 for an administration with historically low approval and confidence numbers below 40%.

Which reminds me: In a just-released poll conducted by the nonpartisan Ipsos group, sponsored by AfterDowningStreet.org, 50% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached if it is proved he lied about going to war.

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans. Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.  Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

 

“A Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by IpsosOther polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."  Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.”

 

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101205O.shtml

 

This polling remains essentially buried by the mainstream media. The next few weeks may change that.

 

kwc

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to