I know you won't be surprised that the White House has managed to politicize yet another function of government. Still, this is important stuff. Over at TPMCafe, Steve Clemons gives the rundown on the White House's alleged involvement in trying to silence Flynt Leverett, the former government official and scholar who is a prominent critic of Bush foreign policy. The White House claims that Leverett's draft op-ed for the NYT contains classified information, a finding at odds with the CIA's own Publication Review Board. The CIA has bowed to the White House pressure, according to Leverett. All the details here.
--David Kurtz
Late Friday, the Department of Justice announced that the President had used a recess appointment to name a 34-year-old former White House aide to Karl Rove as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Apparently J. Timothy Griffin made his mark as a Republican campaign operative as opposed to, say, as a lawyer. He replaces current USA Bud Cummins.
The move has provoked the ire of Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark):
Normally, the White House requests names of potential replacements for U. S. attorneys and other positions from the state’s senators or congressmen, and then chooses a nominee from among those names. The nominee then must undergo a background check and Senate confirmation — which could be tough for Griffin in the new Democrat-controlled body. Griffin, a longtime behind-the-scenes Republican operative and political strategist, has worked for the Republican National Committee.. . .
[Pryor spokesman Michael] Teague noted that an interim appointment could keep Griffin at the helm of the top prosecutor’s post in the state’s Eastern District for the two years remaining in Bush’s term.
“This process circumvents a way to find out about his legal background,” Teague said. “We know about his political background, which is unbalanced. If he’s just interim for the next two years, every decision he makes during that time is going to be somewhat suspect.”
The state’s only Republican congressman, John Boozman, said last month that he hadn’t been asked to submit names to replace Cummins.
Go read the whole article. It's textbook patronage politics. I hope we're not about to see a flood of recess appointments to get the White House through the rest of the President's term with minimal advice and consent from the Democratic Senate.
Late Update: As an emailer noted, a recess appointment now may not be effective for the remainder of Bush's term. More here.
--David Kurtz
You may recall some of the dandy investigative reporting on Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) turned in by Pittsburgh's KDKA-TV during the midterm election campaign. At issue was whether Murphy was illegally using his congressional staff for campaign purposes. Now it looks like the feds are investigating. KDKA has the latest.
--David Kurtz
Evan Bayh is out, but John Edwards is in. Edwards will use New Orleans' Ninth Ward as the backdrop for announcing his candidacy for President later this month.
--David Kurtz
At its website, ABC News is flagging as "breaking news" the President's likely support for deploying more than 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. While the size of the expected deployment varies, I'm not sure what makes that breaking news. But we'll let you know if ABC has further details.
Late update: Here's the full ABC report.
--David Kurtz
Newt Gingrich tries to outdo Pat Buchanan as the GOP's most xenophobic blowhard.
--David Kurtz
Not everyone at Southern Methodist University is happy at the prospect of hosting the George W. Bush presidential library. Administrators, faculty and staff of SMU's School of Theology, interestingly enough, are apparently leading the opposition to the $500 million project.
--David Kurtz
The Nation has a piece out by Michael Tisserand, questioning whether the Democrats will make Hurricane Katrina recovery and the rebuilding of New Orleans a priority:
For New Orleans, the most dangerous outcome of the midterms would be if voters receive the message that Katrina was a terrible thing, a Republican blunder, but it's now over. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mental health infrastructure in New Orleans remains shattered, depression is a local epidemic and the suicide rate has officially tripled. Incredibly, some residents of public housing are still unable to enter their own homes, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development moves to demolish more than 5,000 public housing units. Unchecked insurance costs are preventing others from selling, buying or repairing property. Federal dollars are flowing to corporate bailouts and disaster profiteers, not to affected citizens, revealed an August analysis by CorpWatch, a San Francisco-based organization that previously investigated profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan.. . .
More than anything, Democrats must set themselves apart by keeping their promises to Katrina survivors. At an August press conference in New Orleans, party leaders pledged that the first 100 hours of the new Congress would include bills to assist New Orleans by streamlining insurance, creating more affordable housing options and restoring the coast. But Pelosi's recently released "New Direction for America" didn't include one mention of post-Katrina needs. Such omissions offer cold comfort to New Orleanians who wonder if some leaders have stopped thinking of their home as an American city at all.
Michael, an old friend and colleague of mine, was the editor of Gambit Weekly, the alternative paper in New Orleans, until Katrina struck and the levees failed, forcing him and his family to relocate to Chicago.
--David Kurtz
Well, here we go. Reports this week, including from today's New York Times, indicate that the President will escalate U.S. involvement in Iraq by deploying additional troops. CBS News last evening reported that plans already call for a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division to deploy to Kuwait after the holidays. Incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to approve the move after being sworn in Monday.
I get the sense that everyone in the country except the President and Vice President is caught back on their heels at the moment. Here are just a few of the misconceptions that seem to be floating around since the election:
Myth: The results of the election will force the President to reevalute his Iraq strategy.
Reality: The election defeat has forced the White House to go through the motions of reevaluating its Iraq policy; hence, the President's listening tour. Politically, he had no choice but to make a lavish effort to look responsive to the election results. Substantively, however, everything about this Administration suggests it will do what it wants to do regardless. The last few weeks reinforce that impression. If the White House can blow off the bipartisan elder statesmen of the Iraq Study Group, it can certainly ignore Democrats, the press, and the people.
Myth: Following the reevaluation of its Iraq policy, the White House will announce its proposed New Way Forward, whereupon there will be a vigorous national debate.
Reality: The White House is not going to wait for the Democratic Congress or for an extended national debate before it proceeds. There are some indications that the reason for delaying the President's announcement of "The New Way Forward" is so that he can announce a fait accompli. (Andy Card, who famously noted about the 2002 run-up to the Iraq invasion that you don't roll out a marketing campaign in August, might also say the same thing about launching one during the Christmas holidays.) I wouldn't be surprised to see new deployment orders already issued by the time Democrats officially take over Congress in the first week of January, the President's way of grabbing his crotch and saying, Debate this.
Myth: Rumsfeld's exit and Gates' entrance signal a new direction from the White House.
Reality: The relief and excitement that greeted Gates' nomination seemed all out of proportion then and even more so now. Gates caught official Washington, and many Democrats, on the rebound. If Rumsfeld was the bad boyfriend, then Gates swept everyone off their feet simply by being soft-spoken and listening. So instead of using the hearings on the Gates' nomination as the starting point for a debate on Iraq policy, it became a bipartisan lovefest. The myth that the ISG report would somehow save the day has already been exploded. The adults are not in charge; Cheney still is. I would expect that Cheney and Rumsfield conspired in the last few weeks of Rumsfeld's tenure to start the ball rolling on the New Way Forward with the intention of constraining Gates' options.
Myth: The prospect of Democratic oversight will sober up the Administration and force it to rein itself in.
Reality: The White House is going to try to outflank Congress with speed and agility. Troop deployments are a perfect example. Deploy the troops, then ask Congress for the funding. Are Democrats going to support the troops already there, or pull the rug out from under them?
Myth: Congessional hearings will build public support for withdrawal from Iraq.
