Thursday, February 05, 2004


Breaking Plame News?

Josh Marshall has a post up that has potentially huge implications for the Plame investigation.

Essentially, Marshall is quoting a UPI piece by Richard Sale (which he doesn't link to, unfortunately) that says the FBI is getting could be close to handing down indictments against John Hannah and Lewis Libby, two high-up employees from Dick Cheney's office.  Libby, in particular, is a trusted and long-time Cheney advisor.

According to the story, the FBI is going to use the strategy of "...making clear to Hannah 'that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time,' as a way to pressure him to name superiors..."

I give that about a 1% chance of actually happening, because the implications are just too large for this Administration.  What do you suppose the odds of any actual indictments coming down are? 

Man, this would be a big problem for Bush.  It's not that the average person really cares about Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson, or even the Niger Uranium claim.  It's a problem because people are starting to hear the whispers turn into a chorus, that Bush is a liar, that they play dirty, that they shift blame, etc.  It's picking up steam.

More than that, there's nowhere for them to go on this one.  They can't blame the Dems.  They can't blame Congress.  Somebody's going down.

Way back in October, I named one of my fantasy basketball teams Libby's Leakers.  Call me Kreskin.


4:04:44 PM    Say what?[]

The Sweet Swing of George Brett

His George Brett 

George Howard Brett was born on May 15, 1953.  You could look it up, but you might as well trust me.  You can also trust me when I tell you that George Brett hit .390 in 1980 for the Kansas City Royals, or that Brett had 175 hits in 449 at bats that same year, every single one of which was a thing of beauty.   

I might know more about George Brett’s career than George Brett, a peculiar body of knowledge I began cultivating at age 11.  I won’t attempt to justify or explain why a young boy growing up in Topeka, KS would idolize a baseball player he never met.  You either understand that kind of thing or you don’t.  All I know is every team I ever played on featured heated battles over who would wear Brett’s number 5 on their own jersey. 

And that was just in Topeka.  Imagine how it was in the actual city Brett played in. 

Some athletes transcend their sport.  They become something more than just great players who come through in the clutch, or players who accumulate impressive statistics or championships over the course of a career.  Some become heroes because they allow us, in some way, to imagine their exploits before they happen—and then they go ahead and make them happen anyway.   

Michael Jordan was that way.  We saw him do the impossible so many times we came to expect it.  Seeing Jordan miss a turnaround jumper or not leave his man behind on a drive to the rack left one wondering who wasn’t following the script, because Jordan always did those things.  And it made you just that much surer that the next two Jordan shots were going to go down. 

Brett was that way.  I can still see him in my mind’s eye at the plate, with his weight shifted far back on his left leg, bat level over his shoulder.  You’d see him in the box and you knew that it didn’t matter what pitch the pitcher threw—Brett could do whatever he wanted with it.  He was hardly ever overmatched; in the 14 years I watched him play, I don’t remember him checking his swing once. 

Of course, it wasn’t the day-to-day exploits of Brett that made Number 5 something more than what comes after 4 and before 6.  Brett had so many heroic moments in big games I can’t list them all.  Well, I could, but I’ll spare you.  After awhile, kids and adults alike in Royals Country just knew: George Brett was the man.  Whatever needed to be done, he would do it.  And if he didn’t do it, it couldn’t be done.  It was as simple as that.   

You’d think that with such a glowing testimonial I could point to something more than one World Series victory for the Royals during Brett’s tenure.  Alas, all we have is the 1985 victory over the Cardinals.  The thing is, greatness isn’t always about winning.  Don’t get me wrong; the Royals over Brett’s tenure won as many games as any other team out there.  They were constant fixtures in the playoffs from 1976 to 1985, Brett’s peak years.  But Brett represented a certain way to play sports.  He played hard, every game.  Brett was one of those rare players in any sport that brought cheers from the crowds in their team’s road games. 

More than that, he played for the fans.  Or, at least it seemed that way.  There were never flirtations with other teams--he was a Royal for life.  He never bad-mouthed the fans, never had an ugly contract dispute.  We always knew he would be in the #3 spot in the batting lineup, and that he would give the opposing pitcher hell.   

Why are great athletes special?  They aren’t eternal, like a book, painting or movie.  The nexus of skill and ability only comes together for so long as an athlete reaches a peak age.  You’re either there to see it in person as it happens, or relegated to learning about it second hand.  When a great one, in any sport-a Larry Bird, a Kevin Garnett, a Walter Payton-does their thing, all you can do is soak it in and enjoy it before it goes away.  Because it always goes away.  Hall of Famers and journeymen alike have to face the end, and Brett’s came in a tearful ride around Royals Stadium at the end of the 1993 season.  The Royals haven’t sniffed the post-season since Brett retired, and I haven’t stepped foot in the ballpark in Kansas City since he hung up his uniform. 

It just wouldn’t be the same. 

