Righties Don’t Get Racism

Most righties appear to appreciate that racism is bad, but they have a remarkably crude understanding of what racism actually is.

Today’s illustration: This rightie blogger who accuses Steve Gilliard of “racism” for lampooning Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. Lt. Gov. Steele is pictured in old-style minstrel show “blackface.”

“File under category of: ‘Racist Imagery — It’s OK If You Are A Liberal'” says the rightie.

A few commenters noted that Mr. Gilliard is, in fact, African American. This didn’t seem to make a dent in the outrage. “The idea that a person should be ‘allowed’ to say something only because he is part of a certain group is repugnant.”

I personally don’t see how putting Lt. Gov. Steele in blackface is as bad as, say, portraying Kerry and Edwards as the Ambiguously Gay Duo or ridiculing John Kerry by dressing him as a woman. These images are homophobic and sexist, respectively, because the only point to them is ridiculing the subjects by associating them with a “substandard” group.

But in the News Blog photo of Lt. Gov. Steele, the imagery has a more specific point. I take it that Lt. Gov. Steele has a history of being spineless on racism. And “blackface” has long symbolized African-American acquiescence to racial oppression. If you understand the symbolism, you appreciate that Steve’s imagery is making a statement in opposition to racism. And that would be true if a white blogger with Photoshop had put Lt. Gov. Steele in blackface.

They’re slow, I tell you.

Fitz Watch

David Shuster of MSNBC just reported that there is “no indication” there will be an announcement from Patrick Fitzgerald today. The grand jury is meeting and is probably hearing Fitzpatrick’s recommendations today, Shuster said. Tomorrow, maybe.

Update: Jason Leopold and John Byrne of Raw Story report:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.

This was added at the end:

Added in revision: “The grand jury had not yet decided on whether to make indictments at the time this article was published. It appears more likely that the jury would hand down indictments of perjury and obstruction than a charge that Plame was outed illegally. “

As I keyboard, a reporter on MSNBC is saying that Fitzgerald left the court a little after 1:00 pm. He presented his recommendations to the grand jury this morning.

More from Raw Story:

Those close to the investigation said Rove was offered a deal Tuesday to plead guilty to perjury for a reduced charge. Rove’s lawyer was told that Fitzgerald would drop an obstruction of justice charge if his client agreed not to contest allegations of perjury, they said.

Rove declined to plead guilty to the reduced charge, the sources said, indicating through his attorney Robert Luskin that he intended to fight the charges. A call placed to Luskin was not returned.

Those familiar with the case said that Libby did not inform Rove that Plame was covert. As a result, Rove may not be charged with a crime in leaking Plame’s identity, even though he spoke with reporters. …

…Rove’s charges appear to stem from allegations that he lied to FBI investigators in 2003, the sources said. Perjury and obstruction charges leveled against Libby center around conflicting testimony to the grand jury, they added.

Viceroy

Mo Dowd’s on a roll today–

The shocking thing about the trellis of revelations showing Dick Cheney, the self-styled Mr. Strong America, as the central figure in dark conspiracies to juice up a case for war and demonize those who tried to tell the public the truth is how unshocking it all is.

It’s exactly what we thought was going on, but we never thought we’d actually hear the lurid details: Cheney and Rummy, the two old compadres from the Nixon and Ford days, in a cabal running the country and the world into the ground, driven by their poisonous obsession with Iraq, while Junior is out of the loop, playing in the gym or on his mountain bike.

Mr. Cheney has been so well protected by his Praetorian guard all these years that it’s been hard for the public to see his dastardly deeds and petty schemes. But now, because of Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation and candid talk from Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Wilkerson, he’s been flushed out as the heart of darkness: all sulfurous strands lead back to the man W. aptly nicknamed Vice.

La Dowd sites the Tenet to The Dick to Scooter connection, then continues:

The Bush hawks presented themselves as protectors and exporters of American values. But they were so feverish about projecting the alternate reality they had constructed to link Saddam and Al Qaeda Рand fulfilling their id̩e fixe about invading Iraq Рthey perverted American values.

Whether or not it turns out to be illegal, outing a C.I.A. agent – undercover or not – simply to undermine her husband’s story is Rove-ishly sleazy. This no-leak administration was perfectly willing to leak to hurt anyone who got in its way.

In the Bush Administration, all dark roads lead to The Dick. In Salon, Jim Lobe writes that Cheney was at the center of the administration’s propaganda and intelligence-fixing efforts leading up to the Iraq War. Cheney, Lobe says, “started beating the nuclear drum with vigor significantly earlier than most remember; indeed at a time that was particularly curious given its proximity to the famous mission former Ambassador Joseph Wilson took on behalf of the CIA.”

