The final days ...
Cunningham (alleged) briber Brent Wilkes' wife sues for divorce as indictment watch comes to a head.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush tries to mend-fences with the Democrat party ...
This was at the House Democrats retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia this morning.
--Josh Marshall
James Fallows says, in essence, forget the surge resolution. The place Congress can best draw the line, he says, is on Iran:
Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change.By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.
--David Kurtz
You may not have noticed but this week's UN report on global climate change based its estimate of a 1- to 2-foot rise in sea levels over the next 100 years on computer modeling which took into account only the volumetric increase in sea water as it warms. The estimate for sea level rise did not include melting glaciers and icecaps. While this was duly noted in most of the coverage I saw, it was often buried. The WSJ has a piece today on how much more dire the effects of climate change may be if you consider melting ice and increased cloud cover, neither of which factors the current computer models handle very well.
--David Kurtz
Greg Sargent dissects the Joe Lieberman gang's revisionist history of his successful re-election campaign.
--David Kurtz
I'm not surprised that the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen rendered to Syria by the United States, is all over the news in Canada. But it is surprising how little attention the case is getting here.
You'll recall that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) went off on the Attorney General during his appearance before the Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago. The subject was the Arar case, and Alberto Gonzales promised Leahy a secret briefing on the matter.
That briefing finally happened this week, but it apparently left Leahy and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) with more questions than answers. According to the Globe and Mail, Leahy's primary question--why Arar, who is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen, was bundled aboard a chartered jet and sent to Damascus rather than returned to Canada--was not answered.
--David Kurtz
A regular TPM reader, on the Iraqi civil war:
On the Newshour, Paul Pillar nicely stated the NIE's statement on "civil war" as civil war plus a lot of other violence.The Bushies want to read the NIE report's caution that civil war is inadequate as a term to mean, continuing Pillar's arithmetic metaphor, Iraq is a civil war minus.
The report in fact says the opposite, we have a civil war plus.
I think this simple contrast, civil war minus vs. civil war plus is an effective if simplistic way of pushing back Hadley et al.'s reeking bullshit about this report.
Indeed.
Update: I should also point out this formulation from TPM Reader CH: "Regarding the 4 wars in Iraq described by the NIE: how are we to 'win' if, in some cases, we aren't considered a combatant?"
--David Kurtz
Reed Hundt sizes up the the 'surge', Dick Cheney, Iran and where this path leads.
--Josh Marshall
As you can see below, I spent some of today looking at the issue of the sharp rise in the number of American helicopters shot out of the sky in the last two weeks in Iraq. And then I posted an excerpt from an AP article from December noting US intelligence reports that wealthy Saudis are shipping money and arms, including anti-aircraft missiles, to the Sunni insurgents who are still the primary force fighting US soldiers and marines in Iraq.
This suggests a series of questions, the most obvious of which is whether we're in the process of being gamed much as we were in 2002 when we allied with Saudi Arabia (which had a lot to do with 9/11) against Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) to defend ourselves against another 9/11. Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how we were also allied with Pakistan (a highly unstable, quasi-Islamist regime with nuclear weapons and a big nuclear weapons program proliferator) to make sure secular Iraq didn't get nuclear weapons it didn't have to give to terrorists it wasn't allied with. But I digress ...
The point is that there's a certain illogic in our thinking that Iran is the prime destablizer of Iraq when you consider that we are currently allying ourselves with the forces in Iraq that the Iranians would probably be happy to see run the place. I know it's not quite that simple. SCIRI is more the mullahs' choice, not the al Dawa folks which is where Maliki comes from. But then the last I heard we were angling to dump Maliki in favor of the SCIRI folks anyway. In any case, I won't be a fool enough to try to disentangle the intricacies of Iraq's sectarian and partisan divisions. But we do seem to be doing a decent job driving the Iraqi car in the direction of Iran on our own. And the 'insurgency' is still in the Sunni heartland, though now there is near open war between the Sunni 'insurgents' and the Shia para-militaries.
Still, when you consider that the political question in Iraq is whether the long-oppressed Shia will dominate the new Iraqi state in rough proportion to their numbers, the logical people to oppose such a settlement are Sunni co-religionists in places like Saudi Arabia.
But this gets to a deeper fallacy of the line of argument about neighboring countries 'meddling' in Iraq. Every shred of the failure that is Iraq bleeds over into the neighboring states, either as a threat or an opportunity, since they are all of the same fabric, or rather the same patchwork bleeding over national borders. The Sunnis with their coreligionists in Saudi Arabia; the Shia with theirs in Iran; the Kurds with theirs in southeastern Turkey whose affinity threatens to bring the Turks down into Iraq as well. The more we fail in Iraq, the more the threads we pull will pull into neighboring states. In other words, our inability to come to terms with and deal wtih what we have created in Iraq will almost inevitably lead to a widening gyre of escalation across Iraq's frontiers. I take it that this is what the Iraq Study Group folks were talking about when they spoke of the bleak outlook in Iraq and the necessity of getting quickly to some regional negotiations rather than trying to fight our way out of this box.
--Josh Marshall
More on helicopters ...
The AH-64 Apache shot down during the Najaf 'cult' battle was reportedly brought down by heavy machine-gun fire. The same was apparently true for the Blackwater helicopter brought down in Iraq a week ago. The same appears to have been the case in the one that went down today.
The Black Hawk helicopter shot northeast of Baghdad on January 20th was reportedly brought down by a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile.
--Josh Marshall
We've got video highlights of the different Dem presidential candidates at the DNC meeting here.
--Josh Marshall
Finally, finally. Cully Stimson -- the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs who called for businesses to boycott law firms that represented detainees -- resigns.
--Paul Kiel
Interesting. Earlier I noted that American helicopters appear to be getting downed at a much faster rate of late. Now I see that at a press conference today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace said that "ground fire ... has been more effective against our helicopters in the last couple weeks."
So what's going on? A friend passes on to me this AP story from early December, which notes that ...
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
...
In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.
This is a thin reed in itself. But it does suggest at least a possible connection. And it points to a disconnect in much of the charges we've been hearing about Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. Most of the US troops that are getting killed are getting killed in actions against Sunni insurgents. Not all. But still most, I believe. That's led some anonymous administration officials to speculate that the Iranians are actually supplying both the Shia and the Sunnis in an attempt to foment as much chaos as possible and to make the country ungovernable. That's certainly possible. Iran wouldn't be the first country to pursue such a Machiavellian approach. But a much cleaner explanation -- what Occam's Razor suggests -- is that the people supplying the Sunnis are people who support the Sunnis. And that trail does lead directly south into Saudi Arabia. But it's not nearly as convenient.
