Thank you, Captains Obvious!

Washington Post reports that a blue-ribbon panel has declared the sky to be blue:

WASHINGTON -- An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.

But hey, how can you trust the product of two raving revolutionaries like Brent Snowcroft and Samuel (no, those aren't classified National Archives records in my pants, I've just been daydreaming about Jessica Simpson) Berger.

Meanwhile, back at the White House:










Eric Draper/AP
"Heh, heh . . . Mars, bitches!"

Roberts redux

Billmon has a great screed up about Roberts, which I like even though I well-nigh completely disagree with all his conclusions. (Bill's always a good read.) Reduced to its essence, it advocates Total War on Roberts. And he means Total War -- all caveman-Chuck-Colson- Lee-Attwater-Karl-Rove war. Pictures of him alongside Bernie Ebbers and Osama. Rubbing his face in the "infamous french fry case." It's a fun fantasy. But what a mistake it would be. To be fair, Bill's greater point, I think, is that all of these options -- including the full armamentarium of dirty tricks -- should always be considered, with the only considerations being strategic. That, too is an interesting point for debate, but let's hold off on that Big Question and focus just on this particular matter. And on this matter, I can see no upside and oh-so-many downsides to an all-out war here.

I hold no brief for Roberts, to be sure (see last post), but he is a less-unreasonable, less-in-your-face choice than expected. As such, the nomination is no doubt an index of how wounded Shrubbie is politically right now. All of the women under consideration other than the maguffin, Clement (who apparently wasn't really being seriously considered but was only on the list to serve as a head feint and smokescreen) are nasty pieces of work (Jones, Owens, Brown). As I noted below, the fact that he's very smart and very talented might make him more dangerous than one of those Looney Tunes, but for the same reasons, it's hard -- indeed, I think, impossible -- to say he's not qualified.

And let's tick off just a couple fo the costs. First of all, a war will consume an awful lot of money that is needed to fight Rehnquist's replacement, and believe it or not there is a limited quantity of George Soros's money to be spent. Second, it would cost us dear in the precious currency of credibility. And like it or not, we need it. They seem to get by fien without it. Life sucks but that's the way of the world right now.) Going to the mat on Roberts would play right into the prefabricated talking point that the libr'lz are going to put a Fatwa on anyone Bush nominates, doesn't matter who. And, c'mon folks. He's very conservative. Anyone able to keep a straight face while pretending to be surprised that Bush didn't appoint a "moderate" like O'Connor? (And don't get me started on Sandy. She's not really moderate so much as incoherent. And her presence on the Court has contributed mightily to incoherent constitutional doctrine.)

Much more intriguing is Billmon's later suggestion (prompted by, of all things, reading an Ann Coulter screechfest) that we should instead consider using some jujitsu.

[M]aybe the Dems should praise him instead of slamming him. Talk about his tolerance and his respect for diversity. Congratulate Bush for picking such a moderate, fair-minded jurist -- one who has already testified that Roe v Wade is settled law." Tell the world they're overjoyed the president selected a nominee who can reach across the partisan divide, instead of some extremist skin job with a radical religious agenda. Smother Roberts in some hot, juicy Demo love.

Say that kind of stuff often and loud enough, and it might plant some seeds of doubt in those tiny wing-nut minds: "If the filthy 'rats like him so much, he mus' be some kinda librul."

Now that's some deep-game thinkin'. I like it.

But lets get back to Mr. Justice WhiteMan himself for a moment. There are definitely serious-ass concerns.

If we can strive to think about something other than abortion for a moment, I think Roberts is a serious threat to all manner of beneficial federal regulation. Hell, it appears that while in law school, he was dreaming up ways to resurrect the Lochner-era notion that the constitutional provision prohibiting laws "impairing the obligations of contracts" elevates freedom of contract to a sacral realm that cannot be touched by social and economic regulation.

