I'm reading through the Post's front-pager on how the Bush Administration screened political appointees for jobs in post-invasion Iraq based on loyalty to Bush and the conservative agenda. It's another one of a string of reports in recent months that fall into a strange category of news-gathering: stories already known to be true but for which the specific facts weren't yet available.
I know that sounds flip, but there really is something going on here worth noting. For instance, any reasonable person's reaction to the Post story will be a variation on, "Duh!" Bush placed a premium on political fealty rather than competence and effectiveness? Who is surprised by that? No one. So you read the piece for the anecdotes, like the fact that the Pentagon official responsible for screening political appointees is Jim O'Beirne, husband of conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne.
Isn't it usually the other way around? Reporters, and their readers, look for the facts in order to construct a larger picture. Ideally the facts are pieced together into a mosaic in which discrete bits of information that may otherwise be meaningless standing alone now contribute to a greater level of understanding.
Not so with many Bush era stories. The President's modus operandi is so well established, but the cloak of secrecy so tightly closed, that the broad outlines of a story may be known months or years before the particular facts are uncovered to flesh out the details. The closest thing I can compare it to is reading the next day's sports story after watching the game. You read not to learn who won, but for colorful anecdotes, and at some level to confirm what you have already seen and know to be true.
Of course this Administration's record--or, more precisely, the recording of that record--is a far more serious undertaking than a ballgame. The effort is similar in some respects to what people grappled with in the 1990s in post-communist Eastern Europe and post-Apartheid South Africa. There is something fundamental about knowing the details. I'm not sure that journalism as we now know and practice it is particularly suited to filling in the details well after the fact, but I don't think we can afford to wait for the historians.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader PL:
You wrote, "A special place is reserved for the lawyers who give legal cover for such orders."What leaves me shaking my head, trying to understand, is not the lawyers, but the medical doctors who participate in torture and give guidance into how much more the person can take before they die. I just imagine the kind of person who decides to become a doctor -- that person must want to heal, want to fix people, want to alleviate their suffering or pain or at least want to be someone who has the power to do that.
So this person has years of training, has seen people suffer and die and seen pain first hand -- and yet, that same person is able to not only watch someone being tortured but take part in the process by saying the person could take 100 more volts or 4 more punches or 10 degrees cooler or stay in that position for another 24 hours before their legs break or whatever. I wonder at what point they lose that humanity. I wonder what they think of themselves when they look in the mirror or what goes through their mind when they turn off the light and pull the blanket up to their chin to go to sleep. When their family asks about their day, what do they tell their kids they do? I wonder what they tell themselves to make it be OK.
I simply cannot imagine the gentle hands of a doctor who in one case may be so delicately examining a wound to then be the one to say "Yeah, this guy can take more... he's still conscious so go at it."
Late update: Some readers have questioned whether there is any evidence of doctors having actually participated in the Administration-sanctioned torture. There is evidence, much of it circumstantial, that military health care providers, including physicians, have been complicit in torture. You can find more here and here.
--David Kurtz
Here it comes. The NRCC on Friday dropped almost $2 million on TV attack ads in congressional districts from Washington State to New York.
--David Kurtz
As a number of recent reports have made clear, the Republican's GOTV efforts are formidable. The Democrats, despite trying to keep apace, are not in the same league anymore. But you get the sense that many Democrats, accustomed to decades of dominance on the ground, don't yet fully appreciate the disparity.
I was talking to a union political operative last week who told me that it's real difficult to convince union members that campaigns nowadays start well before Labor Day. Meanwhile, Republican street money is already flowing.
Union turnout is going to be critical in several close Senate and House races, so this mindset is a problem.
--David Kurtz
Brian Williams opened his newscast last night with this: "Good evening from Havana, Cuba, the host city for what is called the Summit of Non-Aligned Nations--in short, all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room."
Well, then. There are 118 developing countries that are part of the nonaligned movement, including India, Pakistan, and Thailand. Sure hope we don't have to invade them all.
--David Kurtz
The torture debate in Congress--I never expected to write such words--is as surreal to me as watching the collapse of the Twin Towers. If the Democrats are able to take control of at least one chamber in November, then surely the President's pro-torture bill will be viewed in hindsight as the nadir of the Bush presidency. If not, how much lower can things go?
I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill will diminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has already accomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not.
The Republicans have defined deviancy down for the whole world, including every two-bit dictator and wild-eyed terrorist.
In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes of the pro-torture presidency:
[L]egal obfuscation is enormously attractive to President Bush. It means all but the most highly credentialed law professors and government lawyers are constantly confused; it means subsequent legal claims that interrogators "did not know that the practices were unlawful" have real credibility. And perhaps, most importantly to this White House, it obscures where things have gone awry up and down the chain of command. One possibility, then, is that all these eleventh-hour redefinitions of torture are presidential attempts to "afford brutality the cloak of law," in the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. But increasingly, it seems clear that its real purpose is simply to brutalize the law.
And to brutalize people.
Only the weak, scared, and evil torture. Those who order and sanction torture, but leave the dirty work to others, are an order of magnitude more culpable morally. (A special place is reserved for the lawyers who give legal cover for such orders.) In their fear and their weakness and their smallness, the President and those around him stepped over the line. To do so in the heated days after 9/11 is understandable to a point, though not justifiable. Yet they persisted, first in saying that they did not step over the line and now in seeking to redraw the line. So which is it?
They are descending from the morally reprehensible to the morally cowardly.
--David Kurtz
This is just unbelievable. The IRS is suddenly ramping up its investigation of whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated its tax-exempt status with an anti-war sermon just before the 2004 elections.
On Friday an IRS investigator served a summons on the current rector, Rev. Ed Bacon, ordering the church to turn over all documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that referred to political candidates:
After nearly a year without communication with the agency, Bacon said he was "quite surprised" Friday when an IRS agent handed him the summons at his church.In addition to seeking electronic communications, the summons requests "a copy of all oral communications identifying candidates for public office delivered at All Saints Church or at events sponsored by All Saints Church between Jan. 1, 2004, and Nov. 2, 2004."
The summons also asks for various financial records.