--Josh Marshall
Move over Don Rumsfeld!
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley showcases his own ability to talk in circles: "The best plan is to have [the president's] plan succeed," he says. See the video here.
--Paul Kiel
This AP story notes that a American helicopter was shot down in Iraq today just north of Baghdad. This is the fourth downed helicopter since January 20th -- at least three of which appear to have been shot down. The AP says that 54 helicopters have been lost in Iraq since the invasion and about half of them from hostile fire. Events like this can randomly cluster together. But something else seems to be up -- whether it's a more aggressive posture on the Army's part, more use of helicopters to avoid IEDs or better weaponry on the part of the insurgents. If you know more about this, I'd be interested in hearing more.
--Josh Marshall
I was just looking at the lede to the AP story on the president's new war budget request and it says "the Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008."
Can we assume the number of billions of dollars for "diplomatic operations" is a pretty small part of the pie? And what "diplomatic operations" are they talking about exactly?
--Josh Marshall
Wow. The NIE is bad, bad news for the administration. See our breakdown here.
Update: More here on the NIE's use of the phrase "civil war."
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: McClatchy on how the U.S. is fighting a militia trained and equipped by the U.S.
--Paul Kiel
In one of our editorial meetings today we were speculating about how the networks would spin the compromise surge resolution. Here's how ABC is casting it on their website: "A compromise resolution opposing the president's Iraq troop buildup is gathering steam. But it preserves funding for the troops, so it may not mean much."
--Josh Marshall
The new Iraq NIE won't be public? Spencer Ackerman brings us the latest.
--Josh Marshall
Regarding when the bombs might start falling in Iran, a few different pieces of evidence point to a time frame in early March. More on this later this evening.
Late Update: I don't make a practice of pulling posts. But this one, in its first writing, sounded a lot more definitive than I meant it to. What I'm talking about is an overlap between the naval deployments in the Gulf and the nuclear developments in Iran. I'll provide more details later.
--Josh Marshall
Symbolic Resolution Watch...
Sens. Biden (D-DE), Hagel (R-NE), Levin (D-MI), Collins (R-ME) and Nelson (D-NE) jump onto Sen. John Warner's (R-VA) bandwagon. But Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) won't get on.
Update: And here's Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with a big, fat no.
Later Update: A spokesperson for Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) tells us he's "inclined to support it."
--Paul Kiel
Encouraging news! The man nominated to be the Director of National Intelligence says there'll be no cherry-picking on his watch.
--Paul Kiel
Here's a question: if it turns out the culprits behind the Karbala raid were not Iranian-trained but US-trained, should we attack ourselves? This just out from Fox of all places: "Several Iraqis have been detained for questioning in the ongoing investigation of at least two senior Iraqi generals suspected of involvement in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on Jan. 20, U.S. officials told FOX News on Thursday."
(ed.note: In the original version of this post I incorrectly referred to Najaf rather than Karbala. It's hard for me to keep all the shady surge-era incidents straight sometimes. My bad.)
--Josh Marshall
Here's Spencer on this morning's hearing, where John McCain dished it out, General George Casey just took and took, and the commander-in-chief didn't really come up.
--Paul Kiel
A cool resource I didn't know about. We all know that we can read newspapers all over the country and the world with the web. It's worth remembering sometimes just how differently and more slowly information flowed in the pre-web era. But the Newseum has a section of their site where they have the daily front pages of 555 papers in 55 countries. Pretty cool.
--Josh Marshall
McCain: Things were getting better in Iraq before they were getting worse.
--Greg Sargent
Last night a reader wrote in to say that whatever the signs of belligerence on either side of the Iraq-Iran border, there wouldn't be any American attack on Iran because we simply don't have the troops to mount the attack. We don't have nearly enough troops available to mount an invasion of another Iraq. And Iran is a vastly larger country, both in geographical size and in population, with a formidable military. TPM Reader SG just wrote in to ask what the public rationale would be. Let me try to answer both questions in tandem.
The quick answer to this objection number one, I think, is that people who are looking to get into wars are seldom held back by not having the resources or the manpower to do it well or successfully.
The longer answer is that I doubt the United States will ever invade Iran if by that we mean an invasion in force to take over the capital, oust the government and occupy the country. Far more likely would be an aerial bombing campaign (where the US still has ample resources) aimed at Iran's nuclear or missile facilities. Perhaps even more likely than that would be an escalating round of cross-border incursions growing out of US counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq but then taking on a life of their own.
--Josh Marshall
News breaking out of the Congressional Budget Office: While the president has been saying the 'surge' will be 21,500 troops. Actually it will be between 35,000 and 48,000. More momentarily.
Update: We've got the analysis for you here.
--Josh Marshall
Brzezinski focuses us on the essential dynamic we face with this renegade president ...
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
This is the hinge on which everything now turns. Bush doesn't want to be to blame for the mess in Iraq. So it has to be Iran. There's a bright line leading from the crisis of accountability to the next stage of strategic disaster.
--Josh Marshall
Drats! We can't see the smoking gun evidence!
From the LAT ...
The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said.U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans.
But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive and that other data cannot be released without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods. They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect, said the officials, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.
"We don't want a repeat of the situation we had when [then-Secretary of State] Colin L. Powell went before the United Nations," said one U.S. official, referring to Powell's 2003 presentation on then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons program that relied on evidence later found to be false. "People are going to be skeptical."
Concern that the evidence may be bogus would seem like a decent reason not to release it.
--Josh Marshall
What would John Edwards do with his first 100 days as President? He's already got a plan.
--Greg Sargent
Hmmm. Good work by Adam Nagourney. He did the Biden story. And he runs the notorious quote with the highly misleading punctuation intact. Not news that was fit to print, I guess. But makes a better story.
--Josh Marshall
If there's anyone left who thinks there's much redeemable about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) get ready to change your mind. Here he is at this morning's hearings for the nomination of Gen. Casey to be Army Chief of Staff. Remember that Casey was the top commander in Iraq. And according to the new Bush script he's responsible for ignoring Iraq's steady slide into anarchy over the last three years. All General Casey's fault. Bush would have gotten serious about security. Sent new troops. Done whatever. But Gen. Casey just kept him in the dark. And here's Sen. McCain going along with the malarkey.