I am very troubled by his dissent in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, in which he argued in a that Congress was without power under the Commerce Clause to apply the Endangered Species Act to matters such as a property developer's rare-toad-killing development activities because there was no evidence that -- I shit you not -- the particular toad or toads in question ever hopped across state lines. (For the unitiated, the power ‘‘[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several states" -- the Commerce Clause -- is the most potent source of legislative authority in the Constitution. Without it we wouldn't have, among other things, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, you get the idea. Lose the Commerce Clause authority and we lose a LOT.) I find the fact that Roberts took up his pen here particularly significant because of the posture of the case. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit (a court that handles a hugely disproportionate amount of regulatory litigation, and which is hardly stocked full of wooly-headed Bolsheviks) had already concluded, in a very able opinion I might add, that the Endangered Species Act in fact applied to Rancho Viejo's bulldozing of rare toads and that such application was not outside Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Thus, Roberts's dissent was addressed to the court's failure to take the case en banc (that is, before the full complement of D.C. Circuit judges) in order to overrule the panel decision and overrrule some settled precedents as well. As noted, this court is hardly brimful with hariy Marxists, and only one other judge (Sentelle, don't get me started on him) thought the same way. Thus, that decision is significant for two reasons beyond the fact that it's just plain scary on the merits (and a little nutty to boot, although his position finds solace in some of the Supremes' recent -- but, significantly, pre-medical-marijuana -- Commerce Clause cases): First, it shows clearly what kind of stuff lights Roberts's fire -- regulatory legislation that gets in the way of bulldozers (well, really, any economic activity). Second, and in a related vein, it gives us a window into where he might want to go in terms of blazing new legal trails (and, perforce, bulldozing precedents) as a Supreme. And it don't look good.

In addition, Roberts joined the opinion of another D.C. Circuit Brownshirt to hold in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that (1) the Administration's Kangaroo 'Military Tribunals' were properly authorized by Congress's pussilanimous 9/11 terrorism resolution and two other (rather obscure) federal laws; and (2) the Third Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war are not enforceable in court. Also bad news.

These are my Big Two red flags. That said, I must confess to finding it impossible even to feign being exercised over Roberts’ ‘french fry’ ruling. For those unfamiliar, the DC Metro authorities decided that the chief problem confronting commuters on the subway system of the nation's capital is not bomb-wielding zealots but rather fast food consumption, especially by minors. Accordingly, they adopted a zero-tolerance policy for any violation of a D.C. law forbidding passengers from sipping their coffee or stuffing their faces with heavily salted foods. A young girl was arrested and detained pursuant to the policy and tried to make a federal case out of it, alleging that the stupid, hamfisted antics violated the Constitution. Roberts wrote the opinion (for a unanimous panel) affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case.

Why no outrage?

Well, first, the decision seems pretty unimpeachably correct. The girl claimed an equal-protection violation based on the theory that she was singled out for extra nasty treatment because of age (older spud-eaters were not arrested), but that claim involves the absolute lowest-level scrutiny of the government's action, which virtually always requires that the challenged action be upheld. She also claimed a Fourth Amendment violation, a claim that is dead on arrival in light of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the arrest and detention of a woman for failing to wear her seatbelt in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. Shitty decision, for sure. But you have to blame Souter (who wrote the opinion) as well as Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (who joined) for that one.

Second, I have to admit that Roberts writes a damn good opinion, and in this one he took pains to be kind to the plaintiff. Here's the first paragraph:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

Hell, when I lose a case, that's how I like to lose it. By the way, the hapless motorist in Atwater had a shitty time of it too, but you see nary a kind word in Souter's very businesslike opinion. Here's her ordeal:

In March 1997, Petitioner Gail Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt. Respondent Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer at the time, observed the seatbelt violations and pulled Atwater over. According to Atwater’s complaint . . . Turek approached the truck and “yell[ed]” something to the effect of “[w]e’ve met before” and “[y]ou’re going to jail.” He then called for backup and asked to see Atwater’s driver’s license and insurance documentation, which state law required her to carry. When Atwater told Turek that she did not have the papers because her purse had been stolen the day before, Turek said that he had “heard that story two hundred times.” Atwater asked to take her “frightened, upset, and crying” children to a friend’s house nearby, but Turek told her, “[y]ou’re not going anywhere.” As it turned out, Atwater’s friend learned what was going on and soon arrived to take charge of the children. Turek then handcuffed Atwater, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where booking officers had her remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took Atwater’s “mug shot” and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond.