The church has until September 29 to produce the documents, and Bacon has been summoned to testify on October 11. For frame of reference, Election Day is November 7.
So the IRS holds its fire in an investigation of allegedly improper political activites just before the 2004 elections until just before the 2006 elections. How about an investigation of that?
--David Kurtz
CNN anchor Tony Harris: "We have to take the president at his word when he says that the problem with Common Article 3, which prohibits outrages against personal dignity, is that it is unclear. And we can't have our interrogators trying to get information that we need to protect this country under a bit of language here that is this vague. We can do better than this."
Late update: TPM Reader JS says Harris was simply playing devil's advocate here, and that the video makes it clear, in a way the transcript does not, that "We have to take the president at his word" was not declarative.
--David Kurtz
A new report out this evening from McClatchy on the Bush Administration's Iran machinations:
Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran's nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.
The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three.
The officials said they fear a replay of the administration's mishandling of what turned out to be bogus information from Iraqi exiles in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, documented earlier this month in a Senate intelligence committee report.
The article also reports that former defense officials have been told airstrike plans for Iran are being updated and that the leader of a Persian Gulf country failed to get the assurances he was seeking, during a recent visit to Washington, that the military option was off the table.
There was also this nugget:
Adding to the unease, Rumsfeld's office earlier this year set up a new Iranian directorate, reported to be under the leadership of neoconservatives who played a role in planning the Iraq war.Current and former officials said the Pentagon's Iranian directorate has been headed by Abram Shulsky. Shulsky also was the head of the now-defunct Office of Special Plans, whose role in allegedly manipulating Iraq intelligence is under investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Some officials say they fear the office, whose existence was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, is being used to funnel intelligence from Ghorbanifar, the arms dealer, and an Iranian exile group known as the Mujahedeen Khalq.
You may recall that after Republican gains in the 2002 mid-term elections, Vice President Cheney declared privately that more tax cuts were "our due." If the GOP retains control of Congress in November, will military action in Iran be their due?
--David Kurtz
Bush: I won't question my opponents patriotism. But if others do that's cool.
--Josh Marshall
Debate moderator asks Muslim House candidate whether he 'associates with terrorists'.
--Josh Marshall
Karl Rove is certainly playing high stakes poker on the Kangaroo Courts. Set aside for the moment the merits of the underlying questions of whether our country should continue to abide by the rule of law and the principles our founders based the country on. Hard I know, but for a moment, put that to one side.
The aim here was to unite Republicans behind a bill and then force Democrats either to vote for or against -- demoralize the supporters of those who vote for and crush with 30 second ads those who vote against.
But if the White House actually gets tripped up in a fight with members of his own party over what kind of torture we should use, and that's the last legislative story out of Washington going into the election, that really seems like it would be a big disaster for the White House.
I don't pretend that it's a clear political shot to argue, in a highly polarized electorate, that there are certain rights we should afford to anyone in our custody, no matter how bad they may be.
If there's some division over a president who wants to sully our national honor by enshrining torture as national policy, I don't think there's much division over a would-be torturer-in-chief who's so feckless that he can't even get his bills through congress -- and this while he's twiddling his thumbs as Iraq goes to hell.
The question is, Am I really supposed to believe that Republican senators are willing to hand their party leader that kind of reverse on the eve of a critical mid-term election? I have a hard time believing that's going to happen. And yet, who's going to blink?
A friend suggestst that President Bush will do what he's done before in similar cases -- fight up to the end, then embrace the opposition's position, repackage it as his own and declare victory.
The problem is that that's not necessarily enough for the president and his chaperone in this case to get an agreement with members of his own party. The whole point of this exercise, which is entirely political, is to pick a fight with the opposition. So the president needs to find a political sweet spot that guarantees agreed with senate Republicans and disagreement with most senate Democrats. This is the first thing to remember. Agreement, consensus is the last thing the president wants because then he loses his political cudgel.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe it'll work. And maybe it won't work. But whichever way it falls out, we can still point out the cartoonish logic and unbridled cynicism of the president's last ditch election ploy.
The president is now warning that "time is running out" for Congress to pass his Kangaroo Court bill.
It is of course more or less a perfect replay of 2002. At least then there was a notional, if bogus, argument for urgency. Now? Time is running out to set up military tribunals to try suspected terrorists who we've had in custody for two, three, four, in some cases I think even close to five years with no particular need or urgency to try them at all. But right now, seven weeks before the election time is running out because when Congress comes back in December it'll be too late.
By then I guess we'll have had to release them and give them a clean suit, two hundred bucks and release into some American city.
Time's running out!
And that from the same guy who wants a permission slip from the Pakistani government to hunt down Osama bin Laden.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush responding today to a question about reports that the Pakistani government has called off the hunt for bin Laden and whether the US should be searching for him on its own ...
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Now recently, you've also...
BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
QUESTION: Well, recently, you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain, why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden wherever he is.
BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question.They were asking me about -- somebody report -- well, you know, your special forces here. Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought he might be who was asking me the question -- Pakistan's a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that. And then when you find him, you bring him to justice.And, you know, there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away lines, you know, when people say that.We have been on the hunt, and we'll stay on the hunt until we bring him to justice. And we're doing it in a smart fashion, Richard, we are.And I'll look forward to talking to President Musharraf.Look, he doesn't like Al Qaida. They tried to kill him. And we've had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a, you know, a violent form of ideological extremists.So we will continue on the hunt, and we've been effective about bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks, and we still got a lot of pressure on them.The best way to protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on them.
I don't think we've had any good explanation of the recent reports that the Pakistanis have agreed to stop hunting for bin Laden as long as he doesn't launch attacks within Pakistan.
--Josh Marshall
Senate Democrats call for hearings on whether the White House pressured top military lawyers to go along with their torture policy.
--Paul Kiel
Bob Ney issues statement apologizing for crimes, says "dependence on alcohol has been a problem."
Late Update: Ney's lawyers say he's already entered rehab.
Even Later Update: Former federal prosecutor says Ney got off easy, didn't even have to agree to cooperate.