It's like a show trial.
Casey was definitely part of what's happened in Iraq. He was the senior commander. He's responsible too. But to imagine that he led the president down the garden path? Please.
We've got Spencer Ackerman at the hearings and he'll be reporting in later at TPMmuckraker. Here's his preview from earlier this morning.
--Josh Marshall
Over at TPMmuckraker, Spencer Ackerman, we're very excited to say, will be sitting in for the next couple weeks.
Today, he'll be covering General George Casey's nomination hearing, where Casey's likely to rumble with Sen. John McCain (A-AZ) over the general's handling of Iraq. Why? Spencer explains.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: the U.S. struggles to keep track of who we're fighting in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
The Duke Cunningham investigation is alive and well, it seems.
Indictments are reportedly coming for not only Brent Wilkes, one of the two defense contractors who made their living off of (allegedly) bribing Cunningham, but also Dusty Foggo, the former executive director at the CIA.
--Paul Kiel
From TPM Reader MW ...
I am curious how the stories of American saber rattling have come off in local media outlets like the 10/11pm news or the local paper. Most americans still get their daily dose of news from these sources. This seems to be a worthy challenge for the people powered reporting that TPM has made famous.
I'm curious too. What are you seeing on the local news?
--Josh Marshall
From the AP ...
Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.
This is the preeminent, really the only question in American politics today: Do we want to go to war with Iran or not? With the escalating chaos in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, is it in our interests or not to get into a shooting war with Iran? The debate over the 'surge' of US troops into Baghdad is significant in its own way, but it pales in comparison to this one.
I've always viewed the fears that the White House would try expand the war into Iran with a mix of deep skepticism, fascination and latent foreboding. Logically, it makes no sense on any number of counts. But the last half dozen years has taught us all that that's simply not a significant obstacle. There are any number of ridiculous gambits I was sure these guys wouldn't try before they did try them.
Again, the 'sensible' interpretation of what's happening right now is that the administration is trying to regain control of the situation in Iraq. And to further that aim they're rattling their sabres at Iran to get them to back off and stop making trouble. That's the sensible explanation. But we're not dealing with sensible people. And much more important, the folks who are running this show are simply too stupid to be trusted to execute such a delicate and perilous feint.
I don't mean they're dumb people. I'm sure they have high IQs. Most went to prestigious universities. They have lists of accomplishments. But the record of the last six years shows so many mistakes, such a record of incapability and incompetence, so many misjudgements, screw-ups and boners that there's no other suitable word.
Through plan or imbecility (and most likely, given who were talking about, both) they're drifting toward war with Iran.
As I wrote last night, I think the new campaign of anonymous leaks suggesting Iranian involvement in the Najaf raid has rather less than no credibility. But even if you assumed, for the sake of discussion, that it were tied to, say, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and that (as the narrative goes) the attack was retaliation for the Erbil raid on the Iranian consulate, that still would not change the question we face: is it in our national interest to go to war with Iran or not?
Everything flows from the answer to that question. Tits for tats or who started what fade into the background. If the answers no, we should be calibrating our actions to avoid such an outcome, not taking actions likely to provoke it. We need a regional plan to walk this mess back from the brink rather than simply yanking every thread on this already frayed fabric and watching it disintegrate in front of us.
We've heard a few squawks and warnings from members of Congress. But now is the time for members of the House and the Senate to get serious about asserting some control over this rapid descent.
I've said this before. But perhaps it seems like hyperbole. So I'll say it again. The president's interests are now radically disjoined from the country's. We can handle a setback like Iraq. It really is a big disaster. But America will certainly surive it. President Bush -- in the sense of his legacy and historical record -- won't. It's all Iraq for him. And Iraq is all disaster. So, from his perspective (that is to say, through the prism of his interests rather than the country's -- which he probably can't separate) reckless gambits aimed at breaking out of this ever-tightening box make sense.
Think of it like this. He's a death row prisoner concocting a thousand-to-one plan to break out of prison. For him, those are good odds. The rest of us are doing three months for disorderly conduct. And he's trying to rope us into his harebrained scheme. Like I said, his interests are very different from ours.
Speak up. We're on the edge of the abyss.
--Josh Marshall
Sens. Levin (D) and Warner (R) agree on compromise anti-surge resolution with broad bipartisan support.
--Josh Marshall
Today was Justin Rood's last day at TPMmuckraker. We thank him and wish him the best. Here's his sign-off post.
--Josh Marshall
We note her passing with sadness and great respect: Molly Ivins, dead at 62.
--Josh Marshall
Statement out from Biden: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama."
Late Update: Obama has one out too that came just before Biden's.
--Josh Marshall
Quick clarification: it was unclear in our prior post, but the audio of the interview with Biden was actually made available by The New York Observer in response to questions about Biden's phrasing.
Biden responds to The Politico about the quote firestorm here.
Late Update: For what it's worth, Biden, when pressed, actually told reporters he believes he "was quoted accurately" in his interview. I think that just means that these are the words he spoke in the interview. His press folks are certainly wise enough to tell him not to get in an argument about commas if he doesn't want to hop out of the fryinig pan into the fire. For our part, I stand on what I wrote below: The transcription of the interview was misleading when judged against the audio of what Biden actually said. The difference in punctuation was subtle but the difference in meaning was not. Transcriptions get put together quickly. And usually a comma added or omitted doesn't make a big difference. But this wasn't one of those times. It made a big difference. Listen to the audio and see whether you agree. -- jmm
--Paul Kiel
Bush is sending more troops -- but the ones already there don't have the equipment they need, a new Pentagon report says.
--Paul Kiel
Uh-oh. Audio of the Biden interview available. Coming in a minute.
Late Update: Okay, here's the link to the actual audio of the Biden interview. Biden still uses a series of words that are arguably racially charged ones in the context -- 'mainstream', 'articulate', etc. But there was a debate going on below about whether the transcription of the interview -- not including a key comma -- might have changed the meaning of Biden's words. And when you listen to the audio of what Biden said, I think it's clear that it's a misleading transcription.
Listen and let us know what you think.
Later Update: Also, a number of people have focused on Biden's use of the word 'clean'. This is one I don't get. This seems clearly to mean he's not tainted by corruption, which seems unobjectionable, not 'clean' in other senses of the word. Still, I think that Dems looking at this have to see this statement as not a landmine but a friggin' minefield, open to a series of very problematic and not unreasonable interpretations, even if some of the key points weren't nearly as bad as they were portrayed in the Observer transcription. In other words, if you're a Democrat evaluating presidential candidates, would you want to be in the middle of this debate over commas in October 2008? Didn't think so.
