I was just watching Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Suzanne Malveux was filling in for Blitzer and she asked guest, Sen. Arlen Specter, about his treatment of Robert Bork. I don’t have the exact transcript yet, but Specter responded with something to the effect of,”Bork believed in orginal intent and if we had had it his way, the U.S. Senate would be segregated, with blacks on one side and whites on the other.” Stand by for the actual transcript of the exchange.

This is scary, but, unfortunately, not surprising. Thankfully, Judge Bork, who almost 20 years after being screwed by Specter is still being publicly smeared by this guy, came on with Malveux during the next segment and responded to the senator by saying “the truth is not in him.”

Funny, I also watched Ted Kennedy on ABC this morning and he almost exactly mirrored Specter’s views about Robert Bork. If Specter is truly against strict constructionist judges, we have a big problem on our hands this summer…

UPDATE: Okay here is the precise quote from Specter’s interview on Late Edition yesterday. The full transcript is here

Suzanne Malveaux: “Conservatives who felt like you let Robert Bork out to dry, from what some people said. Have you learned anything from your previous experiences? Will you go in with a different mindset or a different tone when you move forward on these hearings?”

Sen. Specter: “I’ve learned a lot, Suzanne. I’ve learned to study hard, to be prepared and to make up my mind about what questions ought to be asked. I’ve been criticized a lot for questioning Judge Bork on one session for an hour and a half, and he had views which were different from anybody who had ever been nominated before.

He had original intent, and if his original intent stood, we’d still be segregating the United States Senate with African Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side. And I read what Senator Bork has written about me, and he came into Pennsylvania last spring to campaign for my primary opponent, but I think a fair analysis, and a number of scholars have read my questioning of Senator Bork and thought it was right. Let me finish the answer…”

Robert Bork’s response later in the program: “Oh, yes. I know Specter and the truth is not in him. I have written and he must know it that Brown against Board of Education, the case that ended segregation, was a correct decision. ”

The following is a piece I did for the GW Hatchet, back on November 6th, 2003. I basically argue that this is nothing more than a media-driven story and the real dishonesty has come from Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame’s husband) and not Bob Novak and the Bush Administration. I think, after reading this, it will be clear as to why we cannot trust Joe Wilson. By the way, (as savethegop’s John McCormack correctly demonstrated in a similar newspaper article) Wilson’s claims about Bush’s fraudulent WMD-Niger connections have been wholly refuted - just thought I would mention it.

“The political leak from the White House has all the elements of a classic Washington scandal, playing perfectly into the game plan of the compulsive Bush-hating Democratic hacks who thirst for political blood. And this is not to mention their willing accomplices in the national media who will gladly do the Democrats’ dirty work and exploit what is essentially a non-story. There is just one thing standing in the way - the truth.

Allow me to concede that members of the Bush Administration did incidentally leak Valerie Plame’s identity. This is about the only fact the media has reported accurately in the story. Indeed, they are now in full scandal mode, asking us to believe the wild allegation that Plame’s identity was leaked as a means of political retribution against her husband, Joseph Wilson - an outspoken critic of Bush foreign policy.

Unfortunately for those seeking Bush’s downfall, this claim is completely fictitious, as evidenced by the fact that the story is now on life-support and lacking enough factual basis for serious media attention. Thankfully, columnist Bob Novak, the man at the center of the supposed scandal, has restored the truth to this debate. The media would have us believe that Novak was chosen as a pawn for a planned political leak and attack against Wilson. On the contrary, we now know Novak initiated a conversation with a White House official during which the identity of Wilson’s wife came across in an “offhand revelation.” Novak vehemently rejects the media’s conspiracy theory that he was a key player in a deliberate smear campaign, calling it “simply untrue.”

If anyone is politically motivated, it is Wilson. This man has on more then one occasion voiced his disgust for the White House and sworn vengeance against chief presidential advisor Karl Rove, once stating that he wanted him “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.” Still, even Wilson, in a brief stint with integrity, mildly rejected the idea that Rove and the White House intentionally leaked his wife’s name, saying he “made up the Rove allegation out of thin air.” Given Wilson’s obviously fabricated malicious comments and his partisan background, is there any doubt that his credibility is in crisis and should be severely questioned?

In addition, the Democrats’ selective outrage and blatant hypocrisy regarding political leaks is on full display here. Where was the Democratic outrage when the Clinton defense department illegally leaked Linda Tripp’s Pentagon file to a New York columnist? What about when the White House tried to discredit Clinton sexual assault victim Kathleen Wiley by leaking her personal correspondences to the national press (an act later deemed a criminal violation by a U.S. District Court Judge)? The list goes on and on. In fact, the Democrats were deathly silent during these scurrilous episodes, dismissing Republican condemnations as baseless political attacks.

The leak fiasco is just the latest manifestation of the Democratic smear machine. As with the previous political attacks launched against this White House, the American people will reject this story, which will be regarded as the fraud it most certainly is. And Bush’s presidency will be all the stronger.”

In the case of the Plame Affair, it is questionable whether or not there is any real crime here. The Intelligence Protection Act (50 U.S.C. Sec. 421), as seen below, clearly says that you have to have knowledge of an agent’s covert status and then intentionally or deliberately reveal the information. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone from the White House did this. Bob Novak made it clear back in October 2003 that Plame’s identity was “revealed” in a passing conversation. It was, so he claims, not done as an intentional means of political retribution. In fact, the White House officials probably thought nothing of it, as Plame’s identity was pretty much common knowledge in Washington. I find it highly unlikely that Rove is behind the “leak,” but even if he is, there is really no crime here. To believe there is a crime, you have to believe Novak is a liar. And he is as straight as they come in Washington. I have posted the actual law at hand below. Indeed, there are different sections of the act that provide for penalties ranging from three years to ten years. There are three ways to violate the law:

1) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
or
2) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
or
3)Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Much has been talked about in regards to the closing of military bases around the country, and the economic impact that it has on those communities. One negative is the loss of the special characteristics that are found only in the communities that support some of our nation’s military institutions. For those who have never lived in one of these communities, it would be hard to fully understand, but let me try. These communities foster pride, honor and respect for our men and women in uniform because they are constantly reminded of the sacrifices that they are making. In Norfolk Virginia, all of the community comes out to welcome home the sailors from their cruises that have taken them away from their families for such long periods of time. Waiters at local restaurants near fort Stewart understand that the men in uniform drinking their cups of coffee might not be visiting them again after they ship out to put their lives on the line. Many of the men and women who fill the ranks of our military were born and raised in these communities, and joined the military because they were impacted by the example of not only the brave men and women in uniform, but also by the citizens of those communities who showed respect and honor to those who defend our freedoms. There is a certain sense of family, of loyalty and pride in these communities that is not found in other American towns or communities. When I see these bases close, I see the economic impact, but even more I wonder if we are also losing something much more special and significant.