--Josh Marshall
"The president wants us to forget the mistakes he's made in Iraq. He says capturing bin Laden isn't a priority for him. And now he's off caught up in a fight with senators of his own party about which kinds of torture we should use. This president just can't or won't keep his eye on the ball. President Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when bin Laden was in our grasp because he wanted to hurry up and get into Iraq. And now he wants us to forget about Iraq because he doesn't want to take responsibility for all the mistakes he's made in Iraq. The American people have a choice on November 7th. If you think our country is going in the right direction, if you think Iraq is making us safer, vote Republican. If you've had enough and thinks it's time for a change, vote Democratic." -- quoted from a (fictional) congressional candidate.
--Josh Marshall
Apparently the Feds got Rep. Ney (R-OH) to 'fess up about those dodgy poker winnings in London too.
Here's the Ney press release from the DOJ. We'll have the documents up shortly.
--Josh Marshall
10:30 Justice Department press conference scheduled on "public corruption case". TPMmuckraker's Justin Rood will be on hand.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, we're still waiting for the details of the predicted/reported guilty plea of Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), which we expect some time today, probably on the early side. But to get your corrupt congressman juices flowing we've put together a cornucopia of past Ney denials of any wrongdoing for your morning reading pleasure.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) to become the first lawmaker to fall in the long-running Abramoff investigation. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
More on the new venture from the Swift Boat Vets' money man, Bob Perry. Boy, have they been busy....
--Paul Kiel
Another Abramoff related guilty plea -- a big one. Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has agreed to plead guilty.
--Paul Kiel
Here's more on the administration's alleged arm-twisting of military lawyers to sign that pro-torture letter.
--Paul Kiel
A big new Pew poll taken right before September 11th shows that the public's still not buying the administration's line on Iraq and terrorism.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader JO ...
The President launches a series of speeches that repeatedly quote the words of Osama Bin Laden to highlight how terrorists want to kill Americans. Then, a week later, he says that catching Osama Bin Laden is not a priority. Words vs. action. Rhetoric vs. reality. The Bush presidency. If only the Democrats knew how to take advantage of the glaring inconsistencies.
How about, the president is more interested in quoting bin Laden than in catching him. Doesn't that work?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader CB ...
The President has handed the Democrats a gift. They have to consistently and daily say:
"The President said that getting the guy who masterminded 9/11 is not a top priority, if you elect a Democratic Congress, we will make it a top priority. That is what is riding on this election. If you want Bin Laden captured or killed (need to use the word "killed"), you have to vote for a change." Over and over and over again.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot?
--Josh Marshall
Did White House coerce JAGs into signing pro-torture letter to Congress?
You'll want to see this video.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on Tony Snow's presser earlier this afternoon, as we noted, Snow argued that the White House doesn't want to gut or reinterpret the minimum level anti-torture protections under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. They just want to help clarify the vague language.
Check back to the article in the Washington Post that ran on August 9th, however, for some helpful perspective.
The Post spoke to Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who until recently was chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Corn told the Post ... "that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, 'left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects.'"
--Josh Marshall
The Tony Snow press conference, going on now, is really a classic of our age. You should flip it on if you're near a TV. It's Tony Snow going back and forth with, I think, David Gregory, with Snow arguing that they're not gutting article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just no one has defined it before. It's just no one has realized there was a problem over the last 59 years until the Bush White House realized we were all flying blind.
Weird.
Now at 2:43, it's getting better. The problem hadn't occurred to anyone before because, says Snow, the issue 'hadn't come up' before. In other words, we hadn't really been in the torture business until now. So there wasn't as pressing a need to lawyer the Geneva Convention. Fascinating.
--Josh Marshall
If you have a chance, flip on the White House briefing from Tony Snow. I guess it turns out Vessey and Powell just don't understand what the White House is trying to do. They're not trying to reinterpret/gut the 3rd article of the Geneva Conventions. They're just trying to clarify 'vague language'. Okay, I guess it was all just a misundersanding.
--Josh Marshall
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water: Swift Boat 2.0.
Bob Perry, who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, ponies up five million for new group running attack ads against Democrats.
--Josh Marshall
So at least two former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs -- Vessey and Powell -- think the president's proposal for Kangaroo Courts to try accused terrorists is wrong. Among the opinion set in Washington though, the proposal is still seen as tough and good politics. That's the lay of the land.
--Josh Marshall
Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the front page of CNN's website has been completely given over since last night to 'hey i'm a tough guy' self-portraits of the Montreal college gunman? So far, I think we've had one with him with a knife, one with a gun and now one with him holding up his fist with a Dr. Evil grimace on his face.
Late Update: As of 1:41 PM, welve got another picture of the guy, now with him pointing his knife directly into the camera. I think it's a knife. But it's pointed directly into the camera. So I guess there's a small chance it's just a metal handle. I think this is picture number 5 from Kimveer Gill's home website.
Later Update: New Kimveer Gill snuffshot at 2:12 PM. This one has Kimveer giving a heavy metal rock on sign with one hand and holding an automatic rifle in the other. Rock on!
--Josh Marshall
Santorum: Terrorists more dangerous than Hitler and Stalin, Soviet nukes.
--Josh Marshall
New Jersey senate candidate Kean holds fundraiser with Rove, can't make time to show up in person.
--Josh Marshall
Curtains for the Count?
A new poll out of Indiana's 2nd CD has Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN), and a major Social Security bamboozler, down by 12 points. Challenger Donnelly has 52% to Chocola's anemic 40%.
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who are interested in this sort of thing, TPM Reader DC passes on the latest graph of the election futures at the University of Iowa political markets site: shows a medium sized slosh back toward Republicans holding the House.
--Josh Marshall
"Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels." Which Bush administration official said that -- and which agency was he talking about? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Oh that's not good.
This article in Roll Call describes how Google, preeminent search engine and purveyor of fun online gizmos, is courting Republicans in Washington, as part of their efforts to build up a bigger presence in DC.
Fair enough: they can't afford to be completely on the outs with what is at least for now the majority party.
But buried down deep in the article it says they've hired the DCI Group.
If you're a dirty tricks and slimey opps afficionado a chill most certainly just went down your spine.