Cheney’s drum-beating about Saddam Hussein’s alleged nuclear capabilities began

… just after his return from a tour of Arab capitals where he had tried in vain to gin up local support for military action against Iraq. Indeed, the specific date on which his campaign was launched was March 24, 2002, when, on return from the Middle East, he appeared on three major Sunday public-affairs television programs bearing similar messages on each. On CNN’s “Late Edition,” he offered the following comment on Saddam:

“This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said:

“[T]here’s good reason to believe that he continues to aggressively pursue the development of a nuclear weapon. Now will he have one in a year, five years? I can’t be that precise.”

And on CBS’s “Face the Nation”:

“The notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil wealth, with his inventory that he already has of biological and chemical weapons, that he might actually acquire a nuclear weapon is, I think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about it. And part of my task out there was to go out and begin the dialogue with our friends to make sure they were thinking about it.”

Lobe writes that in March 2002 there were only two pieces of evidence of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities known to be available. One was a “defector” offered by Ahmed Chalabi who delivered testimony seized upon eagerly by the Cheney cabal, and reported in the New York Times by Judy Miller in December 2001, even though both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency thought the testimony was a fabrication. And the other piece was …

The infamous forged Niger yellowcake documents that, at some point in December, 2001 or January, 2002 somehow appeared on Cheney’s desk, supposedly through the Defense Intelligence Agency or the CIA, though accounts differ on the precise route it took from Italian military intelligence (SISMI) to the Vice President’s office. It was these and related documents that spurred Cheney to ask for additional information, a request that would eventually result in Wilson’s trip to Niger in late February, which, of course, set the Plame case in motion. Wilson’s conclusion — that there was nothing to the story — would echo the conclusions of both U.S. ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick and Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., then-deputy commander of the U.S. European Command who was also sent to Niger in February. A couple of days after his return to Washington, Wilson would be debriefed by the CIA.

How far up their respective chains of command Wilson’s and Fulford’s reports made it remains a significant mystery to this day. Cheney’s office, which reportedly had reminded the CIA of the Vice President’s interest in the agency’s follow-up efforts even while Wilson was in Niger, claims never to have heard about either report. We do know that Fulford’s report made it up to Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers whose spokesman, however, told the Washington Post in July 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page, that the general had “no recollection” of it and so no idea whether it continued on to the White House or Cheney’s office.

If you can get around Salon‘s subscription firewall I recommend the Jim Lobe article, as it contains a good account of how the neocons, the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal, and other players like Judy Miller worked together to wave the nuclear shirt in support of an invasion of Iraq. But now I want to go on to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, who recently wrote a series of posts on the forged Niger yellowcake documents. See, for example, this and this. A story emerges that the documents were put together by some part of the Italian government to curry favor with the White House and push for war with Iraq. Via Kevin, we learn from Laura Rozen at TAP,

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d’Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy’s military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002.

….Today’s exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday.

Kevin comments,

La Repubblica‘s story suggests that the Italians pushed hard on the documents because they were eager to impress the Americans with their loyalty to the war cause. When the CIA and the State Department didn’t bite, they went straight to the White House. Read Laura’s entire piece for all the details.

And the forged documents made their way to Cheney’s desk in December 2001 or January 2002. The Big Dick took it from there.

In spite of the pressure he is under at the moment, the Dickster is still busy shaping American policy. This is from today’s New York Times:

Amid all the natural and political disasters it faces, the White House is certainly tireless in its effort to legalize torture. This week, Vice President Dick Cheney proposed a novel solution for the moral and legal problems raised by the use of American soldiers to abuse prisoners and the practice of turning captives over to governments willing to act as proxies in doing the torturing. Mr. Cheney wants to make it legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to do this wet work.

Mr. Cheney’s proposal was made in secret to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who won the votes of 89 other senators this month to require the civilized treatment of prisoners at camps run by America’s military and intelligence agencies. Mr. McCain’s legislation, an amendment to the Defense Department budget bill, would ban the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of prisoners. In other words, it would impose age-old standards of democracy and decency on the new prisons.

President Bush’s threat to veto the entire military budget over this issue was bizarre enough by itself, considering that the amendment has the support of more than two dozen former military leaders, including Colin Powell. They know that torture doesn’t produce reliable intelligence and endangers Americans’ lives.

But Mr. Cheney’s proposal was even more ludicrous. It would give the president the power to allow government agencies outside the Defense Department (the administration has in mind the C.I.A.) to mistreat and torture prisoners as long as that behavior was part of “counterterrorism operations conducted abroad” and they were not American citizens. That would neatly legalize the illegal prisons the C.I.A. is said to be operating around the world and obviate the need for the torture outsourcing known as extraordinary rendition. It also raises disturbing questions about Iraq, which the Bush administration has falsely labeled a counterterrorism operation.