Reality: It is difficult to imagine public sentiment against the war being any higher than it is right now. In this week's NBC/WSJ poll, 71 percent of respondents disapproved of the President's handling of Iraq. As soon as congressional hearings begin, the President is likely to get some bump in the polls because it allows him to cast the debate in familiar political terms. The President versus congressional Democrats is a much better matchup for the White House than the President versus the reality of his disastrous policies. Congressional hearings are also messy, boring, and diffuse--an important part of good governance, but not especially effective at rallying public support one way or another, at least in the short-term.
So while quite a few Americans and an abundance of commentators heralded the midterm elections and the ISG report as the beginning of the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq, I am afraid Americans will shake off their New Year's hangovers and discover a new and deeper American commitment in Iraq, one which won't easily be reversed for the remainder of the Bush presidency.
--David Kurtz
The AP has undertaken tracking down former detainees from Guantanamo to determine what happened to them after their releases to foreign countries:
The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."
And then set free.
Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.
Of the 245 former detainees the AP was able to locate, 205 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo.
Of those who were never charged with a crime or were acquitted, how many were subjected to the President's "aggressive interrogation techniques"? That is, how many innocent detainees were tortured? (Not that torture would be justified for "guilty" detainees, but the psychological scarring of being tortured must be worse for those who are innocent in the first place.)
Late Update: This news comes as the military tightens the restrictions on those still detained at Guantanamo, according to the New York Times.
--David Kurtz
Since September, the Bush administration has refused to tell Congress the numbers of enemy attacks in Iraq.
--Justin Rood
USNews is ramping up on the pre-cog beat too. They just put this story listing all the Democratic senators, with ages, who come from states with Republican governors. Next up, cross-referencing with levels of good and bad cholesterol.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, prognosticators. We just opened this question up at TPMCafe. How many US troops will be on the ground in Iraq on New Year's Day 2008 and how many on New Year's Day 2009?
--Josh Marshall
If you haven't seen it yet check out the Strobel & Landay piece from McClatchy (formerly of Knight-Ridder). They've got a run-down on what we can expect from the president's 'new way forward' and going from past experience I'd figured their sources are better than anyone else's.
In very broad outlines, it's been what we've led to expect: troop surge, rejection of Baker-Hamilton proposals. But there are some nuggets in here that add to the picture -- and in ways that would be humorous if there weren't so much on the line.
Here for example ...
-A revised Iraq political strategy aimed at forging a "moderate center" of Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish politicians that would bolster embattled Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. The goal would be to marginalize radical Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents.
It's hard to disagree with this. But it's also hard to call it a strategy. Sort of like my new strategy which is to get the folks there to chill out about religion and stop blowing so much stuff up. If wishes were horses ...
Then there's this ...
More money to combat rampant unemployment among Iraqi youths and to advance reconstruction, much of it funneled to groups, areas and leaders who support Maliki and oppose the radicals.
In theory, more money for employment and reconstruction is probably a very good idea, certainly in the context of a phased withdrawal of US troops and broader political settlement. But do you trust these doofuses to spend this money? And, to be clear, I mean our doofuses in this case. I guess a ton of money will probably go to Haliburton's recently acquired Maliki Moderate Inc. Who knows.
And this ...
-Rejection of the study group's call for an urgent, broad new diplomatic initiative in the Middle East to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reach out to Iran and Syria.Instead, the administration is considering convening a conference of Iraq and neighboring countries - excluding Iran and Syria - as part of an effort to pressure the two countries to stop interfering in Iraq.
Okay, so it'll be us, "Iraq", Jordan and the Saudis holding a conference to get the Syrians and Iranians to stop messing around in Iraq. Why didn't we think of this before?
Here are some other really promising signs ...
Bush appears to have been emboldened by criticism of its proposals as defeatist by members of the Republican Party's conservative wing and their allies on the Internet, the radio and cable TV.
That's excellent. Our C-in-C is sharp enough to get his jones from The Corner rather than the ex-diplomats and foreign policy hands. That's good stuff. Maybe we can swap out John Podhoretz for Chalabi for our approach to Syria.
And of course there's this ...
According to a senior State Department official, the president is listening closely to a former Republican secretary of state, but it isn't Baker. Henry Kissinger, a frequent White House visitor, has been to see Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a half-dozen times, he said.
If you had to pull anybody out of formaldehyde to deal empower the denialists, who would be better?
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, the robocalls hit Baghdad. If they didn't work in the US, maybe they'll work in Iraq. Nothing else has.
--Josh Marshall
You know it's never too early to start framing.
So many of the '08 presidential hopefuls have already hired advertising gurus. Over at Election Central, they've got the roster.
--Paul Kiel
The Post says senate Republicans are going to push for what amounts to a special Johnson mortality clause in the resolution to organize the senate.
Late Update: Jonathan Singer has more here at MyDD.
--Josh Marshall
News Flash: New York Sun opens its ed pages to 3rd graders. That and they finally expose Drudge as the cat's paw of the dying liberal media. I was hoping someone would do that.
--Josh Marshall
Senior officials offer a sneak preview of Bush's New Way Forward in Iraq. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Give this a close read. It's from the Wall Street Journal ...
The Bush administration is leaning toward temporarily sending as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, even as the Democrats taking charge of Congress demand a drawdown of forces.U.S. officials say the increase is needed to make a new push to stabilize Baghdad and to bolster efforts to train the Iraqi army. The emerging plan is facing opposition from Iraqi officials adamant that more U.S. forces aren't the answer. U.S. military commanders in Baghdad have drawn up plans for the country that don't require any new personnel. The debate over whether to send additional U.S. forces to Iraq is the most visible manifestation of the high-level tumult roiling the Bush administration as it works to find a way forward there ahead of a presidential address to the nation early next year.
Who's for this exactly? That is, beside President Bush, people who work for President Bush and John McCain? The American public seems dead set against it, at least if we're willing to go by numerous national polls and a recent national election. The top brass in the US military seems, at best, highly skeptical -- because it's a textbook example of reckless hope over experience. To the extent there still is such a thing, most of the US foreign policy establishment is against it. Who's on this bandwagon beside the president and the pundits?
--Josh Marshall
I'd be curious to hear your feedback on this. The latest news on Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) seems to be positive and hold some real grounds for optimism. He's obviously had a major, potentially life-threatening event. But, hopefully, he's going to get through 
it. As most of you probably know, Johnson was in the midst of a reporters' conference call when he began to show the first signs of impairment which soon sent him to the hospital with what then appeared to be a stroke. In the nature of things, that conference call was being recorded.
Does it strike you as a little tasteless and gratuitous that a host of news outlets are broadcasting the recording? So you can hear how Johnson began to stumble through his words and lose his ability to concentrate as the bleeding in his brain reached a critical point?
A reader mentioned this to me this evening and told me he thought it was ghoulish. And I take it it's being played on various chat shows and on the radio. Where I noticed it though was on the front page of the Washington Post either last night or early today. On the front page package, there's a link that reads "AUDIO: Johnson Interview on Wednesday." And if you click through, you're taken to an audio file where you can hear the stuttering interview.
(I hadn't listened to it or wanted to listen to it. But before writing this post, I clicked through and listened to the first few seconds just to make sure it was what I thought it was.)
I don't want to be a mortality prude. These things hold a certain fascination.