DCI, if you're not familiar with them, is an interlocking group of companies which is the phony seed bed for most noxious astroturf organizing and general bamboozlement in contemporary politics.
Here's an old post from 2003 on DCI, here's one on astroturf organizing in general and here's a selection of posts on the Johnny Appleseed of GOP astroturf opps, Tom Synhorst, the main man at DCI.
--Josh Marshall
On my mind: two polls now show at least a blip of heightened voter attention to the terrorism issue, which has in turn buoyed at least the president and possibly (depending on which poll you look at) the GOP. Not much. But a bit. They won't have another September 11th to whoop the drums over. The right now were likely at the high water mark. But where's the response?
I don't find this particularly worrisome in itself. But I do think what we see over the next week or so will be a telling test case for how the Democrats are able (and prepared) to wrestle with the White House over the basic definition of the election.
--Josh Marshall
A sobering article from the Post on the GOP's voter-turnout ground game.
--Josh Marshall
Keep 'em scared, keep 'em votin.
From The Hill ...
During a Tuesday meeting of the House Republican conference, Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) unveiled a handy new rhetorical device aimed at furthering House Republicans tough-on-terrorism national security agenda.Instead of referring to military tribunals as, well, the military tribunals that they are and have been known as throughout their entire existence, House Republicans should start referring to them as “terrorist tribunals,” to emphasize the bad guys they will be trying. (Very clever. Never mind that good ol’ American adage “innocent until proven guilty.”)
But even after Pryce’s instructions, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) needed a reminder. When he rose to speak about next week’s floor schedule, according to our fly on the wall, he mentioned “military tribunals for suspected terrorists.” He then caught himself, looked at Pryce, and asked, “What is it again?”
Pryce corrected Boehner, who then amended his speech with the by-the-playbook phrase “terrorist tribunals.”
These bozos so deserve to go down.
Now back to incisive analysis.
--Josh Marshall
White House repeatedly tried to muscle the CIA into letting them use the bogus Atta in Prague story in Bush and Cheney speeches.
That's what seems to be lurking under the redactions in the Senate intel report, says Mark Hosenball of Newsweek.
You can only imagine what they'd find if a non-straight-jacketed investigation ever took place.
--Josh Marshall
Some analyses from the field.
First TPM Reader KF from Rhode Island ...
Just a few points regarding this race. From the perspective of a life long Rhode Islander.1. Rhode Islander's tend to elect a Senator to life appointments. Examples, Aldridch, Green, Pell, Pastore, Chafee (the elder) to name a few: Senator Reed is about a safe a seat as there is.
2. Whitehouse, has the whiff of a loser, he's lost every race he's run and will not beat Chafee. So don't get excited about his ads going after Bush. Or his possibilities. Remember you heard it here first. He's a good man and would be granted the RI lifetime appointment but he's stuck. We just don't have enough seats in Congress. Maybe the Kennedy seat? (oh ya, lifetime appointments, I forgot).
3. Laffey never stood a chance against Chaffee, too much of a tool, shrill, spastic, plays to the pitchfork crowd. For such a blue collar state Rhode Islanders elect Senators with gravitas, the rest of the country should watch how we do it.
Anyway we've got Chafee. And we'll have him for a long time.
And TM Reader DB from Tennessee ...
what's "happening in TN" is that Ford is simply out-working and out-campaigning Corker. The guy is tireless and seems to get good press everywhere he appears in person across the state. He's following Governor Bredesen's lead of campaigning hard in east tn (the Republican part of the state) to neutralize the GOP advantage there instead of ignoring it like we've done in the past. And he's being very very tough on Corker and on Bush. Meanwhile Corker has been virtually non-existent since the primary. He's just started his ad campaign and it's bo-ring and typical. Ford's premise that this is not about liberal and conservative but about the future and the past is a nice complement to Corker's old-time image versus Ford's energy. It's as if Corker thought he could coast. Where is he on Social Security? On the war? Nobody knows. It doesn't hurt that the social conservatives of the state are still smarting from what Corker did to Bryant and Van Hilleary.Ford seems determined to win in a way that Sasser and Cooper never were. Unfortunately, there are lots of things still working against us. Ordinarily the fact that the Governor is so popular would help suppress Republican turnout--the GOP candidate is weak. But there's also an anti-gay amendment on the ballot that will get those disaffected social conservatives to the polls. With them, it's a question of whether Corker can convince them to push his button while they're in there. Then there's the money...Corker's campaign budget is unlimited and he's still essentially tied even with mounting virtually no campaign whatsoever so far (he's had one bio ad that I've seen, and the GOP has run an anti-Ford ad but that's about it).
I'm a liberal and I don't appreciate many of Ford's high-profile positions. But I think many of the netroots crowd (who are *really* anti-Ford) are missing the toughness he's showed so far, and are over-estimating his conservatism. I would have voted for him anyway of course, but his energy and determination have won me over. I suspect it has alot of folks, at least enough to make this close. And it would be an exciting thing here. In Nashville, we just elected our first black female judge (yeah yeah we elect our judges...) There's a certain pride in the city over that, and I think more people than you would guess would be excited to send our first black Senator to Washington. Whether that's over 50% of the state is another question. At any rate, there are many reasons to root for Harold Ford.
I spent several years of my life in Rhode Island. And I'm not sure I agree with KF. But I understand what he's getting at. With DB, dunno. But I like the sound of it.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), retiring after 11 terms, is refusing to endorse the GOP nominee to replace him.
--Justin Rood
This new ad for Joe Sestak, the retired Navy admiral running against Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) in Pennsylvania's 7th District is really pretty good. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Apparently Sen. Allen (R-VA) now says the noose he had as an office decoration was "more of a lasso".
--Josh Marshall
Rhode Island Democratic candidate Sheldon Whitehouse airs the first negative ad of the general election there... and doesn't mention incumbent Lincoln Chafee.
--Paul Kiel
BREAKING: Controversy over Sen. Allen's Racism Overshadowed by New Evidence He's a Big Fat Liar!
Yes, more fun from the Virginian-Pilot's article on Allen Macaca Apology 3.0.
