Well, now, which is it?
In this evening's painstakingly prepared statement by Speaker Hastert's office on the Rep. Mark Foley matter, it is made to appear that the emails between Foley and the page were never passed on to GOP higher-ups by the page's sponsoring congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), in deference to the page's family and their desire for privacy. But a report tonight from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Washington Bureau calls that account into serious question.
First, the relevant portion of the Hastert statement:
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
Now, here's what the Post-Dispatch reports, from an interview today with the aforementioned Shimkus:
Last year, the House clerk grabbed Rep. John Shimkus off the floor during a vote and said they needed to talk.It wasn’t unusual for the clerk at that time, Jeff Trandahl, to catch Shimkus, in the hallway or on the House floor, since together they oversaw the House page program and often had items to discuss.
This time, though, Trandahl had in his hand an email exchange between one of the House pages, a 16-year-old boy, and Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
Shimkus, who serves as board chairman for the House page program, read the emails, in which Foley asked about the boy’s well-being in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what he wanted for his birthday, and for a photograph. (The boy was from Louisiana and had returned to his home state.)
Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal agreed: "That was enough for us to approach Mark," Shimkus recalled an interview Saturday.
Soon after, they met with Foley and his chief of staff in the Florida congressman’s office. "We basically said, ‘We got these emails. And we don’t think this is appropriate. ... You have to stop (contacting this boy)’," Shimkus said.
Shimkus told the paper that he thinks he did the right thing given the information he had at the time, though he regrets not having involved his Democratic colleague on the board overseeing the page program. "If I regret something maybe I should have had Dale (Kildee, a Democratic board member and congressmen from Michigan) with me because now it’s going to be a political football."
On Friday night, the Post-Dispatch reports, Shimkus met with the pages currently in the program. Just days after "reading them the riot act" about behaving in the program, he told them: "I’m embarrassed I’m ashamed. This lecture I gave you I should give to my colleagues."
--David Kurtz
Earlier, Josh posted on NRCC chair Tom Reynolds' statement that he had told Speaker Hastert about the Mark Foley situation in early 2006. Why is Reynolds throwing Denny from the train?
Republican insiders said Reynolds spoke out because he was angry that Hastert appeared willing to let him take the blame for the party leadership's silence.A House GOP leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that Reynolds realizes he has taken a shot at his leader but that it is understandable.
"This is what happens when one member tries to throw another member under a bus," the aide said.
Indeed. When one GOP congressman tries to damage another politically, it's time to speak out. But when a GOP congressman tries to proposition an underage page? Silence is the better part of what passes for GOP valor these days.
--David Kurtz
The lede in the NYT Sunday piece gets it about right:
Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
Buried deep in the piece is the suggestion of a possible federal criminal investigation:
At the Justice Department, an official said that there was no investigation under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.
The statement that Hastert's office released late today came only "after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol."
It's a bit ironic that while denying for the past two days that they were circling the wagons back when the information about Foley first came to their attention, the GOP leadership has been . . . circling the wagons.
One still doesn't get the sense that their focus is on the alleged victims of Foley, or on the possible unknown victims. If the allegations against Foley are true, the kind of conduct involved is rarely isolated or limited to one victim.
So what does the GOP leadership propose to do to figure out who those victims are and provide them with assistance? A toll-free telephone number for pages and their parents to report concerns. But that pre-supposes that once a report is received, the GOP will actually do something about it.
--David Kurtz
Ever wonder why it seems like we are enduring a repeat of the Nixon Administration? Now we know. From Bob Woodward's new book, via War and Piece:
A powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy was former secretary of state Kissinger."Of the outside people that I talk to in this job," Vice President Cheney told me in the summer of 2005, "I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and, I guess at least once a month, Scooter and I sit down with him." (Scooter is I. Lewis Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff.)
The president met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.
Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw the situation through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.
In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.
In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."
He delivered the same message directly to Bush, Cheney and Hadley at the White House.
The image of Henry Kissinger schooling George W. Bush on the lessons of Vietnam is enough to make a grown man cry.
--David Kurtz
Reading the press release tonight from Speaker Hastert's office is interesting on a number of levels. Here's what jumps out at me. The entire discussion of the 'internal review' the Speaker's office conducted seems intended to drive home the point that while pretty much the entire GOP House leadership knew about the Foley 'matter', no one beside backbencher Rodney Alexander (R-LA) actually saw the emails.
Alexander's Chief of Staff calls Hastert's office about emails "he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it." But he doesn't tell the guy in Hastert's office what the emails say. The two staffs meet again later. But somehow what the emails actually say? Still not discussed.
They send Alexander's Chief of Staff to the Clerk's Office. The Clerk asks to see the emails. But "Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop."
When asked by the Clerk whether the emails are "of a sexual nature", Alexander's Chief of Staff tells him they're not but calls them "over-friendly."
Now, here's the problem as far as I can see this. Supposedly, no one in a position of authority ever lays eyes on these emails, presumably because they're relatively innocuous. But at the same time they can't be seen by anyone else because "family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible." Those two points don't really square in my mind.
So the Clerk and Rep. Shimkus meet with Foley having never seen the emails in question -- either because they're basically innocuous or because of concern for the family's privacy. Take your pick.
So they give Foley a clean bill of health having never reviewed the emails that raised the concerns.
And Hastert's staffers?
"Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities [the three members of Hastert's office] did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office."
Basically, everyone's so mindful of the sensitivity of the matter they manage never to investigate what actually happened. Isn't that what they're saying?
And also, as luck would have it, the extreme sensitivity to the parent's feelings helps keep the entire matter hermetically sealed from Speaker Hastert.
So everyone's very mindful of the privacy of the family. But somehow Rep. Boehner and Rep. Reynolds found out about it from Rep. Alexander. And Reynolds mentioned it to Hastert. But Hastert doesn't remember. And Boehner told Hastert about it too. And Hastert said it was being taken care of. Only Hastert never heard about it ...
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday the NRCC put more than $3.5 million into GOP congressional campaigns nationwide. Of that amount, negative ad buys accounted for all but $63,000. The list of expenditures is here.
--David Kurtz
Another press release ...
News from Congressman Dale E. Kildee Contact: Christopher Mansour, Chief of Staff for Congressman KildeeCongressman Dale Kildee (D-MI), the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, released the following statement today:
"As the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue.
"I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter.
"The first and only meeting of the House Page Board on this matter occurred on Friday, September 29 at approximately 6 p.m., after the allegations about Mr. Foley had become public."
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: Hastert's office releases statement on Speaker's office's "internal review" ...
INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTEROn Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
--Josh Marshall
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
--Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.
--David Kurtz
Every man for himself watch.
From Roll Call (sub.req.)NRCC chair, Rep. Tom Reynolds issues statement confirming that he told Speaker Hastert in early 2006 of Rep. Foley's page problem.
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. [Rodney Alexander's [R-La.]. Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the Speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."Mr. Alexander has also said he took the matter to the Clerk of the House. An investigation was then conducted by the Clerk and [Illinois GOP Rep.] John Shimkus on behalf of the House Page Board.
"Mark Foley betrayed the integrity of this institution as well as the trust of his colleagues and constituents. There is no excuse, and he needs to be held accountable."
Speaker Hastert's aides continue to insist he was out of the loop.
To the best of my knowledge Hastert has yet to speak publicly.
--Josh Marshall
A few follow-up thoughts on the Foley scandal.
First, I find it interesting that while both the Post and the Times are currently running below the fold stories on the scandal on their websites, neither, as far as I can tell has yet devoted a story to the fact that most of the Republican House leadership has apparently known about this for almost a year and yet did nothing. I don't think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes.
Another point. A number of the leadership principals who apparently knew about this for months have made two arguments -- a) that the evidence they saw didn't clearly point to wrongdoing and b) that the matter wasn't pursued because the parents wanted the matter dropped to protect their privacy. In the real world, I think those are mutually contradictory rationales for not pursuing the matter. If you're dropping the matter because the parents don't want you to pursue it, I think that means there was a problem. That also ignores the apparently criminal nature of the activity.