But Johnson's not dead. He's in the hospital fighting for his life. This isn't like video of an assassination where the events recorded are an essential part of what happened. It's just live audio of a guy having a stroke, or what appeared to be one. I would have expected it to show up bootlegged on some no-holds-barred website. But there it is in the Post.
--Josh Marshall
Help us puzzle this one out:
In the name of fighting identity theft, hundreds of Homeland Security agents rounded up 1,300 people in raids Tuesday, nearly all illegal immigrants. Only a few dozen of those arrested had any tie to identity thefts, it turned out. Too bad: nearly all of them will be deported for standard immigration violations.
The deported workers will be forced to leave behind an uncounted number of children, including infants. This practice isn't new, but the scale of the raids -- the largest such operation in U.S. history -- makes the number of forcibly abandoned children likely to be unusually high.
DHS arrested workers who came from stable, working-class neighborhoods. Their kids were enrolled in schools. The communities are reported to be ripped apart by the raids; in some, the local authorities refused to help the feds. In some cases state authorities intervened to demand DHS behave better.
What's the monetary cost of mounting the biggest raid on immigrants in U.S. history? What's going to be the cost to the communities affected? What is the cost that will be borne by state and local governments?
And most importantly, who is served by raids that by any measure failed to achieve their stated goal, and at such great expense?
--Justin Rood
The office of Senator Tim Johnson has released the following at approximately 5pm ET:
Admiral John Eisold, Attending Physician of the United States Capitol said, "Senator Tim Johnson has continued to have an uncomplicated post-operative course. Specifically, he has been appropriately responsive to both word and touch. No further surgical intervention has been required."
--Josh Marshall
Fox News tosses Gingrich a bone, gives him his own America and God news special.
--Josh Marshall
The administration claims its "Operation Wagon Train" targeted "hundreds" of aliens using stolen identity papers belonging to U.S. citizens. But Tuesday's raids only netted a handful of arrests on identity crimes. So why the misleading rhetoric?
--Paul Kiel
Who's the best friend of Jack Abramoff you've never heard of?
Hint: Senator, Republican....
--Paul Kiel
Tony Snow responds to new reports that Ahmed Chalabi is working the Syria front for the White House. Sorta responds ...
--Josh Marshall
There was pretty good evidence Michael Crichton had become a worthless jerk when he got together with President Bush to exchange notes on their joint theory that global warming is a sham perpetrated by various eggheads, homos, longhairs, treehuggers, liberals and assorted freaks. This new development pretty much seals the verdict.
Update: If you don't subscribe to The New Republic, you can read the relevant passages here.
--Josh Marshall
On Tuesday, DHS executed the largest federal immigration raid in U.S. history.
Over at TPMmuckraker, Justin Rood has doggedly been trying to track down what happened. And cracks are showing in the government's official version of events.
But like he said yesterday, we need your help on this. Are you in any of the six states where the raids occurred? If you see anything in the local press -- especially pictures from the raids -- let us know.
--Paul Kiel
Someone's finally posted the video of Jeff Greenfield's riff on Barack Obama and the President of Iran.
As long as we're on the subject, I know David Kurtz responded to Greenfield's rejoinder here yesterday at TPM. Let me just add my own bit here too. Greenfield says it was a joke. No kidding. Of course, it was a joke. I know that. It was a just a very odd one -- picking up on an association I really don't think had occurred to anyone else, and which builds with an odd eagerness on the already iffy focus on finding which of Obama's names sounds like which terrorist mass-murderer. I'll stand with my initial remarks. Hand me the inkblots.
--Josh Marshall
Good News: White House exploring rapprochement with Syria.
Bad News: Our point man is Ahmed Chalabi.
--Josh Marshall
Statement just out from Sen. Johnson's office ...
Admiral John Eisold, Attending Physician of the United States Capitol said, “Subsequent to his admission to George Washington University Hospital yesterday, Senator Tim Johnson was found to have had an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation. He underwent successful surgery to evacuate the blood and stabilize the malformation. The Senator is recovering without complication in the critical care unit at George Washington University Hospital. It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long term prognosis.”
--Josh Marshall
Uncovered: a classified report detailing concerns over the treatment of terror detainees at a South Carolina Navy brig. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Late News from the Post: Johnson underwent surgery. It's unclear from the reports I've seen whether he is still in surgery or whether it's concluded. It's seems that the surgery had not concluded by the time the Post piece was published.
Late Update: At 12:39, CNN reports surgery is on-going.
Later Update: The Times reports that Johnson is "expected to be in the operating room until the early morning hours."
--Josh Marshall
The Post has an article on the president's and vice president's meeting Wednesday with the Joint Chiefs. It's a long article but this is what jumped out at me: "The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation."
So the military brass does not favor 'double down', as it's come to be known in the wingosphere. They also appear to be signaling that they do not believe there is a military solution to the crisis.
It does appear you've got a basic division in the country: the public and the military brass on one side and President Bush and the DC war pundits on the other.
--Josh Marshall
Another update on Sen. Tim Johnson's condition. Earlier we passed on the statement from the senator's office that tests showed he had not had a stroke or a heart attack.
However, CBS now has a report out which repeats that statement and then follows with this: "Sources close to the situation tell CBS News the situation is definitely not good."
I'm way out of my depth here in terms of what other conditions could be in play if it's true that a stroke has been ruled out. But the additional line from CBS is both troublingly ambiguous and ominous.
From what I can tell CBS is the only news outlet reporting something like this in the background. There's no point in my speculating. I'll just pass it on. We'll try to bring you more as we hear it.
Late Update: This report from NBC notes the conflicting accounts of what is happening.
--Josh Marshall
Annals of CNN headline writing ...
I had the impression they were pretty corrupt already. Ba dump bum.
(ed.note: Note of thanks to TPM Reader SP.)
--Josh Marshall
Not being a doctor, I don't know whether this is good news or bad. But a spokesperson for Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) now says that tests have shown that the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack.
Certainly sounds like good news.
--Josh Marshall
Karl Rove to retire from politics after he leaves the Bush White House?
That lucrative lecture circuit beckons...
--Greg Sargent
Federal agents yesterday unleashed "Operation Wagon Train," a massive six-state operation to round up illegal immigrants at meatpacking plants. It netted nearly 1,300 arrests. Over at TPMmuckraker, we've been trying to track the fallout. You can read our coverage here.
But we need your help to learn more.
Despite reports that legal residents were arrested and are being held incommunicado, DHS insists no such thing has happened. Parents are being held or deported while their kids live at school or with loved ones. The raids took place in six far-flung communities -- places like Cactus, Texas, and Marshalltown, Iowa -- where we can't get to easily.
Do you live nearby? What are your local news outlets reporting? What are you hearing? Drop us a line, send us a link, let us know.
--Justin Rood
McCain set to announce team of big-bucks fundraisers poached from Rudy's turf.
--Greg Sargent
An update on Sen. Johnson's (D-SD) condition form the Argus-Leader, the major South Dakota paper.
Here's WaPo's update.
A number of you have written in to note, correctly, that control of the senate hinges on Sen. Johnson's ability to serve in the 110th Congress. Were he unable to do so, South Dakota's Republican governor would appoint a Republican and control would go to the Republicans -- a 50 - 50 tie with the tie break from Cheney. That's all we're going to say about that point until we get some definitive word on Johnson's condition.