Deep down in the article, the piece quotes Allen waxing contemplative about his learning process about referring to non-whites with racial epithets ....
I've learned a valuable lesson about the power of words, about how words carelessly chosen, or in my case, even made up, can have a totally unintended meaning and impact for another person from another background or from a different cultural perspective.
This, of course, is a reference to his calling the Webb campaign volunteer "Macaca".
But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised.
Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible.
I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader GM has a nice catch out of the Sen. Allen Macaca Apology 3.0 article in today's Virginia-Pilot, emphasis added ...
"The point is, symbols matter, they should matter, and this is something that I wish I learned a lot earlier," Allen said. "Even if your heart is pure, the things you say and do and the symbols you use do matter because of the way others may take them."Allen wore a Confederate flag pin on his lapel in his 1970 graduation picture from a Southern California high school. He hung a noose from a plant in his Charlottesville law office in the 1980s and a Confederate flag inside his home. As governor in the mid-1990s, he alienated some by signing a resolution that designated a Confederate history month in Virginia but did not acknowledge the evils of slavery.
I guess you have to hand it to Sen. Allen since in his feeble efforts to wriggle his way out of his history of bigotry he has actually managed to lend an element of bleakly dark humor to this country's heavy history of racial segregation and violence.
A noose? He missed the symbolism of that one? Thought it was just about southern heritage?
The weird thing is, as Ed Kilgore pointed out back in April, it's not even like George Allen is even a southerner. As Ed wrote then, "Allen's whole cowboy-boot-wearing, tobacco-chewing, country-music-loving Southern Man routine was something he cultivated during his formative high school years in the hyper-exclusive Southern California community of Palos Verdes."
What was the noose about?
Even with all the Macaca coverage, this guy's still getting a free ride from most of the press.
--Josh Marshall
Litigation saves the day -- Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) will likely not be indicted before the November election.
--Paul Kiel
A new ad hits Sen. George Allen (R-VA) for a vote against funding body armor for troops in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
Bush's beard? Middle school teacher Gary Weddle pledged he wouldn't shave his beard until bin Laden was captured. Click here to see his very long beard.
--Josh Marshall
As of just before 11 AM, Maryland incumbent Al Wynn seems to have retaken a very thin lead over challenger Donna Edwards. But it's certainly not over.
--Josh Marshall
The House Intelligence Committee has investigated Duke Cunningham's dirty deeds for months. Why don't they have anything to show for it? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Latest numbers out of Maryland at our TPM Election Central numbers board.
--Josh Marshall
So what does the result out of Rhode Island mean?
I think this basically speaks for itself. The Republicans could have guarenteed themselves the loss of a senate seat tonight. They dodged that bullet. As these numbers show, I think Whitehouse, the ironically named Democratic candidate, still has the advantage. But it's going to be close.
The real question in looking at this race is which number is more important: the spread between Whitehouse and Chafee, which I don't think has ever been outside the margin of error but with Whitehouse almost always ahead, or that fact that Chafee, the incumbent, hasn't been able to get over 43% in any poll I've seen.
Here's Steve Clemons' take, in the context of the Bolton nomination.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I think it's about time to close the books on the Laffey challenge.
At 10:36 10:43, with 84% 90% of the vote in, it's Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
That margin has been close to set in stone from the first precincts reporting. So I don't see any reason to think it'll change.
Late Update: the Projo primary blog suggests that some of the few remaining votes are from Warwick, RI's second city, where Chafee was once mayor. So I'd say, Laffey is down for the count.
For the latest on the primaries in Maryland, see our numbers board at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Linc may be pulling this one out.
73% reporting, Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
As of 10:20 PM, 78% reporting, spread stays the same.
10:26 PM, 80% reporting, same spread.
10:30 PM, 81% reporting, same spread (I think it's time to get out the fork.)
--Josh Marshall
RI senate a smidge tighter. 62% reporting. Chafee 53%, Laffey 47%.
As of 10:07, 66% reporting, same spread.
As of 10:15, 67%, same spread.
--Josh Marshall
Providence's WPRI is reporting 59% of votes counted, Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
--Josh Marshall
Chafee with a narrow lead with almost 40% more than one third of votes counted.
--Josh Marshall
The NBC affiliate in Providence has some numbers earlier that the state elections website.
From a minuscule 3% precincts reporting, Chafee 55%, Laffey 45%.
--Josh Marshall
Here's where the official Rhode Island state board of elections results are going to be posted.
--Josh Marshall
Something happening in Tennessee? He's been getting closer and closer. But a new SurveysUSA poll has Harold Ford three points ahead of GOP candidate Corker in the Tennessee senate race.
If Republicans wake up on November 8th and haven't held this seat, they'll be in disaster territory.
--Josh Marshall
Polls closed in Rhode Island at 9:00 PM. So we should have some data pretty soon.
--Josh Marshall
Early word of historic turnout in the Rhode Island primary. On its face, that sounds good for Chafee since he needs a lot of non-Republicans to vote -- indies and Dems reregistering as indies. But I think it may be harder to predict than that CW indicates.
--Josh Marshall
Via Kos, Laffey aides in Rhode Island are talking like they think they've won. That according to The Hotline.
Besides the obvious national significance, I'm going to be watching this one pretty closely tonight as I used to live in Rhode Island and the place still has a special place in my heart.
Here's the election blog of the major Rhode Island paper, the Providence Journal.
If you've got reports from the ground, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
The Republican National Committee's new attack ad against Dem Sherrod Brown brings the total amount of RNC cash dumped into the Ohio Senate race to over $1,000,000.
--Paul Kiel
So Majority Leader John Boehner today wondered "whether Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
And this comes with a chorus of Democratic complaints about whether the president was politicizing 9/11 in his speech last night.
This might be a moment when everyone should look to their own senator or representative, look at how they're approaching this election fight and let them know if they're screwing up.
The response to all of this should be really simple. It might go something like this. "I wouldn't mind if the president were politicizing 9/11 so much if he hadn't failed so badly at rounding up the people responsible for it. The president pulled our troops out of Afghanistan for Iraq when they had Osama in their grasp and he's still at large 5 years later. And he's still pretending that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. People need to make a decision on November 7th. Is five years of failure enough? If people think President Bush is on the right course, they should vote Republican. If they think it's time for a change, they should vote Democratic."