Finally, one detail here isn't getting enough attention. Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he contacted the NRCC. That's the House Republicans' election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress. (The head of the NRCC this cycle is Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY).) That is, to put it mildly, not in the disciplinary and administrative chain of command of the House of Representatives. Considering that the issue involved a minor, it seems highly inappropriate to discuss the matter with anyone not charged with policing the House. More to the point, however, you tell the head of the NRCC because you see the matter as a political problem. Reynolds is the one in charge of making sure Republican House seats get held. If an incumbent might have drop out or be kicked out you want him to know so that he can line up someone to replace him. You at least want to keep him abreast of the situation if you think a problem might develop. I cannot see any innocent explanation for notifying the head of the NRCC while not information the full membership of the page board.
--Josh Marshall
Hard to say what it means, if anything, but Rep. Shimkus says he interviewed Rep. Foley about the page matter with the House Clerk about 10 or 11 months ago. Presumably, that would have been former Clerk Jeff Trandahl. A few quick Nexis searches shows the first public announcements of Trandahl's departure were in the second week of November 2005.
--Josh Marshall
Mr. Speaker, I'd like unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Boehner calls the Post back to change his story ...
Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
See earlier version here.
--Josh Marshall
Happier Days ...
From the Post: "Foley chaired the House caucus on missing and exploited children and was credited with writing the sexual-predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July. A photo on the White House Web site shows Foley among those attending the signing ceremony."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Shimkus on why he didn't inform the Page Board's lone Democrat aboout the Foley matter: "I'm the chairman of the page board. The Clerk and I addressed this issue."
--Josh Marshall
Someone's got a problem.
From WaPo ...
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."
From Roll Call (sub.req.) ...
Boehner strongly denied media reports late Friday night that he had informed Hastert of the allegations, saying "That is not true."
Speaks for itself.
--Josh Marshall
If you want to check out Rep. Foley's House website, you're going to need to go to the WayBack machine. It's already been taken down.
--Josh Marshall
Foley Update: With the news evolving so quickly about what members of the House GOP leadership knew about the Foley scandal, another 
point hadn't become clear to me. Though I haven't seen the point made explicitly, it's clear from the late ABC News reports that there are multiple pages in question.
In this story at the ABC site, reporters write that "according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges."
There's another point too though. This all started to come out yesterday when ABC reported on a series of suggestive but not explicit emails between Foley and a House page. That appears to be the then-16 year old page who had been sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). Reportedly, that page became concerned about the suggestiveness of the emails, cut off communication and reported the emails to a member of Alexander's staff.
The graphic IM exchanges, which blew the story open this afternoon, are clearly from a minor who actively engaged with the congressman. So it seems clear it's a different page. The clincher is that that the published IM exchange is from 2003, two years earlier. So it's clear there are at least two different pages in question.
(ed.note: When I write that the other page "actively engaged" with the congressman, this is not meant to imply that minors are legally capable of consent. I make the distinction not to diminish the congressman's guilt or suggest the minor's complicity but only to note the apparently different nature of the exchanges.)
--Josh Marshall
Majority Leader Boehner hangs Hastert out to dry ...
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.
That's from the Post. See the rest here.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader TT for the tip.)
--Josh Marshall
35 pages of Foley emails, according to fellow Florida GOP Rep. Jeff Miller.
--Josh Marshall
Blockbuster story out from Roll Call (sub.req.)
Chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) interviewed Foley last year about some of the contacts with the page. The House clerk, who is also a member of the Board, was also present. Speaker Hastert's office was informed of the interview, but according to GOP leadership sources who spoke to Roll Call, Hastert himself was not informed.
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the Board, was not informed of the interview, according to Roll Call.
Rep. Shimkus released the following statement ...
“As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter.“In that email exchange, Congressman Foley asked about the former Page’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph. When asked about the email exchange, Congressman Foley said he expressed concern about the Page’s well-being and wanted a photo to see that the former Page was alright.
“Congressman Foley told the Clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor to this former House Page and that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House Page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House Pages, and he assured us he would do so. I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional emails.
“It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct.
“As Chairman of the House Page Board, I am working with the Clerk to fully review this incident and determine what actions need to be taken.
“The House Page Program has been an integral part of the House of Representatives for many decades. Preserving the integrity of the House Page Program is of utmost importance to me and to the House of Representatives, and we intend to uphold and protect its values and traditions.”
The whole matter has been turned over to the House ethics committee.
--Josh Marshall
Foley Update: Rep. Alexander (R-LA) tells paper he informed Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) of Foley/underage page contact.
--Josh Marshall
The story changes. Did Rep. Alexander (R-LA) report Rep. Foley (R-FL) to the NRCC, the House Republican campaign committee?
An NRCC spokesman says the matter was brought before the House Page Board. But it's not clear what they did about it.
Everybody's running for cover.
--Josh Marshall
Big. Big Trouble.
We caught wind of this and tried our damneddest to confirm it this afternoon. But we weren't able to. Rep. Alexander's office wasn't eager to return out calls.
But now the AP has the story. And here's why there may be a lot more fall out from the Rep. Foley (R-FL) story.
The page in question worked for Rep. Rodeny Alexander (R-LA). And the page brought the matter of his contacts with Foley to the congressman's attention via a staffer, who I'm told has since left Rep. Alexander's employ.
Here's the key passage from the AP article ...
The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.
I assume that passage doesn't need much unpacking. But let's do it anyway.
So Rep. Alexander knew about this 10 or 11 months ago. And he says he notified the House leadership. That means Hastert and (at the time) either Tom DeLay or Rep. Blunt (R-MO). We don't know it was either of those three men yet. But that's what Alexander means when he says he "notified the House leadership." They're the House leadership.
If I'm understanding this correctly, that means that the leaders of the House Republican caucus have known for almost a year that a member of their caucus was having cybersex with an underage congressional page. And apparently they did nothing about it.
I think this story is about to get a lot bigger.
--Josh Marshall
Let me try to clear up some confusion. Earlier I did a post that said that Florida election law doesn't give the Republican party much of an opportunity to save Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) seat. (Foley resigned today in the wake of revelations that he had sexually explicit IM chats with a congressional page.)
A number of readers have written to say that the law Paul Kiel refers to in this post doesn't bear that out or that other sites say differently.
Let me explain.
Florida law says that the state GOP cannot remove Foley's name from the ballot. However, since he's dropped out of the race, they can designate a replacement. And any votes "Foley" gets will go to that GOP replacement.
The problem for the GOP is that Florida's 16th congressional district isn't that strong a GOP district. Foley won in 2004 with 68% of the vote. But President Bush pulled only 54%. That tells me it's a GOP district. But not by much. And there was already a serious Democratic challenger in the race.
So here's how this plays out to me. No question, strong Republican partisans will vote for "Foley" because they know that vote goes to the candidate the local GOP has chosen to replace him. But outside of strong partisans, I really don't think a lot of voters are going to check off the box next to the candidate who's just resigned because he was exposed for having sex chats with underaged congressional pages. That just doesn't play to me.
And once the replacement gets picked, candidate X and the local Republican party can start putting up flyers that say "Vote for guy who had cybersex with a minor because the vote will really go to candidate X who would never do such a thing."
But that's just a hard message to get a lot of traction with. And if you figure that President Bush could still get 54% in that district, which doesn't seem likely, how many of the those 54% of Bush voters would you lose because they don't know that "Foley" really isn't Mark Foley, the disgraced congressman? I think more than four percentage points of them.
Given the Dems were already making a race of it, I think the Republicans' prospects for holding that seat are not good at all. Not a cakewalk. But I'd say this race now leans toward the Dems.
Others don't see it that way. But that's my read.
Late Update: A credible but unconfirmed tip has it that the Florida GOP is going to "sue to get the replacement's name on any ballots already not 'printed'". If successful, that could of course change the calculation. And remember of course that the Florida state judiciary is now well larded with Jeb Bush toadies. So don't count out the possibility.