If we hear more on the senator's condition, we'll bring it to you.
Late Update: The only available information that sheds any light on Johnson's condition is contained in these three grafs from MSNBC ...
Johnson became disoriented during a call with reporters at midday, stuttering in response to a question. He appeared to recover, asking if there were any additional questions before ending the call.Johnson spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said he had walked back to his Capitol office after the call with reporters but appeared to not be feeling well. The Capitol physician was called and Johnson was taken by ambulance to the George Washington Univeristy Hospital in D.C. for evaluation.
A statement released by Johnson's office said, "Senator Tim Johnson was taken to George Washington University Hospital this afternoon suffering from a possible stroke. As this stage, he is undergoing a comprehensive evaluation by the stroke team. Further details will be forthcoming when more is known."
Later Update: Roll Call reports that Johnson was conscious when he was taken to the hospital.
--Josh Marshall
It's being reported now on the cable networks that Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) has had a stroke this afternoon on Capitol Hill.
We heard the first reports of this 15 or 20 minutes ago through the capitol hill grapevine. No information about the severity of the stroke or his current condition. That's all we know.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush, just now at the Pentagon (emphasis added): "I thank these men who wear our uniform for a very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and how to win a war that we now find ourselves in."
--Josh Marshall
More troops to Iraq? The idea is gaining favor, reports the Los Angeles Times:
As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.
But as TPM Reader AH remarks, "double down" is the wrong phrase:
Since the Pentagon has decided to discuss its new strategy in gambling parlance, it should at least use the proper terminology. Today's LA Times article says that a Pentagon official has referred to the option of sending more troops in to Iraq as a "double down" strategy. The reference is to a bet in blackjack when, based on the cards that have been dealt, the player seeks to maximize a payoff that is more likely to occur in that hand, given the probabilities. The double down is a calculated bet, made from a position of strength when the odds are favorable to the bettor.In Iraq, we are certainly not in a situation where the odds are favorable to winning. Our bet is not a double down. Let's call it what it is: double or nothing. This is is more like the gambler who has been on a bad losing streak deciding to empty the savings account and put all of his chips on red, hoping that the roulette wheel will spin his way and bring him back close to even. Double or nothing is a desperation play. It is an ill-advised way to gamble, with chips or human lives, and such a strategy inevitably leads to another appropriate gambling term. Gambler's ruin: winding up completely broke.
--David Kurtz
The New York Times today gives us what I think is the first good read of what Vice President Cheney's trip to Saudi Arabia two weeks ago was all about: King Abdullah told Cheney that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, the Kingdom might have to give financial backing to Iraq's Sunni minority in the civil war against the Shiite majority. But I think CNN captures the flavor of the exchange, quoting a senior U.S. official as saying that the King "read the riot act" to Cheney. That sounds about right.
--David Kurtz
Democrats' decision to forgo earmarks this year is making for strange bedfellows:
Surprisingly, some Republican conservatives agree with the do-nothing approach, because Democrats have decided to rule out any 'earmarks,' otherwise known as 'pork' for local areas and special interests, while the continuing resolution is in effect.These earmarks became a huge political issue in the midterm elections as Democrats pointed to expensive GOP-sponsored projects, such as a 'bridge to nowhere' in a remote area of Alaska, as a sign that pork had gotten out of control.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), one of the Senate's most conservative members, said in a statement that 'my hat is off to Reid and the Democrats for making this decision. By agreeing to do a yearlong spending resolution for 2007, we will effectively take a time-out on pork-barrel spending.'
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force, said that 'it is somewhat refreshing' that Democratic leaders have adopted a strategy that for weeks has been favored by conservative Republicans.
--David Kurtz
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to roll out his proposal for universal health care today.
--David Kurtz
FEC slaps Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $300,000 fine and knocks around some liberal 527 groups, too, all for activities from the 2004 election cycle.
--David Kurtz
CNN's resident funny man, Jeff Greenfield, protests that he was just making a joke when he compared Barack Obama's jacket-but-no-tie attire to the fashion choices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
"Talking Point Memo," the home of Joshua Micah Marshall, pronounced the observation "weird." "The Daily Howler" saw it as party of the same media instinct that ridiculed Al Gore for his "earth tones" clothing choices back in 2000. The Columbia Journalism Review Web site weighed in with "character assassination." (It acknowledged that the effort might have been a weak attempt at humor).Is some of this my fault? It has to be, for the same reason famed Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach liked to say that when someone misses a pass, 90 per cent of the time it's the fault of the passer.
I figured there was no way on planet Earth that anyone could possibly take such a presentation at face value. I was wrong.
Most of what happened here, I think, is a demonstration of the hair-trigger instincts that have grown up among some of the bloggers (not to mention the need to fill all that space every day, or hour, or 15 minutes).
Sigh. Of course, it was a joke. Just a weird joke, poorly executed. Watch the clip (the link is on the left in the middle of the page) and decide for yourself. Then check out this second CNN clip, about Obama's name.
So is the joke on the media? Or on Obama?
(By the way, it's cable news that has space to fill, 24-7. We can write as much--or as little--as we want.)
--David Kurtz
Just about everyone is holding their collective breath to see how serious Democrats are about earmark reform. So when Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the man who put the pork in "pork barrel," announces he's going to forgo this year's earmarks for his beloved West Virginia, that's a huge symbolic gesture.
--David Kurtz
Huge immigration raid at Swift meatpacking plants in six states Tuesday. The union for the plant workers tells TPMmuckraker that legal immigrants were caught up in the sweep.
--David Kurtz
House Dems wonder if Congress can enforce its own ethics rules. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
So, Democrat Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) upsets Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) to settle up the last outstanding race of the 2006 midterms. Rahm Emanuel has a statement out tonight saying, "Voters sent a message in November and they sent another one tonight, that change is coming to Washington." Absolutely. But there's another wrinkle to this story. We pick up the story from Chris Cillizza in the Post ...
Rodriguez's victory is doubly sweet for national Democrats, since they not only pick up another seat but also scored another direct hit on the legacy of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). DeLay engineered the congressional re-redistricting in 2003 that led to a six-seat Republican gain in Texas in 2004. But those gains came at a price. Portions of the 2003 map, including the removal of 100,000 Hispanic voters from the 23rd District, were ruled in violation of the Voting Rights Act by the U.S. Supreme Court last June. The resulting changes in the district's boundaries reinstituted a strong Hispanic presence in the 23rd and led to Bonilla's loss.
Karma.
--Josh Marshall
Remember that story from way, way back when about that lobbying money funnelled from Guam to Jack Abramoff through a cut-out in California, an attorney named Howard HIlls? 36 separate checks for $9,000 each to slip under the $10,000 reporting limit? The Superior Court of Guam just handed down indictments against Hills and his contact on the Guam side, Tony Sanchez -- "unlawful influence, conspiracy for unlawful influence, theft of property held in trust and official misconduct."
--Josh Marshall
The Associated Press has called the TX-23 runoff for Democrat Ciro Rodriguez against incumbent GOP Rep. Henry Bonilla, giving Dems their 30th House pickup of the 2006 cycle.
--Eric Kleefeld
With 55% of the vote in, Ciro Rodriguez (D) leads Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) in the TX-23 runoff 57%-43%. More important, Rodriguez leads 58%-41% in the most populous county in the district, Bexar (pronounced "Bear").