It's that simple. Remember, the issue of politicization should be an afterthought. Failure is the issue.
Had enough?
--Josh Marshall
Allen campaign adds video of 'ethnic rally'. (Scroll down on left side of the page.)
--Josh Marshall
Washington Post taps key Iraq War bamboozler for gig writing a column on the OpEd page.
--Josh Marshall
"Nobody ever asked me before."
Rep. Heather Wilson's (R-NM) answer to why she's only now revealing today her claimed misgivings about one of the Bush administration's key rationales for the war in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Is Abramoff pal Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) in danger of going down on November 7th? Seems so.
--Josh Marshall
Oh my ... Parody just can't make a break on reality down in Virginia with the flagging campaign of Sen. George Allen (R-VA).
Here you can see a screen shot from Allen's website, where he's providing a photo gallery of his special "ethnic rally" where he invited potential non-white supporters for a quick meet-n-greet. I guess 'ethnic rally' was better than 'brown people outreach' and that probably would have been better than 'macaca day'.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PB reads Josh's mind ...
If the Democrats want to achieve a substantial victory in November there are two words they need to excise from their vocabulary, "ashamed" and "politicized." Those words need to be replaced with "failure" and "accountability." Every time a Democrat gets the understandable urge to cry foul and say the President should be "ashamed" for having "politicized" national security, they need to exercise some self-censorship, and go on the offensive and attack the President for his many failures and promise the American people to hold him accountable.Unfortunately, looking at the Democratic response to Bush's speech last night I feel like Bill Muarry in Groundhog day. It's the same thing over and over. Bush uses the memory of 9/11 to advocate for his policies and like Pavlov's dogs the Democrats cry foul. How many times can Democrats pretend to be shocked that Bush would politicize 9/11? Republicans have done it the last three elections, and each time it worked. Of course they are going to do it again.
The simple fact is that Bush's approach works. Any psychologist, advertiser or propagandist will tell you that people will be more receptive to your message if you soften them up emotionally first. The Republicans understand this, why don't the Democrats? If the Democrats are serious about re-taking power they need to stop complaining about what is acceptable in political discourse and start running ads with footage of people standing on rooftops in New Orleans, chaos in Iraq, and bin Laden still on the loose and remind the American people all of these things are Bush's fault. Republicans will go wild complaining that it is not fair and it politicizes tragedies. Let them.
Rather than trying to work the refs, Democrats need to remind the American people over and over that this President has failed at everything he has done: he has failed to capture bin Laden, his policy in Iraq is a monumental failure, and he has failed to make the American people safer. Every level of government has broken down because of Bush's mistakes. These guys can't even get the little things right let alone the big stuff. And voting Republican only means more of the same.
Working the refs has its place. Definitely. But fundamentally, making this the centerpiece response is just whining.
I'm always reminded of the president's notorious Mission Accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier off San Diego. At the time, the Dems were complaining that he'd delayed the return of the sailors and airmen on the ship, that it was political and all the rest. But as long as he was riding high it was all just words in the wind. Needless to say, the event became an albatross that still hangs around the guy's neck.
That didn't change because anyone realized it was political when they hadn't realized it before. It changed because the 'victory' he was crowing over started to seem more and more like a failure. People will accept a lot from someone who delivers. But they're merciless when a leader fails.
Today, the record is really quite clear. Pretty much everything the president has done on the foreign front since 9/11 has been an abysmal failure. Even the things were legitimate successes early on, taking down the Taliban, for instance, have turned into failures.
If the president is politicizing 9/11, which he is, people who are open to seeing that, can see it already. And the way to focus attention on that is not to state the obvious. It is rather to point out the almost countless ways in which his record is one of failure. Where's bin Laden? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq part of the problem or part of the solution in making the United States safer from terrorism? All these questions all but answer themselves. And all in ways profoundly damaging to the president. Start asking them. And stop whining.
--Josh Marshall
After a summer hiatus, TPMCafe Bookclub returns today. And we're excited to kick off off with a discussion of Sidney Blumenthal's new book How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime.
Joing the discussion are Andrew Bacevich, David Greenberg, Todd Gitlin, and Larry Johnson.
Sid's first post is up here.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) may have lost the Democratic vote in his home state, but D.C. lobbyists are showing him lots of love. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
TPM Reader RP on Rove ...
Quite right about Rove. Just one sidebar.Every basketball coach will tell you the way to win games is to 'get the other team out of its game, and make them play your game." To a certain extent, even listening to Rove and the Republican Screech Monkeys is a waste of time. Rove & Co. is going to take the lowest of low roads in the next 75 days, accusing every Dem House candidate of being Osama bin Laden's personal valet. The attacks are going to be vile, fraudulent, and personal.
If the Dems "take the bait" -- defend themselves in the conventional way -- they will lose. Why? Because they'll burn their ad dollars playing Rove's game. They will have "localized" the election.
What to do? Stay focused on one and only message -- "You -- the Voters -- have ONE DAY to hold the Bush Administration accountable for what's happened in Iraq, and here at home. ONE DAY -- election day. If you like the way things are going, vote Republican. If you think things need to change, VOTE DEMOCRATIC. Seize the day. It's your very last chance."
Couldn't agree more.
Or, put another way, the whole campaign is, as Newt said, "Had Enough?"
--Josh Marshall
Clinton aides watch first installment of "The Path to 9/11," write new letter to Disney/ABC's Robert Iger: "Disgraceful."
--Justin Rood
A message to Dems: Get off your butt, forget the cult of Rove, and start contesting the election.
Most of the best tips and ideas for this site, I've gotten from readers. But I cannot tell you how many times I have had readers write in in the midst of some complete debacle for the White House and/or the GOP claiming that despite appearances the entire episode is another carefully and brilliantly planned scheme of Karl Rove's. I could find you emails like this when President Bush was getting his head handed to him about Social Security or during his post-Katrina meltdown. This is, in a sense, the bigger victory Rove has managed over Democrats: his ability to get deep inside the heads of many Democrats and make them think that no matter what the situation or what the available facts suggest, Karl Rove must be on top of the situation and it must be playing to his advantage. The only question is finding out precisely how.