--Josh Marshall
From the House to the Big House? Rep. Foley (R-FL) may be prosecuted under child sex predator laws he helped pass.
--Josh Marshall
Yet another shoe drops. This just out from Salon ...
A former football teammate of Sen. George Allen decided Friday to go on the record with recollections of the Virginia Republican's alleged racist behavior during college.Edward J. Sabornie, a special education professor at North Carolina State University, had previously spoken to Salon about Allen's behavior on the condition of anonymity, because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign. In a Salon story on Sunday, Sabornie was quoted as a "teammate" who remembered Allen using the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," Sabornie said in that article.
Read the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
In case you're wondering whether the Florida GOP has any chance to replace resigned Rep. Foley (R) on the ballot and not give the seat to the Dems, the answer seems to be no.
--Josh Marshall
File under Gotta Start Somehwere ...
Sen. Allen (R-VA) introduces bill to help black farmers.
--Josh Marshall
Hitting the wires: Mark Foley (R-FL) considering resignation after emails flap.
Update: It's done. Those emails were just the beginning, apparently.
--Josh Marshall
I think we're getting down to that true last refuge of the scoundrel marrow.
According to the president, those who think he's created a mess in Iraq which is making us less rather than more secure are "buy[ing] into the enemy's propaganda."
Isn't this what the president's own intelligence agencies are telling him? I guess they're buying into the enemy's propaganda. From what the polls seem to say, more than half the country is buying into the enemy's propaganda too. Pretty much everybody does, I guess, beside the president and those who sign on to his dogmas.
What's actually just as revealing is the president's own argument about the Iraq-Terrorism NIE, which amounts to a sort of covert play for double-or-nothing with the American people.
Pick it apart and the argument is that Iraq's a disaster which has made us less safe. And if we can't change it from a disaster to a success it will be even worse than it is now.
So the argument amounts to, Stick to The Incompetent Crew Who Created the Mess!
Give Us Your Vote Because Who Better to Trust Than the Guys Who Created the Mess!
Or Maybe, Vote For Us Because Don't We Have to do Something Right Eventually!?!
Rolls right off the tongue.
--Josh Marshall
Bush was told violence would increase in Iraq in 2007, but failed to share that information with the public.
--Josh Marshall
How long before the torture bill the Senate passed yesterday is challenged in court? "Days." And even those who voted for it don't seem too keen on its chances.
--Paul Kiel
Greg Sargent talks to Jennifer Duffy, the Senate expert at the Cook Political Report, on the Dems' chances for capturing the Senate this November.
--Paul Kiel
From a live chat at WaPo ...
Washington, D.C.: Your wrote today "...a prominent Democratic polling firm tried to raise alarms yesterday with the release of focus group findings... that attacks on Democrats for opposing any efforts to stop terrorists...were highly effective." Despite these warnings, you also report that Sen. Reid said it was "beyond (his)ability to comprehend" how a member of Congress could be accused of supporting terrorism.This situation is a little like Rice and Bush ignoring intelligence warnings that bin Laden was planning to attack with planes. Despite Bush's non-stop speeches over the last three weeks detailing all the ways in which Democrats can't be trusted to protect against terrorists, the Democratic "leadership" apparently aren't going to explain themselves or fight back. Can you explain what the Democrats think their passivity will accomplish; other than to allow Bush and the Republicans to completely assassinate their characters in order to keep one party rule humming along?
Jonathan Weisman: I'm as amazed as you are. The Democrats keep saying the Republucans did it to them in 2002 and 2004 and they're going to do it again in 2006. Yet they say it won't work. I'm not so sure.
I'm really hoping Reid's point is being misconstrued. But is it?
--Josh Marshall
More revelations from the new Congressional report on Abramoff's White House doings.
Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff: "talked to rove about this and i think i killed it."
And, boy, is Ken Mehlman in trouble.
--Paul Kiel
Uh oh. More muck in New Jersey. This time Sen. Robert Menendez's (D-NJ) close advisor was caught on tape asking a contractor for a "favor." That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Quick -- who said this? "Please put Karl Rove in his usual table." Any guesses?
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader RW ...
I have to disagree with your earlier reader. Everyone’s waiting around for the Republicans to drop some sort of shoe. If it never comes, expect large Democratic gains. Right now I don’t think they have anything. Basically, their entire argument is that if we don’t stick with their failures, they will become bigger failures. And the only message they have is the same message they’ve had for years, fear and the flag. If there’s one thing about this country, it is that stuff gets old fast. And this stuff is real old.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BC ...
I can't stand it any longer: This evening all the network news programs air Bush's slam, "The party of FDR and Truman is now the party of cut and run". There's no democrat presenting any equivalent slam against Bush or the "torture" republicans. The other day Rice gets extensive air time to say, "We received no strategy regarding Al Queda from the Clinton administration" and there are no democrats, no Richard Clarke, no Clinton to rebut the allegation. The republicans are making hay in Congress with all their "war on terror" provisions regarding Habeas Corpus, torture, and warantless wiretaps- the "tools the president needs to fight the war on terror" and you have to watch C-Span to hear any democrats presenting a sensible argument against Bush's "tools".
Every day I read countless liberal blogs offering compelling confrontation to the lies and smears the republicans let fly in their constant barrage, yet none of this corrective dialogue is observable in the MSM. I guess my point is, do we fault the MSM for this mostly one-sided debate the average news consumer is exposed to, or are the democrats no-shows when it comes to aggressively getting "our side" presented in the daily discourse of the media? The liberal blogs are great with exposing truth, but they're preaching to the choir while the republicans never let up in their campaign to control the greater public dialogue. (An analogy- a dem takes a girl out on a date, and he spends the evening asking about her while telling her about himself- a pleasant evening enjoying one another's company. A repub takes a girl out, and he relentlessly paws at her, he continuously tries to undress her, and single-mindedly devotes the entire evening pursuing his libido-driven agenda, much to her dismay. Worn down, she eventually succumbs to his aggressions.)
Thanks for letting me cry on your shoulder a bit.
--Josh Marshall
Did you know that House passed something called the Iran Freedom Support Act tonight on a voice vote with no debate?
You should. They're going to try to ram it through the senate now too. Read the article and find out more.
--Josh Marshall
Conrad Burns (R-MT) working to keep on schedule to insult every ethnic group in advance of November elections.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING -- White House ties to Jack Abramoff stronger than previously reported.
Update: Oh, and the favors they did for him.
--Justin Rood
And they keep coming. There was a new witness against Sen. George Allen (R-VA) on Hardball today. See the video here.
--Paul Kiel
HUD Secretary Jackson reportedly too incompetent to be charged with corruption.
--Josh Marshall
It's been a pretty interesting election cycle so far. So I figured it was about time we had a congressman/intern scandal. Here a kids' advocate congressman gets caught emailing with 16 year old.
--Josh Marshall
US Chamber of Commerce field director for the Simmons (R-CT) campaign runs videos bashing universal health care with images of holocaust corpses.
--Josh Marshall
Santorum: Torture bill "purely politics." At least that's what he said in June.
--Josh Marshall
Now that's a crusading DA!
Westchester DA and GOP candidate for AG, Jeanine Pirro, is demanding that Alberto Gonzales investigate the US Attorney who is investigating her plan to get Bernard Kerik to help her plant a bug on her husband's boat to catch him in one of his alleged trysts.
"I am calling on U.S. attorney, Alberto Gonzalez, to begin an immediate investigation and appoint a special prosecutor to get Elliot Jacobson off his witch hunt. There needs to be a federal investigation of the felony of leaking sealed court documents."
--Josh Marshall
Hotline poll press release ...
Despite a slight increase in President Bush's approval rating 42% among both registered and likely voters this month, likely voters are showing significantly more support for Democrats in September than they did in August. Last month among likely voters, Democrats and Republicans were tied at 40% in a generic Congressional ballot, while this month, Democrats hold a 13-point advantage over Republicans (46% - 33%). Among registered voters, Democrats' advantage in the generic congressional ballot increased three points since August, at 43% - 33%, compared to 40% - 33% last month.