The obvious question is: What is wrong with these people?

The answer, IMO, appears in an article Josh Marshall wrote for Washington Monthly in September 2002, titled “Confidence Men.”

Dick Cheney was the signature figure [of the Bush Administration]: a former White House chief of staff, congressman, and wartime defense secretary, whose vaunted government savvy had been validated in the private sector as CEO of the energy giant Halliburton. Like the administration, Cheney was right-wing, but in a way that was at once daunting and oddly reassuring. You may not have liked what he was doing. But you had little doubt that he knew what he was doing.

Today, that record doesn’t look nearly so impressive. We now know that as CEO, Cheney got snookered into a disastrous merger that has since sent Halliburton’s stock price plummeting, while signing off on dubious balance sheets that have sparked a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. His mastery of the Beltway is similarly in question. Last year’s Cheney-led energy task force produced an all-drilling-no-conservation energy bill that went nowhere. The task force’s real legacy was to mire the administration in a thicket of congressional investigations and private lawsuits, all springing from Cheney’s insistence on Nixonian secrecy. His major foreign policy gambit–last spring’s shuttle-diplomacy mission to the Middle East to secure support for an invasion of Iraq–was a debacle. The tough-talking VP went to the region to line up the Arab states behind the United States against Saddam; days after Cheney’s return they were lining up behind Saddam against the United States. Less well known, but no less embarrassing, was Cheney’s leadership of the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism task force. In spring 2001, rather than back congressional efforts to implement the findings of the Hart-Rudman commission, Cheney opted to spearhead his own group, to put the administration’s stamp on whatever reforms occurred. But the task force did almost nothing for four months until terrorists struck on September 11. More recently, it was Cheney who advised Bush not to include any serious corporate reforms in his July speech on Wall Street, the one that sent markets plunging. While no one bats a thousand in politics, it’s actually difficult to think of one thing the vice president has been responsible for that has not ended in muddle or disaster. Yet his reputation for competence has survived.

Josh goes on to exlain how the Bushies emanate an aura of competence in spite of the fact that it’s a wonder they can keep their shoes tied. Much of that aura was destroyed only recently by Hurricane Katrina. And for all his repuation for smarts, Cheney’s history reveals plenty of massive blunders and misjudgments. And, unfortunately, he is a big enough fool not to have noticed his own shortcomings. Given near unlimited power, he’s been able to do a lot of damage.

Maybe it’s all about to catch up to him. Let’s hope.

Update: See also “The Cheney Factor” by Dan Froomkin.

Update update: See “Treasongate: The Real Significance of the Niger Uranium Forgery Stories in La Repubblica” by eriposte at The Left Coaster.

Cross-posted on The American Street.

‘Twas the Night Before Fitzmas

Via Judd of Think Progress–indictments tomorrow?

Update
: This is interesting …

Prosecutors investigating the leak of a CIA agent’s identity returned their attention to powerful White House advisor Karl Rove on Tuesday, questioning a former West Wing colleague about contacts Rove had with reporters in the days leading to the outing of a covert CIA officer.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA officer’s residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware — before her name appeared in a syndicated column — that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

This suggests to me that Fitzgerald is going for something more than obstruction of justice charges.

Update update
: Just posted at the New York Times — Richard Stevenson and Anne Kornblut write that today Patrick Fitzgerald was still looking into what Karl Rove may have told reporters.

Three days before the grand jury in the case expires and with the White House in a state of high anxiety, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, appeared still to be trying to determine whether Mr. Rove had been fully forthcoming about his contacts with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, in July 2003, they said. …

…Mr. Fitzgerald, who is the United States attorney in Chicago, spent the day in Washington and summoned his team, including his chief F.B.I. investigator, Jack Eckenrode, for what appeared to be a final round of discussions about how to proceed.

Rosa Parks

There’s little to say about Rosa Parks’s courage and the significance of her life that hasn’t already been said. Jeanne d’Arc is particularly eloquent.

Across the Blogosphere, left and right, bloggers are paying tribute to Mrs. Parks, who died last night at the age of 92.

Although mostly heartfelt, the praise from some rightie bloggers underscores what to me is the most amazing attribute of rightiness, which is the inability to apply lessons of history to the present. Although the faces and causes change, the American Right still reflexively smacks down anyone who dares to take a stand for the dignity of the individual or to speak a truth the Right doesn’t want to hear. Like Rosa Parks.