While Roberts has been accused of writing a hard-hearted decision in the french fry case, check out what Souter (a justice I otherwise admire greatly) says after recounting Atwater's travails. Does he make so much as a nod to the fact that the treatment is hugely disproportionate or "foolish"? No. He starts with a history lesson: "We begin with the state of pre-founding English common law and find that [based on some 20 pages of really unenlightening historical meandering, the common law was just fine with warrantless arrests on the spot]."

I'm just sayin'.

Roberts

Well, there we have it. Mr. Justice WhiteMan. The Ginger Man has been known to knock around in the D.C. Circuit from time to time, so for what it's worth, here's my take. I think Roberts is a very conservative, results-oriented judge who happens to be able enough to disguise his basically results-driven approach. By that I mean that he has strong biases and he will work very hard to manufacture a result that accords with those biases, albeit within the bounds of basic reason. Thus, he is no Priscilla Owen, who will perform the vilest and most perverted unnatural acts on precedents and legislative enactments in order to get where she wants. Roberts tends not to go too far out on a limb to get to his preferred result. What this augurs for Roberts as a Supreme is by no means certain but I think he will be a pretty reliable vote for the Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist* bloc.

*Rehnquist is clearly opting for death-at-desk, so I think we can probably count on him being in on at least the first cases in October.

Given his solid Repugnican creds -- White House counsel's office under Reagan, "political" deputy Solicitor General in the Bush I Justice Department, etc. -- the likelihood of him turning Souter- or even Kennedy-ish is pretty damn slim. But I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally departed from the wolf pack here and there. I figure he's more interested in the "federalism revolution" -- that is, the devolution toward the Articles of Confederation -- and in scaling back federal regulation than the hot-button wingnut social issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't vote with the Gang of Three on, say, Roe. But he could surprise. (And we still have five votes on what's left of Roe.) Meanwhile, here's hoping that the increasingly nutty vitriol that Scalia is spilling in his recent opinions (or, rather, the Wall Street Journal Op-Eds he publishes in the Supreme Court Reports) continue to alienate Kennedy so much that that he inches further leftward.

Aside from that, all the hype about his intellectual firepower is pretty well warranted. As a judge, I've found him to be smart, tough, and extremely well prepared. He gets right at the heart of the issues with incisive questions. That is to say, he is more Scalia than Thomas. This, of course, makes him more dangerous than a whacknut like J.R. Brown or Priscilla Prissy-Pants Owen.While Brown and Owen would -- like Roberts -- be reliable conservative votes on various issues, those two are so crazy and thick that they would probably have little influence beyond their votes: A Brown or an Owens would write whacknut concurring opinions saying all sorts of crazy shit that would be very unlikely to garner other votes or be cogent enough to have influence in other ways (like, say, being picked up with any seriousness in the legal academy). Roberts on the other hand has chops to really have some influence on the Court and beyond.

Politically, this was a shrewd move, and not just as the opening fusillade in Operation Knock Rove Off the Headlines. I think that Democrats in the Senate would be well-advised not to attempt to launch a major war against the nomination but rather should save their ammunition for other fights (like, say, recapturing the Senate in '06 while hoping that Rehnquist has the best doctors in the world). There is no way that Roberts is not going to be confirmed. To be sure, sometimes you should fight even if you think that confirmation is a sure bet, but he does not have the kind of crazy-ass record that would allow the Dems to score any political points that way. Quite the contrary. My advice to Dem Senators: Question him hard, show as much as you can where he stands, show where he's unwilling to commit, vote against him, and move on. The Rethugnicans who actually have to run for re-election are likely to pay a price for Bush's failure to replace O'Connor with a woman. If the Dems on the Judiciary Committee smoke Roberts out on any major issues (which is unlikely in any event), his appointment may cost the Republicans some more moderate votes as well.

George grooves with the Greatest Hits of the Sixties

In the climactic scene of Bruce Robinson's brilliant film Withnail & I, a local Camden Town drug dealer, Danny, attempts to pacify Marwood (the "I" of the film's title), who is suddenly gripped with a case of potent-cannabis-induced paranoid agitation ("the Fear"). In so doing, Danny meditates on how being really, really stoned is a metaphor for politics and for the end of the Sixties:

Sit down man, find your neutral space. You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mills of diazepam on you, you will do something else to your brain. You will make it low. Why trust one drug rather than the other? That's politics ain't it?