--Josh Marshall
Well, we have our answer.
At today's press briefing, no reporter from the White House press corps asked Tony Snow why he lied yesterday about the length of time it takes for the Intelligence Community to prepare an NIE.
There was this exchange, however, on why there's no particular rush.
--Josh Marshall
First class justice? Or fly coach?
I'm not sure that's the best metaphor, but it cuts to the heart of what strikes me as the most significant part of the bill that Republicans are jamming through the Senate today. As others have noted in more detail, this law allows the president to detain any US citizen in the United States and hold him or her without trial forever.
All the president needs to do is find that you are an 'enemy combatant'. And it's entirely his call.
There's so much in this legislation that I know it's hard to say what's 'most significant'. And I'm not trying to devalue the torture provision. But this point seems to cross the biggest divide. In essence, it means that the entire criminal justice system in this country becomes discretionary in the hands of the president.
You have the protection of the courts and due process. Until that gets too sticky, in which case the president can pull you out of the court system and detain you forever with no recourse to anything but the president's mercy.
Basically, getting arrested, prosecuted and thrown in the slammer the old-fashioned way becomes a privilege that can simply be revoked. Like I said, first class justice, up in the comfy seats.
--Josh Marshall
Habeas corpus amendment goes down to defeat in the senate. McCain, Graham and Warner each voted against.
--Josh Marshall
Nancy Johnson (R-CT) calls 911?
The American Medical Association PAC just dropped a whopping $300,000 into Nancy Johnson embattled reelection campaign in Connecticut's 5th District.
--Josh Marshall
Changing horses in mid-stream? This is from the press release for an interview with Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes ...
Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. Wallace’s interview with Woodward will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 1 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.
The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.
Just speaking for myself, I think it's a little late in the day for Woodward to hop off the Bush bandwagon. But on the merits of what he's saying it's not a surprise. This is why it's important to keep pressing for that NIE. The president and his advisors are lying through their teeth about what's happening in Iraq and they're covering up key information that voters should know. They're preventing it from coming out before the November election.
--Josh Marshall
Anybody in the White House press corps want to ask Tony Snow why he lied to you guys yesterday?
Frances Townsend did the same thing the day before. But let's stick with Snow. When asked why the White House is holding up that Iraq-only NIE until after the November election, Snow said the following (emphasis added) ...
They're just flat wrong. What happened is, about a month ago Director Negroponte informed the committees that he was, in fact, going to do an exhaustive review on Iraq. That's a month ago. These reviews take about a year to do, so the idea that it is in "draft" form -- they're just beginning to do their work on it. And Intelligence Committee members if they don't know it, should. But there is not a waiting Iraq document that reflects a national intelligence estimate that's sitting around gathering dust, waiting until after the election.
Well, that's just a crock. Justin Rood looked into this yesterday. And according to the 2004 Senate intel committee report, most NIEs take between two weeks (for a rush job) and two months to complete. And how long did it take to complete the Iraq WMD NIE. Less than three weeks. (Amazing what you can accomplish when your heart is really in it, isn't it?)
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, "NIE drafting guidelines included in the July 9 Senate report describe three rough timeframes: a "fast track" of two to three weeks, a "normal track" of four to eight weeks, and a "long track" of two months or more."
And what did Snow say when trying to deny the politics behind this NIE's delay? "These reviews take about a year to do ..."
Am I wrong to say he lied to you guys? I don't think I am.
Can we get this question asked again?
--Josh Marshall
House nixes wireless deal made as a favor to Abramoff. Maybe a Friends and Family plan is cheaper? ("I yield the remainder of my monthly minutes to the gentleman from Alabama.") That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
No, you can't have it.
The White House refused Wednesday to release the rest of a secret intelligence assessment that depicts a growing terrorist threat, as the Bush administration tried to quell election-season criticism that its anti-terror policies are seriously off track.Press secretary Tony Snow said releasing the full report, portions of which President Bush declassified on Tuesday, would jeopardize the lives of agents who gathered the information.
It would also risk the nation's ability to work with foreign governments and to keep secret its U.S. intelligence-gathering methods, Snow said, and "compromise the independence of people doing intelligence analysis."
No ...
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who missed our report today, let me return to that second NIE on Iraq that we discussed yesterday. This is a different report than the one President Bush partly declassified on Tuesday. This one deals solely with Iraq and the state of things on the ground today.
After Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) pressed the administration to release the report Tuesday morning, President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend told a press briefing that the report was scheduled to be released in January 2007 and that the timing had nothing to do with this fall's political calendar.
I asked Justin Rood to look into the question of whether the administration is slow-rolling the report. And while there is no way to know directly, Justin found out that there is pretty strong evidence that that is just what's happening.
Democrats asked for the new NIE in July. John Negroponte, the DNI, announced on August 4th that one would be prepared. It's true that NIEs take a long time to compile. But according to a senate intel committee report last year they take between two weeks and two months to compile, depending on the urgency. So even if it were on the outside edge of that range, it should be done sometime next week.
So, what's the delay?
Here's what Rep. Harman said today
The president says the election is supposed to be about national security. So where's the report? What's the delay? What are they afraid of?
This deserves pressure.
--Josh Marshall
Here's one of those signs of which way the wind is blowing. CQ is one of the insider sheets that keeps tabs and ratings on the various competitive seats around the country. They've just changed the Tennessee senate race -- where Harold Ford (D) is up against Bob Corker (R) to replace Bill Frist -- to "no clear favorite."
All the stars are going to have to be in alignment for Harold Ford to pull this off. He's got to run a kick-ass campaign, which he seems to be doing. Corker's got to run a feeble campaign. And you can check that box off. And the national tide's got to run in Harold's direction. But it may just happen.
--Josh Marshall
From our pal Shaun Waterman at UPI ...
Two key must-pass defense and homeland security bills are being blocked in a row between Republican lawmakers over border and immigration security measures.The homeland security appropriation bill and the defense authorization bill are among the handful of pieces of legislation that lawmakers had hoped to complete this week before heading home for the elections. Now both are stalled because GOP House leaders want to include a series of measures passed in their chamber designed to strengthen border security and toughen immigration enforcement.
Read the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, this one's a beaut.
Jeanine Pirro was originally running for senate against Hillary. But her campaign roll out was such a disaster she had to bail out of that race. Then she decided to run for New York AG. Or at least she was until today. It's now been revealed that after Bernie Kerik's ties to the mob had been revealed during his abortive nomination to head DHS, Pirro decided that Kerik was the one to go to for help to make covert recordings of her husband's activities by planting a bug on their boat. Pirro believed her husband was cheating on her. See all the details here. Not a good resume addition for an AG candidate, is it?
Late Update: An earlier version of this post said that Pirro had solicited Kerik to plant an "illegal wiretap" on her husband. That was incorrect. They conspired to plant a hidden recording device. Pirro claims that her plan for secret surveillance on the family boat would have broken no laws. The Feds don't seem to agree.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, major muck coming down the pike in the state of New York. More in a moment.
--Josh Marshall
Swift Boat 2.0 group violating federal rules by spoofing caller IDs with robocalls?
--Josh Marshall
Is the White house slow-walking the Iraq NIE to get it out past the November election? Justin Rood gives us the low-down.
--Josh Marshall
We'll be bringing you a lot more reporting through the day on the various intel reports on Iraq and the War on Terror. But I wanted to raise one point about the limited release from yesterday.
The upshot of the report, as I read it, is that over the last five years we've actually done a pretty good job at disrupting and dismantling al Qaida. (That includes everything from eliminating their safe haven in Afghanistan, to making it harder for them to move money and communicate electronically, and killing or capturing a great number of the key leaders.) The problem is that in Iraq we've managed to create a whole new rallying cry for a new generation of terrorists. And because they're more dispersed, both organizationally and geographically, we're really not prepared to handle the threat they pose.