Don't get me wrong. I think the man is a blight on the country, one who consistently uses amoral tactics and often immoral in his goals. But he's no genius. And I think his political gifts are actually quite overstated. The GOP has had a damn good run for the last six years. But I don't think that's mainly because of Karl Rove. I think it's largely because of 9/11 and a pretty effective policy of exploiting it for narrow political goals.
Yesterday, I noted that the RNC is banking on oppo research and personal attacks on Democratic candidates to get them through November in one piece. As a sign of what's to come, they've put in charge of the effort one of their number involved in not one but two recent cases of Republican campaign corruption and criminal conduct.
So, yes, be ready for anything. But it is also hard to think of another time when the incumbent party stood before the country with more of a record of failure, incompetence and corruption as the Republican party of President George Bush does today. That's more than enough to run on, if only the decision is made to really contest this election on the issues before the country, to, in a word, fight.
--Josh Marshall
I think I've written enough pieces of personal recollection for the moment. I live in New York City now but I didn't five years ago. I lived in DC, close enough to the events of the day to feel part of it, but certainly not as much as many in the city on that day. Here's some reporting I did from downtown streets for Salon (see third item down) that day.
As a still relatively new New Yorker, I have a great deal of pride in this city, for reasons tied to 9/11 and many others. But my feelings on this fifth anniversary of that terrible day are more ones of regret for wrong paths taken, and not just bad decisions by the Bush administration -- about which everyone knows my views well enough -- but of the country more generally.
There's a good article in this month's Atlantic by James Fallows on where we stand in the War on Terror. It's a good semi-contrarian take on the question, the upshot of which is that over the last five years we've actually damaged al Qaida much more deeply than is commonly realized. With all the caveats about what can happen tomorrow, the consensus of the terrorism experts interviewed by Fallows was that al Qaida's ability launch 9/11 style attacks on the US has been very badly damaged. That's not widely understood or appreciated because it's not in either political party's interest to have this be known.
In any case, what stuck with me from the article was a comment from one of the people Fallows interviewed. It's not an unfamiliar argument. But from the perspective of 2006, it has a special salience. The point is that al Qaida itself does not pose an existential threat to our civilization. It can kill hundreds or even thousands of us. There's the outside chance of a catastrophic attack perhaps with hundreds of thousands of death, though most of the people Fallows spoke to think that it's far, far harder for al Qaida to get, say, a nuclear device than people imagine, particularly with the reduced means of al Qaida today. But if al Qaida itself doesn't threaten our civilization itself, our possible reactions to al Qaida's threat do. This is a elementary point about assymetrical warfare and the ways that a relatively weak group like al Qaida can leverage our own tremendous power against us.
This seems persuasive to me as an argument and it also seems borne out by the evidence of the last five years.
Our geopolitical and diplomatic posture certainly seems diminished. And I don't think there's any question that our military capacity has been reduced, both in the concrete sense of the grinding down of preparedness that has taken place in Iraq and also in the way that the limits of our military power has been displayed in that disastrous endeavor. Perhaps most of all though, I wonder about what we have allowed to happen to our national character.
Over the weekend I read one of the many 'why haven't we been hit again' articles. One I read, after disposing of many of the standard possible answers, proposed the following answer to the question: the reason we have not been hit again on our own soil after five long years is simply a sign of al Qaida's patience. They'll hit us at a time and place of their choosing.
That was just one article. And, like you, I'm dependent on the terrorism 'experts' for the specifics I fit into my estimations. But that sounds to me like the thinking of a country that has become addicted to fear and feelings of powerlessness. Or, perhaps better to say, one that sometimes seems caught in a vicious cycle of unrealistic feelings of powerlessness and self-defeating exertions of power.
Perhaps you're thinking this is too downcast a post for this unique day. And I don't want it to be. I see this city and its vitality. I see a country finally emerging from some of the greatest injuries of that day. And I see this country's resilience, the resilience of what it stands for and its enduring values.
But what seems to me to be one of the greatest injuries of that day is the way we now sometimes seem to mistake optimism for pessimism and vice versa. Persistent fear and retreat from our own ideals and power isn't optimism. It is the deepest and most pernicious form of self-doubt. Yes, something terrible and unthinkable could happen tomorrow. But none of us has more than a probable claim to life from one day to the next. And as a country we are neither weak nor threatened. With apologies for a perhaps over-used line, I can't help thinking of Franklin Roosevelt's "firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Doesn't it have an uncanny claim on this moment?
So my regret for today is that the way that al Qaida has gamed us into doing great damage to ourselves. And my feeling of optimism is the sense that tide may at last be turning.
--Josh Marshall
In Tennessee, GOP Senate hopeful Bob Corker may have just been handed an "October Surprise" he didn't want.
The race -- currently a dead heat -- is considered a must-win for Republicans if they want to retain control of the Senate.
--Justin Rood
Why is the CIA suddenly encouraging its interrogators to buy insurance policies? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Are you a Republican political operative with experience in dirty tricks and campaign-related criminal conduct? It may be time to dust off your resume.
You may have noticed the article in Sunday's Washington Post which explains that Republicans now believe that their only hope for avoiding electoral catastrophe in November is to put all their resources into hardball 
personal attacks against Democratic candidates around the country.
And who have they chosen to head up the effort?
According to the Post, that man is none other Terry Nelson.
And who is Terry Nelson?
Nelson has the unique distinction of being tied to two of the biggest cases of Republican campaign corruption in the Bush era. Nelson was implicated in the infamous New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal and he was an unindicted coconspirator in the political money-laundering case which ended Tom DeLay's career.
If you'd like to do some of your own research at home, here's the government's witness list for the trial of arch-phone-jammer James Tobin. Nelson figures prominently on the list. (To the best of my knowledge, Nelson has steadfastly refused to answer questions regarding his role in the caper.) And here's the indictment in the DeLay case where Nelson's role in that case is explained at some length.