I still think about George Brett.  I look at players today, and I wonder who my George Brett would be if I were a young boy just falling in love with the game.  I’m a Twins fan at this point in my life, and while I like a lot of Twins players, there’s no George Brett on that team.  There are players to root for, good guys who play the game the right way.  But it takes more than that to be a legend.  Heck, how many teams do have a sure Hall-of-Famer with a swing of beauty that will spend his entire career with one underdog team in a small market?  Not many. 

It’s a free-agent world now.  Guys that stay with a team for anything past 5 years are rare.  Ten years or more, rarer still.  Natural talents with sweet lefty swings don’t just grow on trees, either.  

Lately, I wonder: Who will be my son Linus’s George Brett?  Not that he has to have a George Brett.  I won't make him have one.  I'm just thinking, you know, I'm going to be watching a lot of baseball in the years to come, probably with Linus, and playing a lot of baseball, probably with Linus, and...oh, what the hell.  I'm going to make him have a George Brett.

Joe Mauer, meet Linus.  Linus, meet Joe Mauer. 

Joe Mauer was born on April 19, 1983.  That makes him 16 years older than Linus.  George Brett is 16 years older than me.  Mauer’s a St. Paul boy, played his high school ball about six blocks from where Linus is growing up.  And what team would you imagine Joe Mauer is going to debut for at catcher this spring, at the ripe young age of 20?  The Minnesota Twins, naturally.  Did I mention that Brett debuted for the Royals when he was 20? 

Now, I know what you’re thinking.  I can’t choose Linus’s heroes for him.  For that matter, Linus might not give a damn about baseball or sports, period.  He’s his own boy, after all.  But chances are, when you grow up the son of a sports fanatic, a guy who still plays whiffleball and Nerf basketball like his next meal depends on it, some of that is probably going to rub off on the son.  Even if I don’t want it to. 

Aw, but who am I kidding?  I do want it to rub off on him.  Why wouldn’t I?  In addition to the obvious physical exercise, coordination and discipline benefits, modern sports teaches us about success, failure, economics, the dangers of gambling and drugs, and the special dynamics of blackmail and public subsidies for wealthy corporate patrons.  What’s not to like? 

Thing is, when you’re a young boy watching a George Brett, you don’t care about any of that.  You concentrate on the greatness.  On how they do what they do, or how they work with their teammates.  All the other stuff that has gone so wrong with sports goes away when you boil it all down to a pitcher trying to get the ball past a great hitter.  Nothing else matters but that at-bat.  The potential greatness of any hitter is made up of thousands of moments that consist of nothing but those at-bats. 

Can Joe Mauer inspire Linus in the way George Brett inspired me and so many of my contemporaries?  Who knows?  Age 20 is awfully early to start making such lofty comparisons.  But Mauer is a special case.  He was the first pick in the national baseball draft, turning down an opportunity to be the starting quarterback for college football powerhouse Florida State.  He was the USAToday national high school baseball and football player of the year.  That’s happened, like…never.  And he was a damned good basketball player, too. 

Mauer tore through the minors with great work behind the plate, “plus” emotional makeup and gaudy batting averages.  He hasn’t developed much of a power stroke yet, but power tends to come late to a lot of young hitters.  He doesn’t strike out much at all, and with a 6’4” frame, he figures to hit a lot of home runs in his career.  When the Twins dealt starting catcher A.J. Pierzynski to the Giants this winter, they took the extremely rare path of handing a starting catcher’s role to a kid barely out of high school. 

There’s going to be a lot of pressure on Joe Mauer this year.  The Twins and the Twin Cities will hold their breath as they root for one of their own to help carry the hometown team.  And there’s no doubt that it’s waaaaay too early to put this burden of comparison on Mauer.  And yet, for someone who wants to look for the comparisons to a player like George Brett, there are more than enough to satisfy. 

In my household, there will be some extra loud cheering for Joe Mauer.  Is it because I want Linus to have his George Brett?   

Or is it because I want another George Brett for myself? 

I suppose it’s both.  I remember sitting with my dad at a Royals game when I was 11, in September of 1980.  Brett was in the midst of his historic chase for .400, struggling to stay above .390.  It wasn’t my first time at a Royals game; that was earlier that summer.  But Brett was hurt that first game, and this was my first chance to see my favorite player in front of a packed house.  The crowd went crazy every time Brett came to the plate that day (and every other day he played).  In his first at-bat, Brett hit a high drive to left field off of Oakland’s Mike Norris.  As it cleared the wall, I remember looking at my dad, grinning almost as much as I was.  It was like he made that happen: Take boy to game, show boy hero, hero hits home run.   

The Royals lost that game, 9-3, but I didn’t care.  That was the first of many times that George Brett didn’t let me down.  Those things don’t happen every day, you see.  I’ll remember going to that game with my dad for as long as I live.  I didn’t remember it because of Mike Norris, or freaking Rickey Henderson stealing four bases.  I remember it because I saw George Brett with my dad. 