There's still some room for caution, though. In 2002, in a differently-drawn but still very similar district, Dem nominee Henry Cuellar was leading Bonilla until the very last results came in the next day, from overwhelmingly Republican pockets, giving Bonilla a 51%-47% win. So far, though, it's looking very good.
Late Update: With 67% of results in, Rodriguez's 57%-43% lead is holding.
Late Update: The AP has called it for Rodriguez, giving the Dems their 30th House pickup of the cycle.
--Eric Kleefeld
This would almost be funny if the joke weren't on us. The pre-Xmas "new way forward" in Iraq has been put off until January.
--Josh Marshall
Does anybody have a good explanation for why the Saudi ambassador to the United States just resigned his post and left the country on a day's notice? Officials are giving various unconvincing explanations, the best of which is that, in the words of an unnamed embassy official, "He wants to spend more time with his family."
Perhaps we can take that as a foreigners gently parodic homage to the American tradition of political white lies.
Ordinarily, even if there were some hidden backstory, it would likely be some palace intrigue in the Saudi royal family or some arcane point in US-Saudi relations. But look at the geopolitical context. Saudi Arabia's neighbor Iraq is in some sort of slow motion civil war. The neighbor across the water, Iran, has been empowered tremendously and stands to gain even more power if their Shi'a coreligionists in Iraq take over the country and slaughter or dominate the Sunni Arab minority. And the White House is signalling that it might opt to take the side of the Shi'a in that cataclysm and, shall we say, go along for the slaughter.
That would cut at the heart of the seven decade US-Saudi alliance, though admitteldy it's taken quite a few cuts already of late. The White House has also just been presented with the Baker-Hamilton report which has, I think fairly, been characterized as a bid to return to the earlier US policy of aligning its regional interests with those of the Sunni autocracies in the region. The White House has dismissed that out of hand.
I'm no expert on the finer points of US-Saudi relations. But I don't think you need to be to see that the underpinnings of the relationship are on the table right now. And just at this moment, the ambassador resigns and gets on the next plane home. To borrow a phrase from our judicial pals, I think any excuse that this is just some personal matter deserves the strictest scrutiny. Something must be up.
And one other thing. Many readers have written in to say that there's just no way we're going to let ourselves take sides in what would likely be at least a borderline genocidal civil war between Iraq's Sunni minority and Shi'a majority. To which, I can only say, why not? Is there anything we've seen in the last six years that makes you think we wouldn't pull the trigger on a ridiculously foolish new plan? I don't just mean that as trash talk. I think it's the only sensible way to approach the case at hand.
The main mistakes I've made thinking about foreign policy over the last half decade were, I think, all cases where there were certain outcomes I just didn't find credible because they were just too stupid and dangerous for anybody in a position of power to try. Good luck on that.
Another point, and one I'm not sure is widely appreciated. The folks who brought you the Iraq War have always been weak in the knees for a really whacked-out vision of a Shi'a-US alliance in the Middle East. I used to talk to a lot of these folks before I became persona non grata. So here's basically how the theory went and, I don't doubt, still goes ... We hate the Saudis and the Egyptians and all the rest of the standing Arab governments. But the Iraqi Shi'a were oppressed by Saddam. So they'll like us. So we'll set them up in control of Iraq. You might think that would empower the Iranians. But not really. The mullahs aren't very powerful. And once the Iraqi Shi'a have a good thing going with us. The Iranians are going to want to get in on that too. So you'll see a new government in Tehran. Plus, big parts of northern Saudi Arabia are Shi'a too. And that's where a lot of the oil is. So they'll probably want to break off and set up their own pro-US Shi'a state with tons of oil. So before you know it, we'll have Iraq, Iran, and a big chunk of Saudi Arabia that is friendly to the US and has a ton of oil. And once that happens we can tell the Saudis to f$#% themselves once and for all.
Now, you might think this involves a fair amount of wishful and delusional thinking. But this was the thinking of a lot of neocons going into the war. And I don't doubt it's still the thinking of quite a few of them. They still want to run the table. And even more now that it's double-down. I don't know what these guys are planning now. But there's plenty of reason to be worried.
--Josh Marshall
Have we got your attention, Tom?
Over at the new and oddly entertaining TomDelay.com blog, Tom has a post about the Q&A he did for right wing bloggers today over at the Heritage Foundation. Here's the pic they posted. But look down there at the blogger in the lower right hand corner. What site is that blogger reading?
By the way, apparently the insider word he gave the winger bloggers is that that Hillary's gonna be the next president.
--Josh Marshall
CNN shows split screens of Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Who knows -- maybe GOP Rep. Saxby Chambliss' ad man (creator of the spot showing pictures of Dem Max Cleland next to Bin Laden and Hussein) is working for the network now?
--Greg Sargent
Very good point!
From TPM Reader JM (good initials) ...
Just to put things in perspective... with public approval solidly in the 20s, the war in Iraq is now less popular than a bevy of social issues that have long been considered political poison for Democrats. Imagine if a Democratic president and Congress had made any of these issues their #1 priority, as Bush has with Iraq.And they wonder why they lost the election?
The Iraq War is less popular than gay marriage, legalizing pot, banning handguns, and rescinding the death penalty.
--Josh Marshall
Paul Kiel's got more here at TPMmuckraker on one Postie's dismissive response to questions about the paper's hiring of the AP's John Solomon. What we're supposed to believe is that the gripes about Solomon are simply a matter of his stepping on toes with his sleuthing. Please. As a pal of mine puts it ...
Someone posed the question to Peter Baker in a Post chat session--of Solomon's partisan hackitude--and Baker arrogantly brushed him off, suggesting that anyone who criticized Solomon was a rank partisan. That's simply not true, of course, since a bunch of media critics including Howie Kurtz have given serious consideration to the question in a non-partisan way. It also avoids the whole debate at the AP between legit non-hack reporters there, who thought Solomon was a hack, and the contingent that liked him.
If you want to know more about his MO, check out this post from earlier this year and the reference back to that piece in the Atlantic Monthly about reporters who are easy marks for second rate oppo research dumps.
And as long as we're on the subject, where's Jack Shafer on this? Perfect story for him. And even a good chance to get in the face of the new corporate overlord.
--Josh Marshall
Gay Rights bashing of Romney continues -- now at the American Spectator.
--Josh Marshall
One more point about the looming inter-sectarian charnel house in Iraq. There's a very bleak irony here that's worth noting. Because of the unipolar world we now live in, when anarchy and genocide break out in the world, only the US is really in a position to halt it. I don't mean alone. But rather with other countries acting in concert and probably with some NATO or UN mandate. That was the lesson of the Balkans in the 1990s. Only the US has the mix of military, diplomatic and financial muscle to make it happen. Or did.
I don't pretend it would be easy in the middle of Iraq. It might not even be possible. But we're simply not available because as the authors of the catastrophe we simply have no standing or credibility to bring it to a halt. Or even to lead others in doing so. Add to that the fact that the last four years of twiddling our thumbs has sharply depleted our military capacity, diplomatic influence and financial flexibility.
It's worth stepping back for a moment and realizing that if we weren't the ones who had started this a lot of us would be calling for the US to intervene to prevent what looks to be coming down the pike. But, as I said, we're not available.