The liberal struggle for equality and individual rights versus the conservative struggle to keep power and privilege in the hands of a select few is the most persistent theme in American political history. Although slavery was the mother of all inqualities, abolition didn’t stop the struggle. New movements gain attention–labor, women’s suffrage, civil rights, women’s rights, native American rights, gay rights. Time and again, a segment of American citizenry rises up and declares it will sit in the front of the bus with The Man. And then we go through the same old dance–the Right lashes back, smears the instigators, swears that if X happens it will be the end of civilization as we know it, attempts to use law to hold back the liberal tide, fails, and then gradually loses popular support as people figure out the change wasn’t so bad after all. And two or three generations later, the Right declares it was for X all along.

And they cannot learn. Earlier this year I had a conservation with a rightie about “activist judges.” I mentioned Brown v. Board of Education, and the rightie lashed back in irritation — how come you lefties always bring up Brown? We bring it up because it exemplifies the same old learning curve we keep having to repeat. In fact, I believe the Right’s bugaboo about “activist judges” originated with the Brown decision. Later would come other decisions, such as Engel v. Vitale and Roe v. Wade, always followed by the same rhetoric. X is a threat to the American way of life. X takes rights (i.e., privileges) away from people. X is a usurpation by the federal government of states’ rights. And X will lead to moral depravity (e.g., miscegenation after Brown, godlessness after Engel, rampant promiscuity and a “culture of death” after Roe).

Same old, same old. When the privileged few are prevented from using state and local government as agents of oppression–whether oppression of racial minorities, religious minorities, women, or any other not-privileged group–they throw collective temper tantrums and whine that government is taking away their rights. And anyone who stands up for equal treatment under the law had better have a thick skin, because the Right will attack.

And the learning comes slow. After 40 years, there are still pockets of resistance to the Montgomery bus boycott. I found some on the blogosphere today. This blogger calls Parks a “pawn” of the NAACP, for example. (Fact is, Parks was a long-time NAACP worker who knew very well what she was doing when she sat on that bus; she was nobody’s “pawn.”) Although I was a toddler when the Brown decision was handed down, the resulting fight over school desegregation was still white-hot when I was high school. An all-white high school, btw. And the standoffs on school prayer and abortion seem not to have budged much after all these years.

This blogger writes, “The civil rights leaders of today pale in comparison to Parks and her compatriots.” That’s what they always say. In the 1950s, Parks and Martin Luther King were vilified soundly by the Right. As were Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass in their day.

Tweak the racial epithets, and the invective hurled at Rosa Parks in 1955 becomes the same invective hurled at Cindy Sheehan today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

About the Comments

I know people are aggravated that they have to register with WordPress and then log in to post a comment. So far I haven’t figured out a way to turn this off. I am beginning to suspect it cannot be turned off. The feature is intended to prevent spam, I’m sure. It prevents my comments from being swamped with Viagra ads. But it is still aggravating.

Once you have registered, however, you shouldn’t have to re-register every time you post a comment. If you wander down the left-hand sidebar you’ll find the header “Syndication,” and under that is a login link. If you are already registered you can log in there and comment away. We should probably figure out a way to make that link more prominent, but that’s where it is now.

If you have registered and logged in and still can’t post a comment, please email me to let me know there’s a problem.

Once of the down sides of this new setup is that I am helpless to change anything but blog posts. I have to badger other people to make changes for me. But over the next few days I hope to sniff out the bugs and make interaction with this site as painless as possible.

Buggy

This morning it seems the right sidebar has disappeared, taking the blogroll with it. Well, shoot. (Update: The WordPress Fairy brought the sidebar back! Yay!)

Following up the New York Times story about Tenet to The Dick to Scooter–Jane Hamsher at firedoglake points out that last year Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald under oath.

Oopsie!

And Jane figures that the reason Fitzgerald needed testimony from Matt Cooper and Judy Miller “to counter Scooter Libby’s testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame’s identity from journalists.” Jane continues,

Also from the Times article:

It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.

The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife.

In other words: the testimonies of Cooper and Miller were necessary to bust Libby in a lie.

It appears there is some question about whether Mr. Cheney was under oath. I do recall that Bush was not interviewed under oath, but I don’t know about Cheney.

Update: In other news–The Iraq draft constitution has been approved. I’ll probably write some commentary on this later today.

Tenet to The Dick to Scooter?

Just posted on the New York Times web site — David Johnston, Richard Stevenson, and Douglas Jehl write that Scooter Libby learned about Valerie Plame Wilson from … Dick the Dick.

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Libby’s notes say that Dick the Dick got his info from George Tenet, CIA director at the time. It wouldn’t be illegal for Tenet and Cheney to have discussed a CIA agent; it’s safe to assume they both have top security clearances. “But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.”

To which I say … heh.