I raise this point because this is actually very close to the argument that James Fallows made in his article in what I believe is still the current issue of The Atlantic. I strongly recommend you read the article. The deeper point is that Iraq is simply not a key part of the War on Terror, as the president routinely claims. We've actually done fairly well in the actual War on Terror, in the sense of taking down the organization that attacked us on 9/11. Simultaneously we've both squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and a lot of valuable time and good will creating a new threat with the fiasco in Iraq.
One other point: We've spent this morning getting to the bottom of a number of questions about this Iraq-specific NIE. And Justin Rood is about to post on that over at TPMmuckraker.com. The upshot is that there's ample evidence the administration is slow-rolling the report to get it out past the November election.
Surprised?
Late Update: Harman writes to Negroponte.
--Josh Marshall
So we have a bit more info on that Iraq-only NIE that Rep. Harman (D-CA) referred to yesterday. The president's Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend confirmed its existence but said it won't be released till January.
Townsend claimed the timing has nothing to do with the election, just the ordinary schedule. We're looking into that.
We've got the relevant exchange from the press briefing posted over at TPMmuckraker.com.
(ed.note: Just a little editorial aside. Muckraker broke the story of the second NIE yesterday morning. Now it's frontpage on CNN. More soon.)
Late Update: We're now hearing Townsend's statement in the briefing may have included some sleight of hand to confuse people as to which report is being discussed. We'll have more on this shortly.
--Josh Marshall
The scandal-rocked Buckeye State looks set for a Democratic rout this November. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Oops.
An editorial published recently in newspapers under a Miami Township congresswoman's name was nearly identical to one released by another Ohio congresswoman in July.An article ran under Rep. Jean Schmidt's name in several southwest Ohio newspapers in late August and last week. It said the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is saving local seniors money.
Almost the same article was in a packet of materials produced by the House Republican Conference. The office of Rep. Deborah Pryce, a Columbus-area lawmaker who leads the House GOP group, inserted data for her central Ohio district and put it on her congressional Web site on July 10.
Some folks just can't catch a break.
--Josh Marshall
Sabato now says he never personally heard Sen. Allen use the N-word in college but believes that he did based on "very credible testimony."
--Josh Marshall
It was almost a year ago that I held the fundraiser to start TPMmuckraker.com. Don't worry, this isn't a lead in to a new fundraiser. I bring it up because this story from yesterday on Muckraker is just the kind of 
piece I was hoping the site would be putting out.
Ralph Hall is a long serving member of the House of Representatives. He used to be a Democrat, by far the most conservative in the caucus. He finally became a Republican in 2004.
Back in the 1990s he was apparently one of Jack Abramoff's go-to guys. And in 1997 Abramoff was trying to help his clients in the Marianas deal with reports of the active sex trade they had going on the Islands. That and indentured servitude and a bunch of other stuff. But in this slice of the story it's the sex trade. And at the time, attention was focusing on the story of a girl called "Katrina" (to protect her identity) who was snatched "away from her parents in the Philippines at the age of fifteen to work at a nightclub in the Northern Marianas. Once there, she was forced to sell drinks, dance naked, and perform videotaped 'sex acts on stage with customers.'"
That really didn't go down very well. So Abramoff went to Rep. Hall to take "Katrina" down a few notches.
See the rest of the story here.
--Josh Marshall
Life is so unfair. All Rick O'Donnell did was call for the elimination of Social Security when he was a young and irresponsible 24 year-old. Now he's down 17 points to Dem Ed Perlmutter in the latest poll out of Colorado's 7th District.
--Paul Kiel
You can read the Key Judgments of the global terrorism NIE here. It's four pages.
--Paul Kiel
Retired intelligence officers write to Specter and Leahy in opposition to Torture Bill.
--Josh Marshall
House candidate Tammy Duckworth (D), the Iraq War vet who lost both her legs in combat, responds to opponent Peter Roskam's (R) charge that she wants to "cut and run" from Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Here's the transcript of Rep. Jane Harman's (D-CA) remarks earlier today, revealing the existence of that 2nd intelligence report on Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
Let's review what we know.
This morning at TPM we got word that in addition to the already reported April Iraq/Terrorism NIE, there was another NIE exclusively on Iraq.
We talked to various Hill sources who confirmed its existence. And then Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking member of the House intel committee discussed the report and called for its release at an event at the National Press Club.
Only there was another wrinkle to 
the sources. Hill sources tell TPMmuckraker that the administration has been sitting on the report, trying to prevent its dissemination before the election, presumably. And it turns out, from what we've heard, that this NIE actually hasn't been given the official "NIE" label because doing that would have required sharing it with various members of Congress.
The President has already said he's releasing "parts" of the April NIE -- which likely means it'll be cleansed of all the important details. But both should be released. The April NIE and this NIE that dare not speak its name too.
And the only way that will happen is with pressure from constituents. Call your representatives and senators. Rep. Harman has noted the existence of the separate Iraq report and called for its release before the election. Find out from your member of Congress whether they want it released to or not. Where do they stand?
Let us know what you hear and we'll share it with readers here on the site.
--Josh Marshall
TPMmuckraker's Justin Rood has just posted his first dispatch on the other secret NIE, the one on Iraq.
Rep. Harman (D-CA) has just said she wants it released.
We've also talked to a number of Hill sources who tell us the report is being slow rolled, presumably to keep its findings from being released before the November 7th election.
Late Update: In the course of our reporting this morning, there was some question over whether this Iraq report was in fact an NIE. It now appears that it is an NIE in all but name, prepared in the same way, by the same people. But it's not been given the 'NIE' label because that would trigger reporting requirements to congress that the adminsitration has wanted to avoid. We'll bring you more updates on this question shortly.
--Josh Marshall
According to CNN, "An angry President Bush Tuesday said he would declassify an intelligence document that reportedly finds that the Iraq war increased the terrorist threat to the United States, saying the American people should come to their own conclusions."
Remember though what happened back in 2002.
When the president was called on to release the Iraq WMD NIE, they had all the information casting doubts on Iraqi WMD removed from the public document.
And, also, what about the other NIE we now learn they're sitting on? The one just on Iraq. Let's see that one too. In time for the election.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, it sounds like that Iraq/Terrorism NIE isn't the only one out there.
We've been making calls all morning. And it turns there's another NIE the White House is apparently sitting on. This one's entirely on the situation in Iraq. And the word we keep hearing to describe the findings are "bleak."
We'll have a full write up shortly at TPMmuckraker.
--Josh Marshall
The Allen campaign is trying to respond to Larry Sabato's charges last night. (Sabato went to college with Allen and says Allen isn't telling the truth when he says he never used the N-word in college.) But not with a response from Allen himself. Allen's campaign strategist Chris LaCivita tells the AP: "Larry is obviously relying on words he heard from someone else. We believe it's completely inaccurate."
Unless something has changed in the last day or so, Allen's running for senate. So I doubt he can himself avoid getting asked about Sabato.
When he does, in print or on video, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Sure, Katherine Harris is going down in November. But how many Florida Republicans will she take with her?
--Paul Kiel
More bad news for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and his son, as the FBI builds a bridge to indictment. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Is he welcome at the party? Sen. Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the senate intel committee, says release the Iraq/Terrorism NIE.
--Josh Marshall
Another witness comes forward about George Allen's apparently habitual use of the N-word. This guy talked to the Times.
(ed.note: As it happens, this actually isn't the new revelation I referred to earlier. That one's still coming.)
Late Update: Okay, that wasn't the report I was referring to. But the report I got wind of turns out to be about the same new witness. This one's at TNR.
--Josh Marshall
Is this the straw that broke Macaca's back?
As you've probably heard, Larry Sabato, establishment political analyst and election forecaster, was on Hardball tonight. And he said whether Sen. Allen's denies it today or not, Allen did use the N-word in college. Here's a short video of the exchange in question. (Both men graduated from UVA in 1974.)
You'll remember that just this morning, Allen pointedly denied reports in Salon that he was a regular user of the racial epithet in college.