It's an irony I suspect some folks will be mulling in hell, or at least in limbo, for quite a long time.
--Josh Marshall
In this edition of Tom DeLay Explains It All....
How the media, Democrats, and the American people are really the ones to blame for the debacle in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
I'm rich as hell, people say I'm corrupt, and my staff get me great tickets to Rolling Stones concerts. Who am I?
--Justin Rood
What will Pelosi do about Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)? Why hasn't he been indicted yet? Get all of your answers here.
--Paul Kiel
Roll Call's John Bresnahan bails for Vandehei/Harris Capitol Leader pub. That's a big deal in terms of coverage of Capitol Hill.
--Josh Marshall
Dems rein in the pork -- for now. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Hadn't heard this one. Is Sec Def Bob Gates considering firing Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace? The Post says that's the rumor at the Pentagon.
--Josh Marshall
Let me add a bit about this weird, really weird, Greenfield riff on Barack Obama.
Eric Kleefeld noticed a couple weeks ago that your cheesier run of GOP chat-hound was starting to make a big deal out of the fact that Barack Obama's middle name is "Hussein". Pretty lame. But given what's been going on in this country for the last few years and the GOP's track record I really can't say it surprises me.
But if Barack Obama goes around wearing a jacket, collared shirt and no tie, do I figure he's trying to look like a happening dude from a GQ spread (maybe, ok, check), trying to appeal to the youth vote (sure, check), looks like your average tech executive (sure), just likes to dress that way (sounds right)?
Do I think he reminds me Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Wow. I've got to say I really didn't see that coming.
I'm not saying I'm outraged exactly. It's more like curiosity. Kind of like I want to sit down with Jeff and a few Rorschach cards. Bizarre. No tie is the Ahmadinejad look?
--Josh Marshall
Jeff Greenfield this afternoon on the Barack Obama/al Qaida link ...
The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what's getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama's strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.
If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.
When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don't be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.
You can think of Bush's apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn't even set out on a beach walk without that "I wish I had spent more time at the office" look.
But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.
And maybe that's not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? -- Wolf.
Not the first connection I would have thought of. You?
--Josh Marshall
Clearly the reprogramming camps are going to have their work cut out for them.
The founding pastor of a second Colorado church has resigned over gay sex allegations, just weeks after the evangelical community was shaken by the scandal surrounding megachurch leader Ted Haggard.Haggard, a gay-marriage opponent, admitted to unspecified "sexual immorality" when he resigned last month as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A male prostitute had said he had had sex with Haggard for three years.
On Sunday, Paul Barnes, founding pastor of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel in this Denver suburb, told his evangelical congregation in a videotaped message he had had sexual relations with other men and was stepping down.
Dave Palmer, associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Denver Post that Barnes confessed to him after the church received a call last week.
--Josh Marshall
Dear Posties, please consider TPM a shoulder to cry on for all your gripes about the hiring of John Solomon. And of course all scuttlebutt sources' confidentiality will be absolutely protected.
--Josh Marshall
GOP oppo research push-over John Solomon headed from the AP to Washington Post?!?! Apparently they're going to set him up with his own investigative unit.
Presumably in addition to the one he has at the RNC.
Update: More here.
--Josh Marshall
Bush adminstration loves scientists so much it keeps one on the payroll even after he's pled guilty to criminal conflict of interest.
--Josh Marshall
Hey, Halliburton, and you other companies likely to be investigated by the new Congress, don't say we never did anything for ya.
Here's a primer to help you along.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader DW surveys the scene ...
As students of politics the next two years are going to be fascinating. Bush is never good under pressure and in the wake of the ISG Report Bush is completely floundering, and he has nothing to buoy him anymore. Bush never really stands on his own so much as he attacks others instead, but that dog won't hunt anymore.The Congressional Republicans are literally rats fleeing the sinking ship. And although this started before the election, it is now like a tidal wave. Bush's people will come out with their self-serving reports which will meet with bipartisan scorn and only make the situation worse for Bush with him desperately clinging to that nonsense while Baghdad burns.
He and Cheney are completely alone now. We are going to see approval polls in Nixon territory probably by Feb. We are looking at historic lows and how will the DC world react?
I look for the White House to be surrounded by sandbags and barbed wire by spring with Bush and Cheney holed up inside like Howard Hughes.
When have we ever seen anything like this?
It's like the proverbial car crash. I know I shouldn't stare, but I can't look away.
This sounds about right to me. Add to this the fact that Bush's reaction to the ISG report now appears to be to find an outside gaggle of whack-jobs who will attack it and let the president off the hook -- so either the neocons themselves, which is most likely, or some equivalent group of nutbars. Believe me, the ISG report isn't gospel. And it's even pretty lame on some counts. But when clinical won't accept deeply flawed, you know the meds have yet to take effect.
--Josh Marshall
As long as the White House is advertising its Iraq policy review, I want to take note of the weekend press reports that say the White House is giving active consideration to saying it's a civil war and getting behind the Shi'a against the Sunni.
This is a really good example of how you can't underestimate the Bush White House's ability to up the ante and embrace a new policy even more ridiculous than those they've tried before.
A few points.
Point one. In the 1990s, the Czechs and the Slovaks managed are remarkably amicable and peaceful divison of their country. Let's say that the Sunni and Shi'a don't appear to be pursuing that model. At the moment, we're in a process of what you might call slow-motion ethnic cleansing and mass-killing. Once it's war to the knife, I think you have to figure both escalate dramatically. There's probably a decent chance of inter-sectarian bloodshed on a Balkan scale, or perhaps one that would make what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s pale by comparison.
My recollection is that Sunni Arabs make up about 20% of the population in Iraq. If we're actively backing the Shi'a, how well do you figure they make out? How well do they fair in the areas of mixed population? And where do we fit in in that? We'll be on hand to enforce the Geneva Conventions?
Point two. If Iraq's Sunni population is set to be slaughtered or at least dominated by the Shi'a Arabs, where do they go for help? Presumably to the rest of the nearby Arab states, each of which is overwhemingly Sunni. (There are some exceptions here: I believe the majority of Lebanese Muslims are Shi'a and I think that at least one of the Gulf emirates has a Shi'a majority even though it's ruled by Sunnis.) In any case, the major point is they don't have a shortage of potential allies nearby, not the least of which is Saudi Arabia. So it's us on one side and potentially the Saudis, the Jordanians, possibly the Egyptians who see the Iranians as major rivals, maybe the Turks since they may assume a Shi'a-dominated Iraq wouldn't care as much about keeping the Kurds in the country.
Who knows.
So now we've got ourselves aligned on one side in an inter-communal bloodbath with most of our allies in the region on the other side. It's us against everyone else, on the side of a regional sectarian minority with close ties to Iran. Sounds great. Plus, did I mention that al Qaida views the Shi'a as heretics? So this new policy should help cool those waters too.
Point Three. Do Iraq's Shi'a see themselves as closer to the United States or Shi'a Iran? Anyone want to take a stab at that one?
Reed Hundt was right over the weekend when he noted that a lot of the subtext to the debate over the Baker report is a return to the 1980s era alignment of our interests with the dominant Sunni establishments in the region. That's a lot of what the administration was trying to overturn by getting into Iraq in the first place. Remember how the Iraqi Shi'a loved the United States? Oh, you didn't hear that one? You have to be in Washington in 2002.
