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). But I was particularly amused by Ken Starr’s self-denials, in response to the question of whether maybe he’s personally responsible for 9/11.

nd one morning   on the deck I discover Kenneth Starr, looking like he has stepped out of a   long-forgotten 1990s news bulletin waving Monica’s stained blue dress. His   face is round and unlined, like an immense, contented baby. As I stare at   him, all my repressed bewilderment rises, and I ask – Mr Starr, do you feel   ashamed that, as Osama bin Laden plotted to murder American citizens, you   brought the American government to a stand-still over a few consensual blow   jobs? Do you ever lie awake at night wondering if a few more memos on   national security would have reached the President’s desk if he wasn’t   spending half his time dealing with your sexual McCarthyism?

  He smiles through his teeth and – in his soft somnambulant voice – says in   perfect legalese, "I am entirely at rest with the process. The House of   Representatives worked its will, the Senate worked its will, the Chief   Justice of the United States presided. The constitutional process worked   admirably."

  It’s an oddly meek defence, and the more I challenge him, the more   legalistic he becomes. Every answer is a variant on "it’s not my fault". First, he says Clinton should have settled early on in Jones vs Clinton.   Then he blames Jimmy Carter. "This critique really should be addressed   to the now-departed, moribund independent counsel provisions. The Ethics and   Government [provisions] ushered in during President Carter’s administration   has an extraordinarily low threshold for launching a special prosecutor…"

It’s an excellent question with even more interesting answers. Ken Starr, the bulldog of the late 90s, can’t even answer "no" to the question of whether he’s personally responsible for 3000 dead Americans and the worst attack on US soil ever. And his denial–"the constitutional process worked admirably"–sure sounds different than what I heard from a bunch of Republican Congressman last Wednesday, who are convinced that the constitutional process somehow misfunctioned, because Clinton didn’t go to jail for his consensual blow job.

Can we have more of this from US journalists? Maybe an interview a week from Ken Starr on his personal responsibility for 9/11?

As I’ve explained before, I used to consult for a big automotive company, working primarily in Asia (the job got moved to Asia earlier this year). I flew several times a year to Asia. So for the past several years, I’ve been an "Elite Level" flyer for Northwest. Which means I get bumped up to First Class pretty consistently.

Back in February, during my first trip home from the Libby trial, I ran into an attractive (in a frat boy way) but too-heavy man sitting across the aisle from me in First Class. He seemed to be as interested that I was reading Lawrence Walsh’s Firewall (on Iran-Contra) as I was in reading his folders full of "articles from Staffers" on "Islamists." It was even more fun when I got out my computer and started doing a blog post on the trial. After all, Mike Rogers (whom I lated recognized this to be) had been challenged in ’06 by Jim Marcinkowski, one of Valerie Wilson’s friends from her CIA cohort.

It happened again, today. I was sitting in the first row of the plane. The nice gentlemanly man on the aisle was already there–I ended up shoving his briefcase to the side so I could fit my bloggy laptop-sack next to his Congressional bag. He said he wanted to get to his bag during the flight, so we rearranged nicely. And then I sat down. As the other passengers came in, I heard someone say "hi" to the Congressman. At which point I started kicking myself for not knowing the Republican Congressman from MI by face (apparently, only the Republicans are still taking 2.5 day weeks–I’ve only ever seen Mrs. Dingell in my middle-of-the-week flights, not any Democratic Congressmen). The Congressman got pretty attentive to what I was doing (and today, I actually looked like a DFH blogger), particularly once I pulled out The Wrong Stuff–the book on Duke Cunningham I’m hosting FDL book salon for on Sunday. Luckily, the flight attendant was very superb at his job, and he called us both by name as he asked us for our drink orders (I had white wine, and "Mr. Knollenberg" had a half-glass of water, no ice.), so I could figure out who I was sitting next to. Meanwhile, I think Knollenberg decided not to pull out his KoolAid Republican work to review on the flight. While he may already know everything bad about Duke Cunningham, his former colleague, I’m sure we don’t know everything about Joe Knollenberg.

Anyway, sorry for the completely random post. If you care, Knollenberg likes peanuts, but not pretzels or chips. And he doesn’t like to drink a lot of water on plane rides. And he’s kind of fussy about little pieces of trash floating around in his space–though that may have been exacerbated by the fact that he had to sit next to a DFH blogger reading (and taking extensive notes) a book on Republican corruption. Though I should say, he was very polite (as was Mike Rogers) and pulled my bag down from the overhead.

I’m sure I was having a lot more fun with the experience than he was, anyway. There’s something to be said for making a Republican Congressman’s flight back to DC a little more stressful by attentively studying Republican corruption while sitting right next to him in First Class.

[Editorial note: this was blogged using Jane’s new network card, which means we should be liveblogging in real time from the Conyers hearing tomorrow.]

Since Fred Thompson got into the Presidential race in a big way, I’ve increasingly been getting this creepy feeling. I keep thinking: when was the last time we had a charismatic (if ugly, in this case) candidate who knows nothing about policy and is even less interested in taking a stand on policy, who seems to be hiring the right advisors, but who himself, still seems to be Bush league. Yeah–I’m getting a weird Bush feeling from Thompson.

