Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including Vice, Motherboard, the Nation, the Atlantic, Al Jazeera, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial.
Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the “feuilleton,” a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse in Grand Rapids, MI.
This is the post I’ve been promising for weeks, in which I will speculate wildly as to the source of Cheney’s knowledge about Plame’s role at CPD and in her husband’s trip. Here’s the argument, in brief:Cheney learns during the week of June 9 that “Defense and State expressed a strong interestin the Niger intelligence”At a time when Cheney presumably already knew that information, he tried to get CIA to repeat
During the book salon chat on The Wrong Stuff yesterday, we discussed the House Intelligence Committee report on how Duke Cunningham managed to scam so much money for his friends. Lo and behold, the LAT has a long article on it today (hat tip Kentucky Jelly). The report, though, is pretty disappointing.
Mark Kleiman argues that the Democrats should see BushCo’s refusal to turn over proof that they buried details about Pat Tillman’s death as a godsend. This is the scandal, he argues, over which the Democrats should choose to confront Bush.
This is a Godsend for the Democrats in Congress. The committeesshouldn’t compromise at all; this is the case we want to go to warover, in the courts and the court of
I’m more and more convinced this is Dick Cheney’s design. Failure in Afghanistan, which might lead to the collapse of Pakistan’s western-friendly government, which might lead to a regional war between Sunni and Shiite.
Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq.
‘Theconsequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,’he said.
I found this story on the National Review cruise over at Susie’s place. It’s the perfect comedy to accompany the Sunday shows–stories about what nuts Republicans when they presume they’re alone. There’s a lot that worth reading, not least the portrayal of the Podhoretz-Buckley feud (with Buckley almost–but not quite–disowning his conservative offspring).
Remember when I pointed out that the real story of those civil liberties violations that Gonzales didn’t admit to was the role of the Intelligence Oversight Board? Well, I was right:
An independent oversight board created to identify intelligence abuses after the CIAscandals of the 1970s did not send any reports to the attorney generalof legal violations during the first 5 1/2 years of the Bushadministration’s counterterrorism effort, the Justice Department has
We all know that Harriet was a no-show for her date with HJC on Thursday. We all know that Harriet refused to testify based on some new opinions issued by DOJ. But I’ve seen almost no discussion that explores why BushCo decided to take such an inflammatory approach with Harriet’s testimony.
It seems there are two likely answers to that question–or rather, questions that need to be answered:Why did Bush choose to
I did a post last year, not long after Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face, tracing the ties between the Armstrong family and Republican corruption. I showed how Anne Armstrong has been present at all the big-name Republican scandals going back to Watergate.Anne Armstrong Event
Associated Republican Scandal
1971-1973
RNC Co-Chair
Watergate
1973-1974
Cabinet-level Counselor to Nixon and Ford
Watergate
1976-1977
Ambassador to the UK
I’m just now catching up on the Sara Taylor non-testimony (the webcast is still available here). And I find her to be interestingly sharp–in that she backs off of some points that the Republicans would like to put in her mouth.
There’s an exchange with Arlen Specter, for example, in which he prods her to say that Tim Griffin was very qualified to replace Bud Cummins (this happens just before and
We’ve got to start calling these refusals to testify what they are–because they surely aren’t executive privilege. With Sara Taylor’s plea to avoid testifying because she admires–and apparently took a vow to–Bush it’s not executive privilege because she didn’t speak to him about the USA firings. But we might call her refusal to testify the “I love me my Prezident privilege”–because that’s about as serious as the legal discussion behind it