Anyway, can anyone think of a more ridiculous idea than to get beyond the Shi'a in their effort to repay the Sunnis for what they perceive (not without good reason) as decades and arguably centuries of oppression? This should be lots of fun.
--Josh Marshall
Bush in desperate search for someone who will tell him what he wants to hear on Iraq. The lede from the AP: "President Bush on Monday opened three days of intensive consultations on Iraq, saying the United States and countries across the Middle East have a vital stake in helping the fragile government in Baghdad succeed." This afternoon, he's got the historians and retired generals coming in.
--Josh Marshall
The reviews are in: the House ethics report on Foleygate was seriously lame.
--Paul Kiel
There's been a lot of talk here over the weekend about what the Congress and the Democrats should do about Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA) now that he's been elected to another term in Congress, despite apparently strong evidence that he's a crook.
I think the answer to this question is much simpler than people let on: nothing.
I think this is an issue of standards that apply at different stages of the process and who has standing to do what.
The Dems yanked Jefferson's plum spot on the Ways and Means Committee back in June. That was the right thing to do then and I certainly expect they won't undo it now. That's the big privilege they give him as a member of the Democratic caucus. And they took it away.
But now Jefferson's constituents have reelected him with full knowledge of the apparent evidence against him. I wish they hadn't. But they did. And the election wasn't even close.
At this point, I don't think you can sanction Jefferson or his constituents any further before there's even been an indictment. I think Jefferson's crooked. I'm embarrassed he was reelected. But as clear as the evidence looks, the Feds still haven't seen fit to indict him. And none of it has been scrutinized in court.
Again, as I said, different standards apply at different stages and before different judges. Caucus rights are a privilege. A party doesn't need a jury verdict to act. They can go by the evidence they see in front of them and they can err on the side of heightened scrutiny. To go further though, to talk about preventing the guy from taking his seat in Congress, requires more. At least an indictment and I'd say a conviction too.
--Josh Marshall
Creating problems for the Democrats, Louisiana voters send Bill Jefferson back to Congress. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Newsflash: The guys who sold the country on the Iraq War aren't crazy about the Baker-Hamilton report.
--Josh Marshall
You've probably seen the news reports that the 'Iraqi president' has denounced the Baker-Hamilton ISG report. And this fact is being played in many new reports to suggest that even a key member of the Iraqi government thinks the report contains disastrous proposals. But that impression is highly misleading if you don't know who Jalal Talabani, Iraq's nominal president really is.
Talabani is the head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two dominant political 'parties' in Iraqi Kurdistan, the other being the rival Kurdistan Democratic Party. I put 'parties' in quotes not to signal derision but because they are not parties in the ordinary sense of the word but something more like para-states with their own highly trained and able militias.
The relevant point is that the Kurds -- very understandably -- have never been happy in Iraq. The Kurds played a key role in getting us to invade Iraq in 2003 and their militias coordinated with coalition forces in the North. They need us there to maintain their de facto independence within Iraq or allow them time to consolidate it. The whole tangled story of our ties to the Kurds is immensely complicated, historically and morally. But suffice it to say that it is no surprise that Kurdish political leaders won't like ISG report. And in this case, that's what Talabani is, a key Kurdish political leader. The fact that he is the nominal 'president' of Iraq is an artifact of the collapsing efforts at a government of national unity.
--Josh Marshall
The Listener-in-Chief:
The challenge for Bush's team was to make the president appear as though he were taking the release of the [ISG] report seriously, without necessarily embracing its conclusions. In the days following the report's release, Bush the Decider transformed himself into Bush the Listener. Usually prickly with war critics—on the rare occasions he spoke to them at all—the president now invited them in from the cold and kept quiet.. . .
The results of that effort will be unveiled next week, when Bush is expected to announce what he calls "The New Way Forward," his latest plan to salvage the mission in Iraq.
The New Way Forward? How very Mao.
--David Kurtz
On the issue of what the House should do about the re-election of Rep. William Jefferson, a few readers have cited the Supreme Court case of Powell v. McCormack, which on a cursory reading suggests that the House would not have the power to exclude Jefferson, assuming he meets the basic legal qualifications for being elected to Congress (age, citizenship, etc.), but could expel him after he was seated.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader CC, on the Bill Jefferson conundrum:
While I'm sure that Jefferson is guilty and corrupt as sin, I'm a little concerned about the idea of not seating a duly-elected member of congress when there hasn't even been an indictment in the case yet. If an indictment comes down, or the Ethics Committee finishes their investigation in the next couple weeks, that's one thing. Could they not seat him pending the outcome of the Ethics Committtee investigation? I don't know enough about the innerworkings of Congress to know.With our legal system based on "innocent until proven guilty", it seems to me that this has become a no-win situation for the Democratic leadership. If they don't seat him, the GOP will use any angle possible as a wedge (race would be the most obvious thing here but I'm sure there are others).
Florida is an entirely different matter. Not seating the "winner" there would be a means towards a "do over" special election. You're not saying that he's unfit to serve, you're saying, "there's enough doubt in the process so lets do it again, and if you win again, so be it...". Both parties have enough operatives and money to make the do-over race legitimate.
I don't think that not seating Jefferson would blunt any of the outcry from not seating Buchanan just because Jefferson's a democrat. Linking the two cases muddles the issue. Duly-elected (probably) unfit to serve Dem vs. (probably) not-duly-elected but fit-to-serve Repub. I think they need to be as separate as possible.
--David Kurtz
From TPM Reader ML:
There's this chimera (some might call it a meme) floating about that hasn't been properly considered, and the dangers of not doing so are stark. There's this belief that the Iraqis have to know that they're responsible for their own fates, and with that burden, they'll at least make strides towards whipping themselves into shape. So the US should set the timetable or get out or whatever, so the Iraqis have the felt exigency of just getting along. (Of course, this has been pedalled by Friedman, the same one convinced that 'moderate' Muslims are capable, through their overweening moderation, of stopping lunatic extremists.) But take a step back and see what's being said and who it's being said about before we start down another dangerously deluded road, making the same mistakes and presumptions as before. Is this not the same couple of groups with a 1400 year-old blood feud? Are these not embers that have ignited into war repeatedly between small groups and nation states in the region? What, aside from its a priori attraction, should we possibly make of the argument that sovereignty or the threat of it will calm these rivalries? I'm open to suggestion as to how that might work, but my gut tells me it's dangerously misguided wishful thinking.
ML hints at a point I've been meaning to get to for some time. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a hundred times--from politicians in both parties and from countless commentators: If we give the Iraqis a timetable for withdrawal, they will have to stop relying on our good graces (look where that's gotten them) and take responsibility for their own destiny.
Let's call it neo-toddler foreign policy. With the right balance of rewards and punishments, we can re-direct misbehavior in the short term and instill long-term discipline.
Where does this notion come from?
It's long been a component of American foreign policy (though the neo-conservatives seem to feature it), but is there some historical basis for this approach, or is it, as I suspect, just a blatant manifestation of our paternalistic approach to most of the rest of the world?