. . . .

If you are holding onto a rising balloon you are presented with a difficult political decision: let go while you've still got the chance or hold onto the rope and continue getting higher. That's politics man.

We are at the end of an age. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is nearly over. . . . . It is 91 days to the end of the decade and as Presuming Ed here has so consistently pointed out, we have failed to paint it black.

In the film, Danny utters these words in the waning days of September, 1969. Shortly after this fictional event (on Nov. 3, 1969 to be precise), a very real (albeit fictional-seeming) Richard Milhaus Nixon responded to escalating unrest over the Vietnam War by giving his (in)famous "Vietnamization" speech. In it, Milhaus offered his own version of Danny's Balloon Thesis:

My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war.

-I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.

-Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary - a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.

Milhaus, of course, chose to hang on to the balloon: "I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way."

Why do I once again trouble you, my one and only reader, with the dark name of Milhaus? Why do I disturb your dreams with the nightmare image of the melon-jowled trickster figure of U.S. History? Well, mon semblable, mon frère, I do this to you because our Commander-Cuckoo-Bananas-in-Chief positively channeled the old villain while exhorting his fellow 'mericans to please, dear Je-yay-sus, hang on to that balloon.

Let it not be said that "the greatest decade in the history of mankind" passed George by without leaving a trace on his booze-addled brain, for last night's speech was not simply a rerun of George's own greatest hits (although it certainly was that), it was a stunning rewrite of Nixon's November excrescence, which featured such Smash Hits as "the great silent majority" and (who can forget?) the "just peace." Trust me, dear reader, the process of reading the two pieces side by side rewards the effort -- the edification it provides is worth the nausea it provokes. For the more squeamish, I will offer the following Cliffs Notes primer on the similarities between the speeches.

First, a little context.

• Nixon was facing mounting opposition to the Vietnam War, and decided to take to the airwaves to sell the policy of keeping U.S. combat troops in Vietnam until the "military forces" of "South Vietnam" were sufficiently trained to take over from the U.S. military the task of being systematically slaughtered by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. Bush is facing mounting opposition to the Iraq War, and decided to take to the airwaves to sell the policy of keeping U.S. combat troops in Iraq until the "military forces" of "the New and Sovereign Iraq" are sufficiently trained to take over the task of being systematically slaughtered by Sunni and nationalist insurgents, soldiers and officers from the disbanded Iraqi Army, and a collection of foreign and home-grown jihadis.

Now the speech. The similarities abound. I will pick some of the choicest morsels.

• Milhaus pretends that he is executing a new policy of working to hand over the fight to the South Vietnamese: "[W]e are Vietnamizing the search for peace. . . . . Under the [Vietnamization] plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces. . . . . Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam." Dubya pretends that he is executing a new policy of working to hand over the fight to the Iraqis: "Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. . . . . Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents." Well, this worked so swimmingly from 1968-1975, why not give it another whirl, eh?
• Milhaus sez, we're making progress: "And now we have begun to see the results of this long overdue change in American policy in Vietnam. [Et lying-ass cetera, et lying-ass cetera.]" Dubya sez, we're making progress: "In the past year, we have made significant progress. [Et lying-ass cetera, et lying-ass cetera]. "
• However, Milhaus sez, timetable bad: "I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. . . . . [The enemy] would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in. . . . . [And if we withdraw troops] our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves." However, Dubya sez, timetable bad: "Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out." (OK, let's give Dubya's speechwriters credit for coming up with a reason or two that didn't appear in Nixon's speech.)
• Milhaus sez, I really, really do want to bring our troops home, but we have to defeat this boogeyman first: "There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. . . . . I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world." Dubya sez I really, really do want to bring the troops home but we have to defeat this boogeyman first: "I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. . . . . We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We're fighting against men with blind hatred -- and armed with lethal weapons -- who are capable of any atrocity. . . . . They will fail."
• Milhaus sez, we've been in some tight spots before, but by gum we always pull through 'cuz we're Americans and are therefore always right: "We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right." Dubya sez, we've been in some tight spots before, but by gum we always pull through 'cuz we're Americans and are therefore always right: "America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way, and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending."
• Milhaus makes a pit stop at the last refuge of the scoundrel before wrapping up: "I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership." Dubya makes a pit stop at the last refuge of the scoundrel before wrapping up: "This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom -- by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field, or helping the military family down the street. . . . . At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all."