Add in the fact that he might easily prevent Al Gore from winning the Presidency (again) by ensuring a Tennessee win.

Most importantly, though, I have imagined that Thompson is the GOP’s best chance to replicate the un-American structure of the Bush Presidency, where all the major decisions appear to be made in the margins, by Cheney, all the while Cheney protects himself by invoking his creative theories of being a fourth branch of government. You see, I’m really beginning to believe that Thompson is in so that those committed to continuing the basic policies of the Bush Administration can do so, once again behind the facade of a puppet president.

And then I read this:

Politico‘s Mike Allen told NPR that Fred Thompson has a notable foreign policy advisor: first daughter of the OVP, Liz Cheney.

I don’t usually simply link to stories without, well, bloviating on them. But I’m a bit busy right now, what with a book due in a few weeks and the in-laws in from the home country. And when I read this column over at lukery’s place, I could have sworn I wrote it. Or Kagro X. Or Meteor Blades. So all I can add is, I recommend you read it too.

The Democrats, now with majorities in both congressional chambers,gleefully convened multiple inquiries. From May to August 1987,televised congressional hearings offered a rare glimpse into thecabalistic world of spooks, bagmen and mercenaries. Fawn Hall, North’ssecret shredder, told of smuggling evidence out of the Old ExecutiveOffice Building in her boots, and she lectured Rep. Thomas Foley that"sometimes you have to go above the written law."

One year after the hearings, though, Iran-Contra was a dead issue.Reagan’s poll numbers rebounded, and his vice president, George H. W.Bush, won the White House despite being implicated in the scandal.

[snip]

Cheney and Addington are not the only veterans of the scandal who haveresurfaced to help President Bush fight the war on terror. So haveElliot Abrams, John Bolton, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, JohnPoindexter, neoconservative Michael Ledeen and even ManucherGhorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer who brokered one of the firstmissile sales to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime.

Iran-Contra, then, wasn’t just a Watergate-style crime and a coverup.It was, rather, another battle in the neoconservative campaign againstCongress and in defense of the imperial presidency. Though Iran-Contramight have been a draw — the 11 convicted conspirators won on appeal orwere pardoned by George H.W. Bush — the backlash has become theestablishment.

Already there are reports that if the Democrats take over Congress inNovember, their agenda will have a 1986-ish look: hearings and callsfor more congressional oversight of foreign policy.

But if they want to avoid again snatching defeat from the jaws ofvictory, they must do what their counterparts 20 years ago failed todo. They must challenge the crusading ideology that justified theinvasion of Iraq and has made war the option of first resort for thisadministration.

And share it with your Congressperson.

As DemFromCT reported, Mark Foley resigned today, after a 16-year old page revealed sexually explicit emails the Congressman sent to him.

Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) planned to resign today, hours after ABCquestioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with currentand former Congressional pages under the age of 18.

A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing andExploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in aletter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages providedby former pages who said the congressman, under the AOL InstantMessenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organsand acts.

The chariman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, exploiting children? Sounds like a remarkable, rare scandal, doesn’t it? Only it’s at least the third in what appears to be a pattern for the "Values Voter" Party–two other officials charged with protecting this country from sexual predators were, themselves, sexual predators.

What do Scooter Libby and Joe Lieberman have in common? A lot of rich friends, apparently.

Following closely on the news that Joe Lieberman’s biggest public apologist, Marty Peretz, had joined Libby’s Defense Fund, we learn that the Chair of Libby’s Defense Fund, Mel Sembler, is hosting a pricey fundraiser for Holy Joe. Sembler, you’ll remember, also happens to have been the Ambassador to Italy when SISMI started sending bogus Niger claims to the CIA.

In his post explaining his ambivalent views toward Libby, Marty seems to capture of the angst of Neocons everywhere.

Let me concede: I am a friend of Scooter Libby. But I do not like hisboss. And I do not like his boss’s wife. I know this gets me no creditwith the all-or-nothing crowd. Still, I like Scooter, who is quitebrilliant, very honest, and brave. Also funny. I’ve contributed to TheLibby Legal Defense Fund and have joined the fund’s advisory committee,which is not large because in Washington old pals dessert when eventheir college roommate gets into trouble. In a time when self-styledcivil libertarians are giving money to defend Muslim terrorists, I amhappy to help defend an American patriot, some of whose politics I donot share and some of whose politics I do, from a cynical onslaught ofthe special prosecutor who put journalists into jail for not tellinghim what he already knew.

Shorter Marty: I don’t like Dick, I don’t even agree with Libby, but when the Neocon ship is sinking, we all have to band together and "dessert." Let them eat cake.

The Sembler fundraiser was closed to the press, so I don’t know if he made similarly ambivalent statements about Joementum. Nor do I know if he accused Democrats supporting Democratic candidate Lamont of being cake-eaters. But it deserves mention that the warmongers seem to be mounting a common defense.

War, apparently, trumps ideology when your war’s under attack.