Still Later Update: TPM Reader TC checks in from Texas ... "The debate shouldn't be comma or no comma. There's clearly a period after "African-American." In fact, the interviewer interjects his own "yeah" during the pause after "African-American," which is followed by another pause, after which Biden continues with "Who's bright . . . ." I don't like Biden much (I can't think of anyone who loves to hear himself talk quite as much as Biden), but there's no "gotcha" here at all."
--Josh Marshall
Indictment of alleged Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes really, really, really close.
--Josh Marshall
But for a comma?
Two TPM Readers offer a contrary explanation of the Biden comment.
TPM Reader DS ...
OK, I'm not a big Biden fan, so I wouldn't be disappointed to see him drop out. But I have to say this: what if the Observer punctuated casually? That is, what if there is supposed to be a comma before 'who,' making it a non-restrictive relative clause:“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Thus he would mean Obama is both
a). the first mainstream African-American candidate for president
and
b). articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy
but not necessarily that he is the first African-American candidate to have these properties. This would be patronizing and stupid, but not the breathtakingly offensive sentiment suggested when the comma isn't there.
In speech, it's not always clear whether a speaker is using a restrictive or a non-restrictive relative, but in writing you have to decide which was meant, and use a comma or not. What if the Observer chose poorly?
Anyway, I thought that was worth offering. Thanks for your good work.
and TPM Reader MD ...
I think what we have is a case of a missing comma and a slightly-less-than-adroit extemporaneous comment from Sen. Biden. He said this: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” If you insert a comma after “who” and before “is,” the quote becomes an instance of Biden’s delineating Obama’s positive qualities, not one in which Biden denigrates all African-American (people, politicians, whatever) who have preceded Obama. I am a writer by trade and have listened to a lot of Biden on TV. I think the more likely occurrence is that the comma was omitted in transcription from spoken word to written word than that Biden, either intentionally or subconsciously, slurred African-Americans.
Thoughts?
My sense is that this is only partially exculpating at best. Even with the comma it's really condescending bordering on racist. And it would still probably mean that Biden's mouth presents a clear and present danger to Democratic electoral prospects no matter what he meant. Ending his candidacy wouldn't be preemption, just legitimate self-defense.
--Josh Marshall
You've probably already noticed this quote from Sen. Biden (D-DE) in which he manages to call either all previous African-American presidential candidates or possibly all other African-Americans in public life dumb, ugly and corrupt. The actual quote has him calling Sen. Obama (D-IL) "you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
It's only fair to remember that only months ago we had Sen. Biden saying Indian-Americans were a veritable tribe of 7/11 owners. "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
The only thing more ridiculous than the 7-Eleven was his subsequent explanation in which he claimed that he was celebrating the fact that Indian-Americans were no longer ghettoized into high-paid, high-education jobs in engineering, computer science and medicine but were expanding into convenience store entrepreneurship. Sort of breaking through the glass floor, you might say.
I know that Biden is not a popular guy in many parts of the liberal blogosphere. But I think he's actually extremely knowledgeable on foreign policy matters. But I think at this point you have to say that Biden suffers from what one might with real generosity call chronic racial grandpaism. That is to say, the penchant for making comments that are not only racially offensive but also extremely silly and the sort of things that are sometimes excused or at least passed over from men, say, over 80 on the reasoning that they're from a different era and why get into it. Actually, the clock has probably even run out on that excuse when you figure that a man who is 80 today was forty in 1966. But however that may be, excuses that fly in the retirement community or family reunions just doesn't cut it in a man who aspires to the presidency. (Really can't wait to see him speak at the Arab-American dinner, can you?) Atrios is right. The shortest presidential campaign ever.
Late Update: TPM PO writes in ...
Something struck me: Senator Biden was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. I would suggest he's not so much a grandpa as he is a well-meaning, 1972-era liberal. You know, the kind that say Negro when trying, in an honest, well-meaning, earnest way, of complimenting 'those people.' [With the qualifier that he's good guy, with some personal tragedy and good deeds under his belt to mature his empathy, and so on.]
Fair enough. I had thought of adding into the original post that there doesn't seem to be any animus in these comments. But that's context not an excuse for someone in Biden's position.
Later Update: TPM Reader TW responds ...
I think it gives Biden way too much credit to say that he's just a well-meaning 1970s liberal. Recall his recent speech at a Rotary Club meeting in South Carolina, where he basically said he wishes Delaware had been part of the Confederacy. It sounds to me like he's just a bigot.
--Josh Marshall
Don't miss Chalmers Johnson writing at TPMCafe today about the precarious balance of democracy and empire.
--Paul Kiel
What a way for Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) to roll out his presidential campaign.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: the Iraqi government's not-so-sterling record of meeting benchmarks.
--Paul Kiel
Matt Yglesias has an interesting series of posts on his site about just what the big deal is when Republicans call the Democratic party the 'Democrat party'.
As it happens, a few months back I got an email from a TPM Reader who I think was a linguist. And he explained that there is something about the concatenation of syllables, the sound or structure of the phrase 'Democrat party' that actually sounds somehow inherently grating or awkward on the ears. When I got the note I think I was busy with something else. And I never really got a chance to work through and understand just what the guy was saying. I think I'll probably try to dig it up.
But that is a secondary point. The whole issue of 'Democrat' party -- other than as an example of Republican infantilism -- is an issue of respect or rather intentional and repeated expression of disrespect as a means of asserting dominance.
There's a certain conservative columnist named James X. who shall remain unnamed. At some point a few years back I had cause to exchange an email with him. And I called him 'Jim'. I don't think I gave it a second thought. I'm Josh or Joshua -- doesn't matter to me. But a short time later I got a half questioning, half barely repressed anger email from the guy asking whether I was intentionally disrespecting him by addressing him as 'Jim', the dimunitive form of the name. Now, as I say, it was accidental. I apologized and explained that it was totally unintentional. And if he preferred to be called James I would certainly do so. As it happens, in the intervening years, my lack of respect for him has grown apace. But I'd still always call him James and not Jim. And this is the point. You address people the way they choose to be addressed. You address them by what they consider to be their name. In the ordinary course of life, when people do otherwise, we rightly recognize that they're trying to pick a fight or demean the person in question.