Tomorrow, perhaps, the differences and why they are illuminating. In the meantime, we're stuck clutching that balloon, which ain't goin' anywhere good.

The Death of Irony (Nixon Nostalgia Edition)

After creating this damn blog a couple of months ago, I've been dawdling, telling myself that I need to wait until something truly momentous happens to inspire me to break the seal and draft the inaugural post.

I've just decided to settle for finding myself appalledly gob-smacked by the antics of the members of Nixon's former cabal following the revelation that Mark Felt -- former number 2 man at the FBI -- was the Woodstein source known as Deep Throat.

I have to admit that I'm finding my satiric abilities completely powerless in the face of:

• G. Gordon Liddy calling Mark Felt “unethical.”
• Robert Novak saying that “it goes against my grain” for Felt to be considered a hero (he's not, but what the fuck right does the Douchebag of Liberty have traducing anyone's integrity, especially as regards the leaking of information for ulterior purposes).
• Peggy Noonan, Ben Stein, and Chuck Colson saying -- with straight, albeit really ugly, faces -- that Felt, by taking down Nixon, is himself personally responsible for the killing fields of Pol Pot. (I guess he killed the cat that ate the rats who shat on the mats, or something or other, in the House that Jack Built).

Fortunately, we have Jon Stewart.

Now I really thought that the fulminations cataloged above might represent the high water mark in the Death of Irony flood-plain marker, but then Kissinger went and got himself interviewed on Hardball last night, claiming (drumroll please) Nixon vass ohnly JOKING about wanting to burglarize the offices of his enemies and set up a secret domestic espionage boutique within the CIA for the purpose of doing so, and and so on, so that the real problem was that some commendably loyal but foolish retainers TOOK THE OL’ JOKESTER SERIOUSLY (mit a hearty danke schön to Josh Marshall):

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the whole Nixon—and I‘m sure you‘ve thought this over a zillion times in your life in your long career and all that you‘ve done. If you think about Nixon and break-ins, I know I have a tape -- I listened to it myself over at the archives—of Nixon saying, go break into Brookings after the Pentagon Papers were published. There was another tape I listened to where he said, let‘s go break into the Republican headquarters and make it look like the Democrats did it. What is with Nixon and break-ins?

KISSINGER: You have to understand that Nixon had a habit of making grandiloquent statements. This was his way of letting off steam to prove that he was macho. And the people who really knew him would not act on these comments. When I learned about Watergate, I asked Bryce Harlow, who was a wise old man around Washington, I said , what do you think happened here, Bryce? And he said, some damn fool went into the Oval Office and did what he was told, because Nixon didn‘t mean these things to be carried out. And he didn‘t really order them. He would say these things rhetorically. Let‘s break into Brookings. . . .

Holy Murder in the Cathedral, Batman! I think I’ve heard this script before. You know, good ol’ King Harry II (whom I had always credited with the invention of the concept of ‘plausible deniability’) was himself just a misunderstood yuckster. When he declaimed his famous drunken query -- "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"* -- why, he was just cutting up with his pals, practicing for a run in some Borscht-belt resort.

*This particular locution is, of course, the stuff of legend. As veteran smarty-pants, ruin-everyone's-fun Simon Schama points out, His Royal Hilariousness's actual lighthearted jape was more like this: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household who allow their lord to be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!" Simon Schama, A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World (2000).

Man, that Henry II was every bit the knee-slappin' gagmeister as the King of Comedy himslef, Milhaus.

Felt, by the way, is certainly no hero. I’m mighty glad he came along -- replete with all his agendas and mixed motives -- and he did great things. But he’s simply proof that good can come of intra-mural conflicts among the ruling class.

That Danny Ellsberg, on the other hand -- he who leaked the Pentagon Papers and was prosecuted for it -- now that’s a hero (which is of course why Liddy’s Crack Plumbers – or was it Plumbers’ Cracks? -- broke into his shrink’s office).