Late Update: You can see the full segment here from MSNBC. See it all, Sabato says a lot more, none of it good for Allen.
--Josh Marshall
Major General Batiste says the same thing ...
The conduct of the Iraq war fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe and created more enemies for the United States, a retired U.S. Army general who served in the conflict said on Monday.The views of retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste buttressed an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, which intelligence officials said concluded the war had inspired Islamist extremists and made the militant movement more dangerous.
The Iraq conflict, which began in March 2003, made "America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001," Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, told a hearing on the war called by U.S. Senate Democrats.
The people on the inside apparently think the same thing. The president just won't let them speak.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) says yes, release it ...
U.S. Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today responded to news reports about the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Representing the consensus judgment of the United States’ intelligence community, the report concluded that the War in Iraq had increased the threat of terrorism."Our intelligence agencies acknowledge what President Bush and Republicans in Congress deny,” said Stark. “The Republican response to 9/11 has made us less secure. The War in Iraq is increasing the likelihood of an attack on American soil. If the White House disagrees, it should review the National Intelligence Estimate and make public either a complete or a redacted version of the report."
"Shortly after the war began, the administration eagerly declassified parts of a prior intelligence estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” continued Stark. “Why do Republicans refuse to do so now? Might silence indicate complicity?"
Have you called your member of Congress? Which side are they on?
--Josh Marshall
Uh boy. I hear there's more about to pop on ye olde George Allen N-word front. Apparently, in the next hour or so.
--Josh Marshall
A little background on NIEs.
A lot of Republicans are telling readers that it can't be released because it's classified.
Hardly.
It's not at all uncommon for a declassified version of an NIE to be released to the public. Just go back to October 2002. The Iraq WMD NIE was provided to the senate intel committee on October 1st. A declassified summary was released to the public on October 5th. And still more of the NIE was released on October 9th.
There's another dimension to that episode as well. As became clear a year later, in the declassification process, the White House made certain that most of the qualifications and questions about Iraq WMD were removed. So the public version of the NIE seemed far more powerful than the actual classified version. It was another effort to trick the public and it prevented senators who'd seen the report from discussing those parts of the report the White House had kept behind the veil of classification.
That's well worth keeping in mind in this case since I understand there's already been some earlier fiddling with this one.
It's also been suggested that Democrats may not be that eager to see the full NIE released since there are suspicions it's not as clear-cut as the newspaper headlines have suggested. That would not surprise me at all. Given the history of this administration, it's hard to believe that the report is really a full exploration of the fiasco the administration has made of Iraq. But let's see. Let's find out. And let's keep an eye out for a selective release which is the Bush White House's favored response to this sort of situation.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, the Democratic leader in House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the ranking member of the senate intel committee, Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Clinton (D-NY) have each now come out for declassifying and releasing to the public the April Iraq/Terrorism NIE.
If this is a topic that interests you, that is, having a real debate about Iraq and the War on Terror, then this is definitely the time to make contact with your elected representatives and ask them where they stand on the issue. It's a simple question, are they for release or are they against it?
Where do they stand?
--Josh Marshall
We're hearing that Sen. Rockefeller, ranking member of the Senate intel committee, has just come out for declassifying and releasing the April NIE. We're trying to confirm.
Late Update: Confirmed.
Later Update: Hillary just came out for it too.
--Josh Marshall
Anything, anything for Jack.
Rep. Ralph Hall (then a Dem, now a Republican) bashed a teen sex slave in the Congressional Record on behalf of Jack Abramoff.
--Josh Marshall
Here's what the White House just sent out from Tony Snow on the NIE ...
Press Gaggle By Tony SnowSeptember 25, 2006
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY TONY SNOW: "[O]ne thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse. And by the way, the DNI will be making public comments later today and he'll be taking questions in Washington. …
"First, the false impression has been created that the NIE focuses solely on Iraq and terrorism. This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality, the morphing of al Qaeda and its affiliates and other jihadist movements. It assesses that a variety of factors, in addition to Iraq, fuel the spread of jihadism, including longstanding social grievances, slowness of the pace of reform, and the use of the Internet. And it also notes that should jihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight.
"In short, the news reports contain nothing that the President hasn't said. There was that one conclusion that you just mentioned, Sheryl, that appeared in I think one sentence of The New York Times report, and two sentences in the LA Times. Those are conclusions from blind sources. Obviously, we're not going to go into what the classified report does say, but what we did see in the newspapers yesterday, the substance, is precisely what the President has been saying: Al Qaeda – the leadership has been hit hard; it has become more dispersed; that there is more independent activity; that they're using other means for communication and organization, such as the Internet; that they have an ideology that is directed at the West and at democracies – it's a totalitarian ideology that tends to unite them.
"And reading the stories I thought, well, yes, I mean, this is what the President has been saying."
The DNI is Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. We'll see what he says.
--Josh Marshall
GOP candidate Roskam accuses Democratic opponent Duckworth of wanting to 'cut and run' in Iraq.
Duckworth, a double amputee, lost both legs while serving in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
The pool report from on the road with the prez ...
POOL REPORT TWO CONNECTICUT-OHIO STEALTH FUNDRAISING TOUR September 25, 2006Your representative of a friendly newspaper is currently sitting under the trees at a lovely beach-front table, overlooking the Long Island Sound. We are dining on a delicious lunch of Chilean sea bass, topped with pea puree, cheese ravioli with a butter sage sauce, and salad of field greens, topped with dried cranberries and candied pecans – the very same fare, we are told, that the donors gathered inside the massive home of Scott Frantz, investment banker, are enjoying.
Frantz is the president of Haebler Capital Corporation. His house is a big wood-shingled affair, four car garage, with a dock and a beautiful waterside view and shady manicured grounds.
Chris Shays is said to be inside; no word about the Republican Senate candidate, whose name no one can remember. (It’s Alan Schlesinger.) No word about any other elected officials either. 65 people inside, $800,000 to be raised, according to Tony Snow.
Tony gaggled. Look for a very lawyerly remark, drafted by the DNI’s office, about the classified national intelligence estimate that was reported in the news yesterday, Gist is that the report contained nothing Bush hasn’t said before. The DNI will make some remarks later today. Also some remarks about why the president keeps doing closed events, and comments on lower gas prices (he says the White House hasn’t rigged them) and a non-response to the Clinton remarks on Fox.
And now, circling back to the beginning of the day:
Marine One landed at Andrews at 10:35. POTUS emerged, followed by Rove and Snow and other aides your pool is too new to recognize. All aboard and wheels up at 10:46 for the one hour flight to JFK. After an uneventful trip, plus a 20-minute chopper ride, we landed in a lovely park in Greenwich, not far from the Long Island sound.
The motorcade wound its way through town, past plenty of locals waving American flags, pointing cameras and some hoisting protest signs, including War is Wa$te, and “More Trees, Less Bush.”
All of which made your working stiff pool wonder if the good people of Greenwich have to work for a living.
More soon.
--Josh Marshall
Exclusive: Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) takes a stand on the Iraq/Terrorism NIE: "The classification of the reported NIE should be reviewed. And at a minimum, a redacted version should be issued."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH) sends House aide sock puppet to bamboozle progressive blog.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader CM called Rep. Pelosi's (D) office on the April NIE question: No position yet.
Late Update: Cal Sens. Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D) seem to be asking for more time to come up with a position.
--Josh Marshall
Join us at this week's TPMCafe BookClub, where we discuss Reed Hundt's new book In China's Shadow.
--Josh Marshall
The Republicans are pretty much all giving no comments on whether to release the April NIE.
But they're not the only ones.
Sen. Clinton (D): No comment.
Sen. Schumer (D): No comment.
Rep. Velazquez (D): No comment.
That's what TPM Reader DB and others were told when they called.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Ron Kind on releasing the NIE: too early for us to have a position.
That's what they told TPM Reader RF.
--Josh Marshall
Lieberman mischaracterizes Lamont's Iraq position in big security speech.