It is, as Matt points out, another illustration of the 'bitch-slap theory of politics'. You assert dominance over someone by mangling their name and continuing to do so even after the correct pronunciation or style is pointed out. It's right off the schoolyard and it's no surprise that it's a stock and trade of this president.
--Josh Marshall
BusinessWeek ...
The Inspector General for the Defense Dept. is concerned that the U.S. military has failed to adequately equip soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for nontraditional duties such as training Iraqi security forces and handling detainees, according to a summary of a new audit obtained by BusinessWeek.The findings come as the Pentagon prepares to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq and as Democratic leaders levy threats to restrict funding for a war that's already cost about $500 billion. The Army alone expects to spend an extra $70 billion on an additional 65,000 permanent troops from fiscal year 2009 through 2013. According to Army officials, $18 billion of that will be spent on equipment.
The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to "effectively complete their missions" and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.
--Josh Marshall
As the saying goes, if it didn't exist, you'd have to invent it.
So with that in mind, let's do a little prospective journalism. When the bogus 'Iran incident' happens that becomes the predicate for a military attack on Iran, what will it look like? Let's try to sketch it out in advance. Will it be a real incident in Iraq for which the Iranians are blamed? Or will it be a complete bogus incident, something that never happened, that they're blamed for? Will we receive the news in manufactured evidence? Or will it all come through unnamed leaks and Richard Perle appearances on CNN?
Some key requirements occur to me.
1. Despite being fake, the incident must seem reasonably credible.
2. It must appear serious enough that discounting its importance or questioning its veracity appears the height of unseriousness.
3. It must place the majority of us in the odd and unexpected position of granting to President Bush the unfettered discretion to launch a war against Iran at the time and place of his choosing, despite our desire that he start it right now.
Any other requirements?
Late Update: TPM Reader TB adds some key requirements ...
The incident can't be quickly falsifiable. It will have to take a long time and a lot of effort to be revealed as bogus. Weapons of mass destruction were perfect: we had to get into Iraq to show them to be false, and by that time, of course, it was too late to stop the war. The sort of same thing will be needed to commit some sort of act of war on Iran.
Later Update: We can of course evaluate this one for potential. This is right off the presses from CNN ...
The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said."People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.
That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.
The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound Video)
Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.
"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.
A few quick points just to make a go of it. The possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination. So, not likely that any native Iraqis could have pulled off this attack. Check.
And it's possible that the attackers were Iranian or "Iranian-trained". Again, just for the sake of conversation -- our current angle in Iraq is to cozy up to SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) as the moderate Shi'a grouping over and against the al-Sadr and possibly al-Maliki, the current prime minister. SCIRI's paramilitary is the Badr Brigade. They were formed in Iran and by Iran from pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia. They fought alongside the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war. Before we toppled the Hussein government, they were still headquartered in Tehran.
Anyway, I'd stop by Juan Cole's site to hear from someone who really knows about this stuff. But even our feeble knowledge here at TPM is enough to tell us that when we start hearing catch-alls like 'Iranian-trained' for anything that happened in southern Iraq, we're dealing with meaninglessly vague words meant to bamboozle and hoodwink. Remember too this incident occurred in Karbala, where the Badr Brigade is headquartered.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Badr Brigade was behind this, only that in the context of paramilitaries in southern Iraq, 'Iranian-trained' is a meaninglessly broad category.
Really Friggin' Late Update: Ahhh, and of course news of the secret Iran meddling 'dossier' has been vouchsafed to Fox News.
Party Like it's 1999 Update: Bob Baer picks up on rumors in Iraq that the Karbala incident might be the work of Iranian Revolutionary Guards retaliating for the capture of their comrades in Erbil earlier this month. But he's careful to identify them as just rumors.
--Josh Marshall
I was out of the office (aka TPM World Headquarters -- yes, it really exists) most of the day today. So I want to take a moment to thank Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for spending time at TPMCafe today to discuss his new book Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time and to engage with TPM Readers in a discussion of the book and building a Democratic majority. You can read Sen. Schumer's discussion of his book here and his exchanges with readers in these two posts (#1 and #2).
--Josh Marshall
"Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?”
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) asks again for an answer to his question.
--Paul Kiel
Obama calls for removal of all -- yes, all -- combat brigades from Iraq by March 2008. That's a little over a year away, incidentally.
Update: Here's some video of Obama speaking as he introduces his bill for phased withdrawal.
Late update: John Edwards adviser Jonathan Prince calls to remind us that Edwards has been "calling for complete withdrawal of all combat troops for more than a year."
--Greg Sargent
Election Central adds the latest crack in Mitt Romney's conservative armor.
Back in 1992, Romney threw a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.
--Paul Kiel
Oh, this will be good. Paul Bremer accepts invitation to testify before Congress.
--Paul Kiel
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is now taking your questions over at TPMCafe.
Update: Here he is, waiting for your question...
Later Update: ...and we're done. Thanks a lot to Sen. Schumer for stopping by.
--Paul Kiel
Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) ask the Decider to explain his views on the war powers of Congress.
--Paul Kiel
Bush claims use of "Democrat majority" slur was an "oversight."
Of course, Bush has committed this "oversight" an awful lot of times in the past.
--Greg Sargent
Where'd they stun him?
A high school lunch period was disrupted Monday by a greased, naked student who ran around screaming and flailing his arms until police twice used a stun gun on him, authorities said.Taylor Killian, 18, had rubbed his body with grapeseed oil to keep from being caught, and got up after the first time he was shocked to continue running toward a group of frightened students huddled in a corner at Westerville North High School, Lt. Jeff Gaylor said.
"That prank went a little farther than he intended, I guess," Gaylor said.
--Josh Marshall
A quick note to readers: We now have RSS feeds available for TPM Election Central and The Horse's Mouth.
The feed for Election Central is here. And the feed for The Horse's Mouth is here.
Just think -- now you never have to miss a single post!
--Greg Sargent
Negroponte: new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to be delivered to Congress next week.
What do you think it says about increasing the U.S. troop levels in Iraq?
--Paul Kiel
The subject line I just got from the Brownback for President email list: "A President who will not rest until Roe v. Wade is overturned."
