Were I Pat Leahy, having been a target for the anthrax attacks, I would have a profoundly difficult time not seeing Mueller's stonewalling as personal; intensely personal. Simply put, I'd be enraged. Among the cascade of what if-s this case has produced, one that ought to stand out for Leahy is, what if the attacker had been successful and he had died? And, if Leahy - in his own heart - decides the attack was the principle influence in his vote for the Patriot Act, which he might now regret, his outrage ought to be monumental. Pure speculation on my part.

It's hard not to try to get inside the heads of these legislators. Understandably, they had to make choices while swimming in a sea containing layers of deceit. Hindsight is 20-20. Still, one wonders how their choices might have been different if they hadn't been treated like mushrooms. And, given, how they view their choices, from where they now sit, how that view affects their choices going forward.

Congress' inability to wring answers out of Mueller, or any other individual in the Bush administration, is maddening - crazy making - for me. I can only use my own human response to gauge theirs. It would have to be a profoundly powerful, present, personal threat, which continued to lurk in the background, for me to not unleash the full power of my office on their heads.

Side Note: More appropriate for several columns back, Scott Horton has done Six Questions for Bart Gellman, Author of Angler at No Comment. Link at sig.

It takes a lot for Senators from both parties to so openly and explicitly say they don't believe the FBI's definitive accusations in such a high-profile case.

I realize that this is shamelessly idealistic of me, but why should it "...take a lot..." for Senators to openly and explicitly say "Not good enough" to a government agency over which they have not only the right, but the mandated obligation, to exercise oversight?

Isn't that how Truman earned his reputation?

Please, please, please - someone in the entire US Congress demonstrate some integrity, some character. I still have some faith in you, Sen Leahy. I am hoping, begging, pleading that I am wrong about you, Sen. Specter, and that this time you won't let us down. I don't want to score points, I want the institutions that are supposed to protect me to do their damn jobs. That means you, that means the FBI, the DHS, the GAO.

Not to be too overly dramatic about it, but in the words of Alan Moore:

An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

Wasn't it Chief Seattle who declared...

The stinky oil-thief got stinky ways...

?

apologies for the paraphrase. He said people will cowardly defecate in their own nest? yep. Then what?

That Chief mentioned that a government employee that lies....

do defecate in his bed? Yep. No right minded human will do that...

If the 21-century Fool does that he/she ruins the nation real fast...

These jokers are stooped and will surely Die in their own fecal...

What matters is that the immaterial nephesh/soul/spirit reaps...

Hope you're better.

The Gang That Couldn't Get Its Story Straight

Things were far too earnest around here for a while.

When the facts are so grim and dire that it becomes difficult to bear, it's good to have a bit of wise tomfoolery to put things in perspective.

TPMm has the details:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/subpoenaed_state_employees_wil.php

This is a very big risk for Palin and the McCain campaign. There's a very short, very easy to understand line from there to Rove, Meiers et al defying subpoenas. Biden and Dem surrogates if not Obama himself should hammer her on this.

Methinks they must be hiding something bad to take this risk. In a way, it's almost worse if that's not the case as it shows a level of hubris and contempt for the press and the American public that they are confident they can get away with this (i.e. it's not merely the least bad of a set of bad options).

The New York Times has a full page advertisement by the Institute for America's Future. The headline is

"Seven Crises that Won't Wait". The ad. calls for "a debate worth of a great nation in trouble".

Why it might be of interest here is that one of the crises is:

"The president now claims the right to wage war without end anywhere in the world, trampling American rights in the name of national security. How do we reclaim the Constitution and the Republic created by our founders?

The website is ourfuture.org.

At least the local mobster and titty bar owner didn't stroll in to police headquarters and shoot the guy.

Cover Your Ass wins!

Pat Leahy (who was a target of the anthrax attacks) told Mueller categorically that he simply does not believe that Ivins was the prime culprit if he was a participant at all, and said he is absolutely convinced that there were others involved in the preparation and mailing of the anthrax.

I haven't followed all the details, but my impression is it's at least plausible that Ivins was involved in the anthrax attack. Far from proof beyond a reasonable doubt and probably not even a preponderance of evidence (i.e. greater than 50% chance), but still plausible. But it seems highly implausible that he acted alone. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the FBI hasn't presented any evidence he acted alone whereas there is plenty of evidence that if he was involved he was not alone (the complexity of the task, the timing of the mailings). So even if the FBI does dig up some smoking gun on Ivins (say his DNA on a sample), the case should not be closed.