This approach--reducing politics to competing bad or good behaviors, rather than, say, competing self-interests--infects most of our current dealings in the Middle East. We can't talk with Syria or Iran because that would be a reward for bad behavior. We can't stay in Iraq indefinitely because that would be overprotective. Instead, the Iraqis need to be weaned from our presence.
That may be an effective parenting technique for toddlers (or maybe just a way to patch and fill through a difficult phase they eventually grow out of). But even setting aside how patronizing and condescending it must sound to foreign peoples and countries (and therefore self-defeating for us), it is a desperately impractical approach to foreign policy.
Signaling to Iraqis that we're leaving by a date certain in hopes of forcing them to pick up the pieces of their broken country and put it back together is more of the same grand-scale wishful thinking that led us into this mess in the first place.
--David Kurtz
On my suggestion for what to do about Rep. Bill Jefferson, TPM Reader JC disagrees:
Right on all points, wrong on the conclusion.Jefferson is, by all accounts, dirty and odious. But the only thing worse for the House Democrats than sending a message of "we don't tolerate corruption" is sending the message that "we'll ignore the will of the voters, and abandon the principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty,' for political posturing."
Like it or not, Jefferson's constituents elected him, knowing that he's under investigation. Unless there is evidence of election rigging, he must be seated. The Democrats can of course change the House rules and then deal with Jefferson, or wait until he is indicted and then remove him.
But your suggestion, while well-intended, is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
--David Kurtz
As long as we're engaging in useless exercises, is it time for an Afghanistan Study Group?
The AP has obtained a list of 30 rules/directives handed down by the Taliban, the most troubling of which target teachers and those who cooperate with international aid organizations:
The Taliban gunmen who murdered two teachers in eastern Afghanistan early Saturday were only following their rules: Teachers receive a warning, then a beating, and if they continue to teach must be killed.. . .
Taliban militants early Saturday broke into a house in the eastern province of Kunar, killing a family of five, including two sisters who were teachers.
The women had been warned in a letter to quit teaching, said Gulam Ullah Wekar, the provincial education director. Their mother, grandmother and a male relative were also slain in the attack.
The two sisters brought to 20 the number of teachers killed in Taliban attacks this year, said Education Ministry spokesman Zuhur Afghan. He said 198 schools have been burned down this year, up from about 150 last year.
The 30 Taliban rules also spell out opposition to development projects from aid organizations, including clinics, roads and schools.
Under our watch, the Taliban has burned down more than 300 schools in the past two years. Did anyone ask Robert Gates during his confirmation hearing whether we're winning the war in Afghanistan?
--David Kurtz
The federal investigation of political corruption in Alaska, centered on state Senate President Ben Stevens, son of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), appears broader than at first reported, according to today's Anchorage Daily News:
The director of a Juneau-based salmon fishing group said last week he has been ordered by a federal grand jury investigating Alaska corruption to turn over lobbying and consulting records involving state Senate President Ben Stevens and former congressional aide Trevor McCabe, an Anchorage lawyer.The grand jury subpoena, issued last month, also seeks records on the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, a nonprofit federal-grant distribution corporation set up by Ben Stevens' father, U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.
The executive director of the Juneau salmon group responding to the subpoena, Robert Thorstenson Jr., serves on the marketing board. Thorstenson said he and a partner, Juneau and Seattle lawyer Rob Zuanich, rent space to the board for its Juneau office.
In a telephone interview Thursday from Seattle, Thorstenson said the subpoena to Southeast Alaska Seiners Association arrived last month after he was contacted by agents from the FBI and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The subpoena said the grand jury was investigating felony crimes, Thorstenson said.
The subpoena appears to document a widening of the federal corruption investigation in Alaska, which burst into public view in August with dramatic raids of the offices of six legislators, including Ben Stevens. Agents returned to search Stevens' offices Sept. 18.
The article also suggests, without saying so explicitly, that the indictment this week of state Rep. Tom Anderson, an Anchorage Republican, for alleged extortion, bribery, conspiracy and money laundering, is connected to the Stevens investigation. Anderson has pleaded not guilty.
--David Kurtz
What will the House Democratic Caucus do about Rep. Bill Jefferson?
The subject of a federal criminal probe and a House Ethics Committee investigation, Jefferson overwhelming won re-relection yesterday, after being forced into a runoff against fellow Democrat Karen Carter.
Saying that Jefferson is the subject of a federal criminal probe hardly seems to do the man justice. By all appearances, the only thing standing between Jefferson and a multi-count federal grand jury indictment for bribery and related unsavory activities was the power-drunk GOP majority in Congress, which, perhaps fearful of investigations into its own corrupt activities, tried to turn the FBI's raid of Jefferson's Capitol Hill office into a constitutional crisis.
Had it not been for the howls of protest over the FBI raid and the legal wrangling that followed, it appears very likely that Jefferson would already be under indictment by now. But the GOP majority is gone. The Democrats, having vaulted into control of Congress in significant part due to voters' disgust with entrenched Republican corruption, have made ethics a top priority. And Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has already staked out a strong and laudable position on Jefferson's conduct in removing him from the powerful Ways and Means Committee even before the mid-term elections.
So Jefferson will return to Washington as a living, breathing embodiment of political corruption at the very moment that Democrats are trying to implement ethics reform. Nice, uh?
So what to do? My own preferred solution would be a two-fer. The House should refuse to seat Jefferson and Rep.-elect Vern Buchanan (R-FL). Buchanan was elected to Katherine Harris' old seat thanks to 18,000 undervotes in the Sarasota area, without which his Democratic opponent Christine Jennings almost certainly wins.
Republicans are already gearing up for a partisan bloodbath if the Democratic-controlled House refuses to seat Buchanan, the certified winner of a flawed election. What better way to take some of the wind out of those arguments than by simultaneously refusing to seat Jefferson, the flawed winner of a certified election?
Undemocratic, you say? The people have spoken? Perhaps. But the people's elected representatives in the House can democratically say that a member is unfit to serve. Is anyone other than his most compromised defenders seriously arguing that Jefferson is fit to serve?
Refusing to seat Jefferson right off the bat would be as bold a stroke as the introduction of any reform package within the first 100 days, and it would dramatically distinguish this Congress from its sorry predecessor.
--David Kurtz
A quick book recommendation. I've read a number of Caesar biographies. But each that I've read, or started reading, was either too ensconced in the professional historical literature or too cartoonish and overdrawn. Here's an exception: Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus.
I'm not sure I would have had high hopes for this book since Goldsworthy is primarily a military historian. I think I must have gotten it as a review copy. But when I picked it up to read just a few days ago he immediately pulled me into the story. I haven't gotten far enough into the book yet to read Goldsworthy's treatment of the conquest of Gaul, which I'm sure is excellent, given his area of specialty. But I'm eager to recommend it just on the basis of what I've read so far, which covers Caesar's early life. Goldsworthy not only brings his subject to life but has an engaging way of sifting through and meditating over source material that is often particularly incomplete or ambiguous for this early period in Caesar's life. Writing ancient history that is both historically grounded and compelling reading is a special challenge because the historical record, compared to anything in the last 1000 years or so, is so thin. But he makes this oldest of stories vital, hop right off the page.
In so many words, I was dubious that Goldsworthy would make a good biographer. But he quickly set me straight. This book is a treat.
If this period of history has a hold on you definitely get a copy.
--Josh Marshall