--Josh Marshall
Complimenting Anthony Shadid's work is almost redundant. But he's got a wonderful piece about a not very wonderful subject in tomorrow's Post: the growing Iranian ascendence in the Middle East. In the US at present we tend to think of the 'Iran' issue in terms of Iranian influence (or 'infiltration' -- take your pick) on Shia militias and political factions within Iraq. But we need to pull back the frame of reference and see that before 2001 Iran was bordered on the east and west by hostile or at least unfriendly countries -- Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran almost went to war with the Taliban government in the 1990s, Shadid notes.
Over the last five years we've overthrown both governments and in each case, though to differing degrees, created a power vacuum into which the Iranians have been free to extend themselves. Read Shadid's narrative of events and you see that if the US government were in the pay of Iranian agents they would have been hard-pressed to find a series of actions and policies better crafted to increase Iranian prestige and power in the region and decrease ours. We took out hostile powers to their east and west and then took the regional hegemonic power -- i.e., us -- and weakened it dramatically, greatly enhancing, at least in relative terms, their power.
As a Saudi writer told Shadid: "The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East. There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region."
Not that it's all peaches and cream for the Iranians. They also feel themselves under acute threat, which of course, they are. There's the nuclear power, Israel, to the west, the newly nuclear Pakistan over to the east and the global superpower America with occupying armies on either border.
And here we come back to the recurring theme of the Bush presidency: the president's perverse effort to be the beneficiary of his own incompetence and policy disasters.
Think back over this young year. How much have you heard about Iraq and how much have you heard about Iran? From where I'm sitting news of tits for tats with Iran, skirmishes between Iranian and American personnel, Cheney-heralded naval deployments are the order of the day. If you listen to these things closely everything is now turning toward Iran. Iraq, though central to everything, is also becoming old news.
And Iran's power is waxing. And we're supposed to rely on the approach of the White House, the guys who created the terrible situation in the first place, to solve the consequences of their latest screw up. It's like a perpetual motion machine of calamity and self-justification.
It's like Iraq only writ small (or writ large, I can't tell): Don't tell me about how stupid I was to get us into this situation. Now that I've created a disaster this big, what's your policy to deal with it? Sort of takes your breath away.
Pull our troops out? How's that gonna work now that we've unleashed a civil war there?
You may remember quite a bit earlier in our long national nightmare the White House and its toadies and acolytes were very big on the so-called 'fly-paper' theory of the Iraq War. All the bombings and killings were a sign that the policy was working. Rather than have the terrorists hitting us in America or other spots around the world we had created a terrorist killing field in Iraq where we could wipe them out on our own terms, right where we wanted them. That and create a democracy there too.
I still remember one really clever TPM Reader writing in and telling me: that's brilliant. Sort of like by creating a really dirty hospital, we're going to create a place where we can fight the germs on our own terms!
I don't know about you but sometimes I feel like we're in this eerie afterburn of our four long years of disaster. The public has rendered its verdict. Every thinking person has rendered their verdict. But the administration is still going on more or less as though nothing's happened. Serious thinking in Washington of The Note variety is still on a sort of mental autopilot. The story's over. All the real arguments are settled. But as of yet the car is still in drive rather than reverse.
Like the line says, first do no harm. And for the United States as a country, right now, that means doing everything constitutionally, legally and politically possible to limit the president's and even more Vice President Cheney's free hand to shape and execute American foreign policy. Sift it all out and it's that simple. Stop them from doing any more damage. All the rest is commentary and elaboration.
--Josh Marshall
Andrew Natsios, US envoy for the Sudan conflict, says the US has an "extremely aggressive" plan B if the Sudanese government doesn't end the bloodshed in Darfur.
--Josh Marshall
In which an unnamed associate hands former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer the shiv he stuck in Scooter Libby's belly ...
Late Update: Then there's the discrepancy which some have noticed between Ari's testimony and that of John Dickerson, which Booman discusses.
Later Update: Here's Dickerson's side of the story.
--Josh Marshall
And that muckraking light shines on. Behold, the Office of the Vice President's phone directory.
--Paul Kiel
Bill O'Reilly to blow gasket? Al Franken is leaving Air America to explore a run against Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman.
--Greg Sargent
TPM Reader PC on Bush's anti-constitutionalism and the rule of law ...
With all of Bush's pretensions and usurpation of power, the overall the theme is a disregard for the rule of law. "Disregard for the Constitution," "Militarism" and "The Imperial Presidency" all describe some aspects of it, but the foundation of our republic -- arching even over the Constitution -- is that we have a government of laws, not of men. Bush has used fear, militarism and secrecy to increase his power, and it has all been aimed at increasing his discretion and allowing him to disregard legal forms and procedures -- even when he could accomplish the same thing by following them.This leads me, however, to a story that shows just how powerful the U.S. democratic culture really is. I recently attended a speech by a former president of the American Bar Association, at which he excoriated Bush for ignoring the rule of law. The remarkable thing about this speech was the setting -- it was given at a meeting of our town's civic club -- The Wellesley Club. Although somewhat progressive (we are Massachusetts, after all) this is a club whose members are the upper crust of an affluent Boston suburb. And the speaker received a standing ovation! The American Bar Association and the Wellsley Club are not advocates of a progressive agenda. But they are part of a civic fabric that will fiercely guard our democratic institutions. And they will be around long after little men like Bush and Cheney disappear from the scene.
I have a copy of his speech, if you are interested.
I think it would be fair to say that upper crust or not, it's still Massachusetts, a very liberal state. But I think the larger point is right: the rule of law is a potent American value, one people believe in deeply and one they understand viscerally that the president has violated again and again.
--Josh Marshall
Here's another account of that firefight near Najaf. The cult was made up of "a diverse cadre of Sunni, Shiite, Afghan and other foreign gunmen."
The current and eddies contained in a great religious system like Islam (or Christianity or Judaism, for that matter) operate by logics that are elusive and sometimes close to impossible for outsiders to understand. But I still get the sense we're being sold a bill of goods about what happened here.
Late Update: This story in the Times gives what seems like a more plausible explanation. This was a 'Shi'a' group in the broad sense of the word but a dissident one and one which the dominant Shi'a authorities and clerics did not view as genuinely Shi'a. According to the Times the governor of the province described the group as "'exterior,' but not in its 'core.'"
--Josh Marshall
Over at TPMmuckraker, we're trying to shine some light into one of the darkest corners of the Bush administration: the Vice President's office.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader AWC on the anti-constitutionalists and how to fight them ...