Linus and I can’t see George Brett.  But we might be able to see Joe Mauer for a long, long time together.  Maybe Joe Mauer will even hit a home run for us.


1:27:40 PM    Say what?[]

The Gay Marriage Dance Continues

Bush is in a bad spot now on gay marriage.  He's getting squeezed so hard by his conservative base, which he badly needs to turn out for elections, that he has all but committed to supporting a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

All but committed.

Once again, I read these statements, and it sure seems to me that the White House is trying as hard as they can to have it both ways, paying lip service to the various conservative groups while not actually coming out and committing to a ban.  When you hear the groups say things like...

"We heard last night that President Bush is going to come out very clearly advocating the passage of a federal marriage amendment and he is looking for the opportunity to do that," Mr. Stanton said on Wednesday. "It is not a question of if but when."

Well, sure, that's what they told you.  But then there's this passage later in the article:

White House officials would not confirm that Mr. Bush had made up his mind, but they said they would not discourage reporters from drawing the conclusion that the Massachusetts ruling was exactly what Mr. Bush was thinking of when he warned in his State of the Union address last month about judges ignoring the will of the people on the issue.

Yeah, I'll bet they won't discourage reporters from drawing that conclusion.  Politics is easy when you don't have to actually state your positions.

I'll say it again: The Dems should absolutely not let Bush play this game.  They must force him to come out and say it, plain as day, that he wants to amend the Constitution to discriminate against gays and lesbians.  The public does not support this position that Bush is being forced to take by a relatively small number of people.  When Bush tells these groups he's "looking for the opportunity", what do you suppose that means?  It means he's going to go as long as he can without having to commit.  If he can buy these folks' support without having to adopt an unpopular position, don't you think that's what he would prefer to do?

The beauty of this is how completely it plays into Kerry's strength.  Kerry is on record as being against gay marriage, but in favor of gay unions.  He has had this position since the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  The GOP is trying to make hay against Kerry because he didn't vote for that act, but Kerry did a smart thing back then: He said he was against gay marriage, but he wouldn't vote for the act because it was political and discriminatory.

So, in other words, moderates can vote for Kerry and know that he is anti-discrimination, but isn't the full advocate of Gay Hell that the GOP will paint him to be.

And the public supports that position!  Hey, if you're gonna be beholden to fringe groups as your political base, sometimes you gotta pay the price.  Dems should beg for the GOP to make this an issue.


10:30:01 AM    Say what?[]

Oh no!  They're Calling Kerry A Liberal!

The GOP campaign machine is in full bloom, as this week has featured coordinated attacks from the RNC and other Republican sources.  The Dukakis gameplan appears to have been dusted off, with Kerry being called soft on crime, soft on budgets, and soft on gay marriage.

Dukakis was a pushover.  He never fought back, and Bush Sr. was riding the coattails of the most popular conservative President in our nation.  Kerry will fight back, and what's more, he's not the flower-child liberal that the GOP will paint him as being.  I still prefer Edwards to Kerry, but if it ends up being Kerry, this is going to be one ugly-ass, negative campaign.

And you know what?  It needs to be.  If it was Edwards running, it would be a different story.  But if it's Kerry, he can't beat a political machine like Bush/Rove/DeLay with the Sunshine appeal.  He needs to attack them, and that's because that's his mandate from Democrats.  Kerry, if he gets the nomination, would be there only for one reason: As the vessel that carries all the extreme anger and dismay over what Bush and his crew has done to this country. 

John Kerry isn't being sent to the nomination to play nice, and indications are that he won't.  Good for him.


9:53:16 AM    Say what?[]

The Intel Offensive Begins

Rummy and George Tenet are now taking the offensive in the Administration's efforts to defend what the pre-war intelligence said.  Tenet's stance is an especially interesting one, since it would seem that he's the one who will be made to fall on the sword, politically, for intelligence failings. 

I guess I feel like I'm missing something.  Either the intel was accurate, or it wasn't.  The consensus view seems to be that it wasn't, but the Administration (except, notably, for Colin Powell) seems to still be clinging to the notion that the intel said Saddam was a threat, and we may still find weapons there.  Is it just me, or has the intel focus, just like the war rationale, shifted from the question of WMD to the notion of whether Saddam "was a threat"?  Hell, we all knew the guy was a threat, just like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and a host of others.

Funny, I don't remember the "threat" analysis during the 2003 State of the Union.  I remember a lot of scary mushroom cloud rhetoric.  Don't you?

The bottom line is this: If they don't find weapons, there's going to be a massive gap between what we thought we knew and what the reality was.  In light of that gap, how the hell can you advance a doctrine of pre-emptive attack, which depends on specific and reliable intelligence?


9:42:39 AM    Say what?[]

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2004 DH.
Last update: 3/1/2004; 11:37:47 AM.


February 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29            
Jan   Mar

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Email The Pipeline



Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Subscribe to "Pipeline" in Radio UserLand.