In any case, you get the idea.
Everything is on the line for these guys. So be prepared for literally anything over the next sixty days.
--Josh Marshall
Lamont pulls to within margin of error of Lieberman in latest WSJ/Zogby Battleground States poll. Overall, the poll shows Dems still short of a Senate majority.
--David Kurtz
American taxpayers paid for Halliburton executives in Iraq to watch the Super Bowl on a big-screen TV and eat their favorite comfort foods.
--David Kurtz
I yield the floor to TPM Reader WC:
I don't think anyone of any political stripe could seriously argue that Tim Russert pulled punches in this morning's interview of the vice president. But even in such an unrelenting interview, he neglected an angle of inquiry that I believe is uniformly neglected in all questions posed to the vice president about his statements in the run up to the Iraq invasion.There's a long, long litany (and Mr. Russert did a very representative job summarizing it this morning) of public statements that Mr. Cheney made during this period that were verifiably wrong. And these statements weren't just wrong, they were, in almost every case, forceful and unquivocal, and finger-waggingly certain.
Now, there are essentially two, if you'll permit the oversimplification, responses to this record: 1) He was intentionally deceptive (to whatever varying degree) in the service of marketing an invasion he favored (for whatever varying reason); and 2) He was unintentionally deceptive and in each case repeated incorrect assessments he had been given and genuinely believed.
Whenever an interviewer confronts Mr. Cheney with any portion of this litany of forcefully incorrect assertions, he is permitted to reply as though he were addressing the concerns exclusively of the first group (i.e. that he was deliberately deceptive.) And he manages in this vain to acquit himself fairly capably in an intricately-parsed technical sense. . . . But, granting him that then, I would like to see an interviewer seriously call him to task on behalf of the second camp.
Is the vice-president seriously allowed to express no remorse for the fact that he was so forcefully wrong. In public. So often. On so many matters. As they pertained to pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation?
The connotation of this morning's interview (and several others) is that because he has (to his satisfaction) demonstrated that he wasn't lying, criticisms of his statements are without merit. Does he consider it perfectly fine to receive and repeat (and make epic policy decisions based on) incorrect advice from clearly incapable advisors over and over and, well, 'That's what the pros we all trust told me, so: their fault, not mine?'
I would love to hear an interviewer ask him whether or not he considers himself sufficiently capable to gather diverging assesments from sources with various agendas and arrive at actionably accurate conclusions. And furthermore what he blames for his failure to do so so frequently in the past.
Amen.
--David Kurtz
From Powerline:
First the Senate Democrats browbeat a television network into changing a program so it won't reflect badly on a Democratic administration. Then a Senate committee puts out a report that airbrushes history, leaving out the most important evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda, for the sole purpose of making a Republican administration look bad. I think it's really important to work hard to get a Republican majority in the Senate, so the Dems won't be able to pull stunts like these!
I've been going back and forth on whether this is the sarcastic post of a conservative irritated with Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee--or some bizarre new GOP meme that the Dems really control the Senate.
If it's the former, it's lame humor. If it's the latter, well, where to even begin?
--David Kurtz
I referred to Cheney's appearance today on Meet the Press as an artificat that historians will be puzzling over for years to come. Not so, says TPM Reader JL:
Speaking as a historian, no historians won't be puzzling, not at all. A future historian might state, matter of factly, "Vice President Cheney, one of the administration's most ardent advocates of war with Iraq, continued to maintain that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda long after the existence of such a connection had been disproved. Critics at the time noted that the Bush administration was unable to respond to changing circumstances in the Middle East because, instead of responding to new information, it simply reasserted its ideological premises. Subsequently historians have concluded this approach to problems was the chief reason for the Bush administration's multiple failures, of which the debacle in Iraq is the most stunning - and, because of its lasting impact on America's standing in the world - unfortunate example."
--David Kurtz
Why all of ABC/Disney's bogus disclaimers don't mean jack.
From the review of Path to 9/11 in the Providence Journal-Bulletin ...
The two-part, five-hour ABC special airing Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. on Channels 5 and 6 is compelling and confounding, gripping and disturbing. And it’s all completely true. The program, which gives TV docudramas a good name, is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, which was published in 2004.All the details are documented. All the characters are real; so are the events, unfortunately.
Speaks for itself. And the Projo isn't even a conservative paper.
Special thanks to TPM Reader YP, who's keeping her eyes open.
--Josh Marshall
Crooks and Liars has the video up of Cheney being Cheney this morning on Meet the Press:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection. You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third...MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...
The "report" he hasn't bothered to read is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report released Friday, which revealed publicly for the first time the existence of an October 2005 CIA assessment which concluded that Saddam Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
Go read the transcript. Historians will be puzzling over this artifact for the rest of our lives and beyond.
--David Kurtz
Some readers took my post about a Dutch TV network airing "Farenheit 9/11" and "Loose Change" tonight--as opposed to "The Path to 9/11"--as an endorsement of one or both of those films. It wasn't intended as such. The post was really about the Netherlands, and its sometimes deliberate cultural funkiness, which I find endearing.
--David Kurtz
Wild Bill's still got it:
"They've trotted that dog out for the last three elections - and it's got mange all over it."
--Bill Clinton, on Republican efforts to make national security the top campaign issue
--David Kurtz
OK, I'll admit to a bias here. I think the Netherlands is one of the best places on the planet. They have our entrepreneurial spirit, but with good taste. Like us, they have completely altered much of their natural environment, but to aesthetically pleasing effect. They have their own exotic language, but nearly everyone speaks English better than we do.
So chalk this up as just another reason to love the Dutch: While Britain, Australia and New Zealand are broadcasting "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday evening, one Dutch network is airing Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" and the conspiracy flick "Loose Change."
Thanks to Dutch reader JWK.
--David Kurtz
One of the assurances ABC has given to placate critics of the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is that a disclaimer would run "throughout" the airing of the miniseries.
Apparently only in U.S. broadcasts.
Reports from a couple of TPM readers in New Zealand, where the first installment of the miniseries has now aired, are that the disclaimer ran once, at the beginning of the broadcast.
--David Kurtz