--Josh Marshall
GOP-backed Green senate candidate tossed off PA ballot because too many petition signatures were bogus.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, a quick update on the NIE calls. Basically, very few members of Congress are even willing to take a position yet -- Republicans or Democrats. Some of this is just a matter of decisions not trickling down to the folks at the phones. But it is also an example of the pretty regrettable fact that most members' offices just aren't in the habit or used to giving straight answers on back questions to the folks who put them in office. And it shows that a lot more pressure is necessary, on everyone.
A lot of folks who've called their Republican reps or senators are getting the brush or getting told lies that it's already out or a bunch of other mumbojumbo. If you can't get a straight answer you can also call your representatives campaign, if they're running this year.
So far, Santorum and Allen seem to be stiffing constituents pretty consistently. Keep at it and we'll share what you find out with the rest of your fellow readers.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader TC tries the White House ...
So, on the advice of Senator Voinovich's office I phoned the White House comment line.I commented that on the advice of my state Senator I was phoning to request that the April National Intelligence Estimate be released to the public.
The operator: "You mean the one leaked to the Post and New York Times this weekend?"
I commented that I had learned of the reports existence over the weekend and I thought that voters have the right to the information before fall elections.
The operator: "They do have the information."
Me: "No, it's not a public report yet."
The (now frustrated) operator: "They have the information because the Times and Post reported it. Once those papers get a hold of it they just do whatever they want with it."
Wanna play too? See this post.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, we're already hearing from TPM Readers who've called their senators and reps about the April Iraq/Terrorism NIE.
The biggest bamboozle so far seems to be from the office of Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), which is telling constituents that the report has already been released, which hogwash of course. So her office seems to have decided to just lie to constituents.
Sens. DeWine, Warner and Allen all gives no comments.
Sen. Specter's office says he's probably against releasing the NIE to the public. But no straight answer.
But the offices of Sen. Santorum (R) and Rep. Gerlach (R) of Pennsylvania both helpfully say they'll come up with an answer in a few weeks -- which probably means after the election.
The only members of the House or the Senate so far who seem to be giving callers the time of day are the office of Sen. Voinovich (R), which is making helpful sounds but suggesting readers contact the White House directly. Sen. Nelson (D) of Florida's office is saying he'll have a statement on the issue out shortly.
(ed.note: If you don't know what we're talking about, see this post from earlier this morning.)
Rep. Biggert (R) in Illinois: no comment.
--Josh Marshall
Top Republicans disagree over telling Americans what kinds of torture would be done on their behalf under the new compromise bill. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Do yourself and your country a favor this morning.
Call up your representative and senators -- Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter -- and tell them you want the April National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") released to the public. Now. Before the election. So the public can know what the White House has been keeping from them.
I know the title is a mouthful. So just to be clear, that is the April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) widely reported on this weekend, which concludes that the Iraq War is making the threat of terrorism worse, not better.
This issue was knocking around on the Sunday shows yesterday, with folks like Majority Leader Frist insisting it's just not so. But I haven't seen this episode yet called for what it is -- a cover-up.
An NIE isn't some random government white paper. It represents the consensus judgment of the entire US intelligence community, with input from all the different agencies, from CIA and DIA to INR and FBI and all the others. In other words, this is the collaborative judgment of the people actually fighting the War on Terror.
For the last six weeks and, in fact, the last six months, the White House and the president have been engaged in a coordinated campaign to convince the public that despite the setbacks and mistakes, the war in Iraq is a critical component of fighting the War on Terror. Making that argument is their plan for the next six weeks until the election. All the while, they've been sitting on a report that says that's flat wrong, a lie and that precisely the opposite is the case.
That's a cover-up in every meaningful sense of the word, a calculated effort to hide information from and deceive the public. And it's actually a replay of what happened in late 2002, when the White House kept the Iraq WMD NIE's doubts about Iraqi weapons programs away from the public.
The president has made very clear he wants the next six weeks to be about Iraq and the War on Terror. By all means, let's do it. But first the president has to come clean about what he's keeping hidden from the public -- the fact that the people he has fighting the War on Terror are telling him that what he's telling the public about Iraq and the War on Terror flat isn't true.
Late word from the White House is that the Times report is "not representative of the complete document." Well, then, by all means, let's get a look at the whole thing so the public can get the big picture and find out who's telling the truth.
So pick up the phone and tell your reps and senators what you think. Then ask them whether they support releasing the April Iraq/Terrorism NIE to the public before the November election. Yes, or no. You may hear excuses that it can't be released because it's classified. But that's plain bull. Reports like this are routinely and without much difficulty released in redacted versions which remove any specific information that might reveal what intel types call 'sources and methods'.
Let us know what you hear. And in particular let us know your rep or senator's answer. Do they support releasing the NIE or not? We'll share it with the rest of our readers.
--Josh Marshall
I've gotten several emails in response to the earlier post on whether military action against Iran may happen before the election. Most have focused on the political dynamic, but I'm most interested in the nuts and bolts of whether we are in a position to pull such a thing off logistically.
TPM Reader GH thinks not:
Iranians have aced us in a major respect. The largest bunkerbuster we have is good for maybe 100 feet of compacted earth. Iranians have been burying sensitive installations, including about 45 nuclear processing sites, under 200 feet of layered dirt and concrete. We simply cannot, at this time, do a damn thing about it. But a much larger bomb is under development with a contract end date of about a year from now. Assume we can beat that, still leaves us somewhere next summer.Our support capacity is stretched to breaking. All the airlift (C5 and C17) is pretty well engaged in Iraq and Iran. Can't insert troops you cannot support. Critical hardware (up armored humvees, Strykers, etc) all in use. Hard to scrape up the hardware, even if you activated all the reserves, etc. Shades of WWII, where guys trained with broomsticks, because we did not have enough rifles. This country's logistics capacity is awesome, but it is not "poof" overnight . . .
Still, we have been gearing up for this for a long time. Look at the federal authorization bill over the last few years. Many $ on intel assets in and around the area. We have so many satellites flying over, that there are traffic jams. There is the political drumbeat, which signals preparation of the populace, and the need for Repugs to be the party in control in time of war. Americans do not like to change horses in wars.
Such a war would be no fun, for sure, but I have no confidence these clowns will get it right. Likely they will start shooting just as soon as they can get it loaded. And that is about a year off, minimum.
--David Kurtz
Today's NYT report describing a U.S. intelligence assessment that the Iraq invasion has worsened global terrorism (no surprise there) is "not representative" of the entire assessment, the White House says.
So what does the entire asssessment say? The White House won't say exactly. The report is still classified. But Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte offers that the assessment concludes that if the U.S. succeeds in stabilizing Iraq "fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."
The implication of course is that regardless of whether we succeed in Iraq, jihadists will leave determined to carry on the fight. It's just that if we fail, more will leave determined to fight.
Excellent. Our strategic objective now is to demoralize some of the jihadists.
--David Kurtz
A nod to TPM alum Matt Yglesias:
Bush, Cheney, and those around them remind me of Nietzsche's line about staring too long into the abyss. They've become transfixed, hypnotized almost, by the evils they believe themselves to be fighting. Obsessed to the point where they've clearly developed an admiration for the brutal methods, ruthless dishonesty, and utter secrecy with which the enemies of liberalism conduct themselves.Liberal democracy isn't a fluke occurrence that just so happens to have survived despite its drawbacks. It's actually a superior method of organizing a state. The idea that the country is being run by people who don't understand that is sad and frightening. The idea that the very same people claim to be embarked upon a grand mission to spread our system of government around the world is like a horrible tawdry joke . . .
--David Kurtz
Poor Mike Wallace. His son gets handed his hat by an ex-President, and 60 Minutes goes peppy (or is it "perky"?), all on the same day.
--David Kurtz
I don't know if it's because maybe fewer journalists these days are ex-military or what the reason, but not nearly enough attention has been paid to the degree to which our torture policy runs counter to decades of U.S. military doctrine and training.