This post reminded me of a long running complaint I have with Democratic strategists: we (Democrats) lack good branding and fail to hone in on marketing themes as Republicans do - undoubtedly because the Democratic spectrum is populated by people who appreciate nuance over black and white. I completely agree that we need to "preserve a powerful executive while instituting a renewed respect for the limits to presidential power." This makes sense to us, but it is difficult to employ as a brand. Our hesitancy to embrace President Bush's power grab as a talking point - because of our awareness of presidential power's critical import for civil rights and other issues - leaves us with a message that doesn't fully tap into Americans' deep suspicions of kingly power. Our response to "commander-and-chief" labeling should be "King George." We can worry about the balance of presidential power after we've stripped King George of his.
This is very true. And it's a key point. But devotion to the constitution is written into the fabric of American culture. So it should be possible to frame a vocabulary and political agenda in its favor that resonates across the political spectrum. Two key points are that Bush anti-constitutionalism is way outside the American tradition. Its intellectual roots are with foreigners. They are alien ideas. Touchy phrases, I grant you, but accurate too. Second, small-'r' republican government is courageous government. Secrecy, despotism and prerogative power are rooted in cowardice.
--Josh Marshall
Can we get Juan Cole or Vali Nasr or someone to chime in on the news we're getting out of Iraq about this attempted attack on the city of Najaf?
I'm inherently suspicious of stories we're hearing out of Iraq, especially if they include big body counts from fire fights (see Vietnam, subhed, egregious mumbojumbo). But the information coming out about this attempt attack seems very odd to me. The latest I'm hearing on the cable is that the plan was to disrupt the Ashura commemorations and perhaps assassinate Ayatollah Sistani. Now we hear that the attack was the work of a Messianic cult -- one with "links to Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters [and] hoping the violence it planned would force the return of the "hidden imam," a 9th-century Shiite saint who Shiites believe will come again to bring peace and justice to the world."
'Foreign fighters' in this context usually refers to Sunni extremists, with al Qaida sympathies. Saddam loyalists, if secular, are almost all Sunni as well. So these guys were mounting an attack on Najaf in order to realize the central eschatological hope of the Shia? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Other reports say alternatively that the attack was Sunni-backed or Shia-backed.
Now, I'm no expert on sectarian divisions in Iraq or Islam more generally. But certain things make no sense on their face. Perhaps this is just the fog of war. But something seems fishy to me. Who can add more facts?
Late Update: Juan Cole analyzes what happened here. The upshot, three or four largely or entirely contradictory accounts of what happened.
Later Update: Other reports suggest a 'cult' with a mix of Sunni and Shi'a elements (odd but anything's possible). But Cole makes the point that it seems a bit odd that an obscure or unknown cult could mount enough firepower and organization to mount this kind of attack. Remember, this wasn't a case of a group barricaded in a building. From what I understand this was a firefight on open ground.
--Josh Marshall
McCain endorsed by two GOP Senators -- both moderate, both opposed to escalation.
--Greg Sargent
Critics of President Bush talk a lot about his abuses of power, the increasing opacity and corruption of the federal government under his management and his theory of presidential power which owes much more to foreign philosophers and political scientists than the text and history of the United States constitution. But is this more than a sound-bite and political cudgel? As long as President Bush is in office and even more so before this year when he still possessed unified control of the federal government, it was enough simply to oppose his war on the constitution. But the virus of anti-constitutionalism President Bush has injected into the body politic is now so deepseated that a renewed constitutionalism should now be a central element informing our political priorities and political identification.
Garry Wills gets us into some of this with his weekend editorial on the militarization of our politics as expressed through the increasingly ubiquitous references to the president of "commander-in-chief", as though this were the principle basis of his authority as president. A quarter of a century ago Ronald Reagan got this underway (or perhaps further advanced it along) with his penchant for saluting Marines after he got off Marine One -- the Marine helicopter the president uses to fly to Andrews Air Force Base -- a habit every subsequent president has adopted, but something no previous president did. That was symbolic and campy. But under President Bush it has led to the president assuming to himself what amount to discretionary dictatorial powers
To approach this subject candidly and forthrightly we need to recognize, as Wills does, that some of the militarization of our politics and constitutional disfiguration traces back to the beginnings of the Cold War. But I think Wills understates the qualitative expansion of anti-constitutionalism in the last 6 years, if sometimes only at the level of pretension rather than in execution (signing statements being a good example of this).
But if we're interested in evaluating candidates for high office on the basis of their constitutionalism, what are some of the key points, planks and issues?
In no particular order but to start a conversation ...
1. Abuse of presidential signing statements.
2. Use of the president's 'commander-in-chief' powers to invade the realm of civilian politics.
3. Attacks on habeas corpus, general evasion of oversight by the federal judiciary.
What are the other key points? To me, most of the issue stems from item #2, the over-great pretensions of the president based on the idea that his 'commander-in-chief' powers extend beyond control of the military into the civilian realm as well. On a softer level, we might include the tendency to politicize the military and the federal administration of justice and the increasing reliance on government secrecy. Historically, the presidency has been a great bulwark of progressive change in this country. So key to my mind is to preserve a powerful executive while instituting a renewed respect for the limits to presidential power. The heart of the matter is that the current president and his court poet lawyers see the constitution principally as a problem to be worked around to release the president's untrammelled power. Fundamentally, they're against the US constitution and outside the traditions of American history.
What do you think the key points are? And what would be the planks of a revived constitutionalism?
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Schumer (D-NY) is going to stop by TPMCafe tomorrow afternoon between 2:30 and 3:30 to discuss his new book and answer your questions. Get in your questions now.
The senator's first post is up here.
--Josh Marshall
Laura Rozen has a piece in the current Washington Monthly titled "Cheney's Dead-Enders" that is worth a read. But I wanted to home in on this parenthetical:
(When I inquired about a staffer’s rumored move to the Veep’s office, a Cheney press officer answered sweetly, “If we have a personnel announcement we’d like you to know about, we’ll tell you.”)
This is not the first time I've seen a reporter denied information about who even works in the Office of the Vice President (I can't find where I've seen this refusal reported before, although I think it was about the time Cheney shot that Texas lawyer in the face; if anyone recalls, please forward me the link).
Think about that. The Vice President of the United States refuses to divulge who works in his office. Rozen's article provides an estimate of 88 persons on the VP's staff, which I take to mean that the OVP won't even say how many people are on staff. These are people on the public payroll. Wouldn't you say the public is entitled to know?