So go read this piece about the views of retired brass on Bush's torture program, based in part on their first-hand combat experiences.
--David Kurtz
The Montana Senate race is obviously a key seat for both parties, but it's turning out to be a pretty colorful race to boot. Last night, Conrad Burns debated his Democratic challenger, state Senate President Jon Tester, who has been pounding on Burns for his connections to Jack Abramoff. Burns was repeatedly interrupted by catcalls at the last debate, so the Republicans were prepared this time. Well, sort of, according to the Great Falls Tribune:
The Abramoff issue, along with that of Iraq, has been raised in previous debates. But Saturday's confrontation covered new ground, including a who's-been-better-to-Butte discussion, and clear delineations on the Patriot Act.Burns highlighted his history of bringing federal money to Butte; indeed, the debate was co-sponsored by the Resodyn Corp., the beneficiary of some of that federal largesse. When Burns was introduced, those in the roughly 60 seats reserved for Resodyn employees comprised the majority of those who stood and applauded him. Despite Republican appeals for Burns' supporters within 100 miles to attend the debate, the crowd seemed largely made up of Tester's backers, many of them wearing yellow "Fire Burns" T-shirts.
The incumbent U.S. Senator gets embarrassed in the prior debate, his party puts out the call for supporters, and they still get outnumbered this time around, despite stacking the audience with employees from a company beholden to Burns? I'd say Burns is in trouble.
There's a pretty good rundown on last night's debate and the race generally here, though the part about Burns helping to create the blogosphere is, well, a bit of a stretch.
--David Kurtz
News junkies will well remember former Congressman Bill McCollum, the Florida Republican who was a leader of the drive to impeach President Clinton. In what may be a sign of the trouble facing Republicans, the 10-term congressman and two-time U.S. Senate candidate is now struggling to separate himself from a relatively obscure Democrat in the race for Florida Attorney General.
--David Kurtz
Salon ...
Three former college football teammates of Sen. George Allen say that the Virginia Republican repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970s."Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."
A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.
A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "nigger," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said.
Shocked, right?
--Josh Marshall
I've been going back and forth in recent weeks with a good friend of mine over whether military action against Iran before the election is in the cards. I think it is a very real possibility. My friend says that despite the Administration's well-documented bad ideas, as played out in the Iraq invasion, for example, it doesn't act irrationally, and that military action against Iran now is not rational.
He points, among other things, to the lack of troops, the fact that the Administration itself would view limiting the action to airstrikes as a demonstration of its own weakeness, and the absence of political support for the move even among Republicans compared with the support for the Iraq invasion.
All good points, but I don't have the same degree of confidence in the Administration's rationality. And even if I grant the rationality argument, it strikes me that attacking Iran might be "rational" if it means the difference between the GOP winning or losing Congress. Gary Hart lays out what seems to me like a plausible scenario for pre-election military action.
Unfortunately, my friend and I agree that if the GOP retains control of Congress, all bets are off and everything up to and including a ground invasion will be on the table.
--David Kurtz
On the American Gulag, by Soviet history scholar Kate Brown:
Whether or not one agrees that American detention centers and secret prisons are the “Gulag of our time,” the comparison deserves serious consideration. It might help us shine a torch into the dark corners of repression, where the totalitarian qualities of our own society lurk, before the scale of violence ascends to Gulag dimensions.
See the complete interview with Brown at Harper's.
--David Kurtz
Thanks to crooksandliars.com, you don't have to watch Fox News Sunday to see the Wild Bill smackdown.
Update: You really ought to go watch this clip. Clinton is simply the most gifted politician of our times. I have my issues with Clinton, but I sometimes forget not just what a tremendously effective communicator he is but how much he just plain gets it. He understands politics at a level no one else does. He intuitively knows the subtext to questions and so not only answers the expressed question but in a very analytical way picks apart the subtext and answers the implied question, too. If you're a little younger and missed most of the Clinton years, it's something to watch.
--David Kurtz
The government of George Bush, which will leak the name of a CIA operative named Valerie Plame when it suits its purposes, now wants Fainaru-Wada and Williams in jail because they won't reveal the names of the person or persons the government says leaked them grand jury testimony. It is always worth pointing out that if you ran the country the way Bush and his people do, you wouldn't want to encourage whistleblowers, either.Once George Bush told baseball to get rid of steroids in a State of the Union address. Fainaru-Wada and Williams, through their reporting and later their book "Game of Shadows," did their part. They took the President at his word, obviously unaware that this President will say anything in a State of the Union, about weapons of mass destruction or anything else.
. . .
So now the reporters are the bad guys, not the ballplayers who used drugs and then, most likely, lied about that in front of the grand jury. Get the reporters, not them. It's a variation of starting a war against somebody who didn't blow up two of your buildings and kill 3000 of your people.
Pretty sad when some of the hardest hitting political commentary is found on the sports page.
--David Kurtz
As was noted yesterday, we're engaged in this utterly surreal dance where the morally blind are leading the ignorant. We still don't know what has been done in our names. Were it up to them, we would never know. But trust us, they say, we did what we had to protect you. We won't tell you what. And, oh, by the way, please pardon us for our misdeeds, if any.
So many layers to the torture debate, but for me this is the icing. In an op-ed piece, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman writes:
Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.
The President would have us believe that he would do anything, bear any burden, to protect this country, even strap on the flight suit himself and land on an aircraft carrier. But in a day and age when the Commander in Chief is not required to literally stand in harm's way, the only burden he must actually bear is to uphold the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed.
It is a significant burden--not the burden of a soldier in Anbar, to be sure--yet a real burden nonetheless. But much as he did in the National Guard as a callow young man, the President, having failed in his duty, is trying to wriggle out of any accountability for his failure.
We will prosecute the lowly reservist at Abu Ghraib, who when outmanned and under regular mortar attack, snaps and commits depravities that are strikingly similar to the "interrogation techniques" authorized by the President. But for the President and his entourage, we offer the equivalent of a tax break for the rich, a pardon for all their sins.
The sinner, in most Christian tradition, must first acknowledge his sins before he may atone for them. This President, I expect, will never regain the moral high ground, if he ever held it. And if he insists on and is given a pardon for himself, then this country will miss its best opportunity for a complete accounting of what we did and to whom. The longer we put off that accounting, the longer it will take to regain the moral high ground.
--David Kurtz
I was all ready to have some fun with David Broder when he had to take stock of the torture cave-in by the senators he was so wildly lionizing last week. But before I do that, take a look at his Sunday column. It's like he's lost his mind. He's become almost messianic in his adulation of this 'independence movement' that as far as I can tell doesn't even exist.
I know that sounds like trash talk, insult over analysis. But seriously, read the column and tell me whether you think I'm so far off the mark.
But back to the torture question. Last week the confrontation over torture and kangaroo courts was the critical turning point in the battle between the lawless Bush presidency and the 'independents', a moment with a truly "epic dimension".
By now I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus not only on both sides of the aisle but both among policy experts and political analysts that the three senators caved. Perhaps not abjectly, though I would argue they did. But President Bush got what he needed on this epic question of "both constitutional and international law."
With all that gushing I was more than a little eager to see what Broder made of the come-down.
But he seems to have decided that brevity is the soul of wisdom. Or rather, sub-brevity.
He doesn't mention it at all. The word 'torture', the whole topic, go wholly unmentioned in the Dean's second paean to independence. Epic last week, old hat this week.
How can we think that there's anything more here than a long twilight struggle to make politics safe for those willing to stand up for and cater to insiderism?
Sound and fury, David.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader SS writes in to tell me he's skeptical about reports of OBL's death.
Yeah, me too.
To put a slightly different spin on the jargon of the rule of law debate we're having in this country: show me the body.
You do remember how OBL had kidney disease, right? And how he had kidney failure? And at one point he even died of kidney failure before he got better and turned out not to have any kidney disease at all.
Given how many interested parties have stuff to gain by stoking these tales, like I said: show me the body.
Have your own thoughts? We're discussing it over in this thread at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