Most of the debate over the nexus between national security and official secrecy is about where to draw the line. That is, how to balance the necessity of openness and transparency in a democratic society with the need to protect important operational details of the nation's defense. I lean heavily toward transparency, but I will acknowledge that there is a legitimate question of where to draw that line.
But Cheney's policy of refusing to reveal who works for him--for us, actually--isn't about balance. It's about a perverse sense of entitlement and a deep aversion to scrutiny and accountability. It is anti-democratic.
Perhaps a committee chair should consider requesting a roster of employees in the OVP. Just on principle.
Update: TPM reader PG comes through in a pinch with a link to the story I alluded to above but couldn't put my finger on. It was in The American Prospect last May. Here's the key passage:
His press people seem shocked that a reporter would even ask for an interview with the staff. The blanket answer is no -- nobody is available. Amazingly, the vice president’s office flatly refuses to even disclose who works there, or what their titles are. “We just don’t give out that kind of information,” says Jennifer Mayfield, another of Cheney’s “angels.” She won’t say who is on staff, or what they do? No, she insists. “It’s just not something we talk about.” The notoriously silent OVP staff rebuffs not just pesky reporters but even innocuous database researchers from companies like Carroll Publishing, which puts out the quarterly Federal Directory. “They’re tight-lipped about the kind of information they put out,” says Albert Ruffin, senior editor at Carroll, who fumes that Cheney’s office doesn’t bother returning his calls when he’s updating the limited information he manages to collect.
Time to shine some light on the OVP.
--David Kurtz
Wonderful little line at the end of Dave Kirkpatrick's piece on the man behind the Obama-Madrassa smear ...
After Insight posted the article on Jan. 17, Mr. Kuhner said, he was disappointed to see that the Drudge Report did not link to it on its Web site as it has done with other Insight articles. So, as usual, he e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC.
Negged by Drudge, so forced to peddle it to Fox and MSNBC.
--Josh Marshall
NYT:
At least 250 militants were killed and an American helicopter was shot down in violent clashes near the southern city of Najaf on Sunday, Iraqi officials said.For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.
It appeared to be one of Iraq’s deadliest battles since the American-led invasion four years ago and was the first major fight for Iraqi forces in Najaf Province since they took over control of security from the Americans in December.
I'll be interested in learning the extent to which Iraqi forces truly took the lead in this battle.
--David Kurtz
So how serious is the Bush Administration about its newfound commitment to addressing global climate change? Never mind. We all know the answer to that.
The better question is: To what lengths will the Bush Administration go to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions?
How about physically blocking sunlight?
From the Sydney Morning Herald (via Balkinization):
The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.". . .
The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".
It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.
Basically it's the same old song and dance, with the added twist of using additional dramatic manmade alterations of the Earth's climate to solve the problem of manmade alterations to the Earth's climate.
So here's a good story for an enterprising environmental reporter. Which U.S. companies or industries are most likely to benefit from an official policy of creating "sunglasses" for the planet itself? Of the various technologies considered potentially feasible (if that's not giving the idea too much credence), who stands to benefit financially? And how much money have they contributed to the GOP?
Seriously. You expect the Administration to go to great lengths to avoid the regulation of emissions. But this policy alternative doesn't just bubble to the surface without someone outside of government pushing it. So who's the culprit?
Update: I may have set myself up for a slew of emails about why this idea is or is not technically viable. For more on that separate issue, you might check out this BBC report on "global dimming" and this blog post on geo-engineering.
--David Kurtz
One thing that's on the agenda for 2008: the fight for a Lieberman-proof majority in the senate. That's certainly a big deal. Will Lieberman switch parties over the next two years? I think it's extremely unlikely for the simple reason that at least at present the odds look better than not that the Dems will expand their majority in the senate. That would mean that if Lieberman switched parties and swung the chamber to the Republicans, he would likely go back into the minority in 2008 with a majority that would be committed as a major agenda item to screwing him in whichever way they could.
So Joe won't switch because it's not in his own interest to do so.
Having said this, let me be clear that I am by no means saying the Dems are assured of expanding their majority. The national political environment could be very different in two years and very bad for the Dems. But right now, largely on the basis of the number of seats both sides will be defending, the senate Dems will have the wind at their backs two years from now. And that, I believe, will keep Joe in place. Still, the man gets worse by the day, so the fight for a Lieberman-proof majority is an important one.
--Josh Marshall
Joe Lieberman tells Chris Wallace he's not sure he'll support a Democrat for President in 2008:
WALLACE: Let's look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country.
I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.
So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned.
. . .
WALLACE: . . . You're saying you might vote Republican in 2008.
LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.
I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I'm saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide who to support for president.
Implied in Lieberman's comments is that he's new to this whole idea of putting the national interest first. I guess in elections past he just checked the name of the Democrat. Wonder what he really thought of Al Gore.
--David Kurtz
On This Week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) had this to say: "I don't believe that it's helpful right now to show there's disarray around the world as well as in our body at home. We really need, at this point, to get on the same page."
To which TPM Reader DC replies: "I guess he hasn't figured out yet that most of us are on the same page: we are done in Iraq, and the disaster there was brought to us by the failed policies of the administration."
--David Kurtz
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy. It's the failed policy of this president going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
See, that wasn't so hard to say.
--David Kurtz
Dutch authorities say an Iraqi-born Dutch citizen, suspected of plotting attacks on American forces in Iraq, has been extradited to the United States.Wesam al-Delaema was put on a plane and flown to an undisclosed location in the US after losing his final appeal against extradition in December.
He is set to become the first suspect tried in a US court for allegedly plotting attacks on US forces in Iraq.
Update: A Dutch reader emailed to point out this passage from the BBC story: "[A] Dutch judge said there was 'no reason to believe that the US authorities will not abide by the commitments they have given or... deprive the suspect of his fundamental rights.'" The reader asks, "Probably the Dutch judge (and minister Hirs Balin) had no time to read about recent developments in the US?"
--David Kurtz
The Observer, on the status of Iran's nuclear program and U.S./Israeli saber-rattling:
Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.. . .
The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network.
. . .
Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.
The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.
. . .
It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.
The escalating sense of crisis is being driven by two imminent events, the 'installation' of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and the scheduled delivery of fuel from Russia for Iran's Busheyr civil nuclear reactor, due to start up this autumn. Both are regarded as potential trigger points for an Israeli attack.
Hawkish elements of the Israeli government working in tandem with hawkish elements of the U.S. government to spread the chaos outward.
--David Kurtz
