Is Harry Reid threatening to sue John Solomon (now of the Washington Post) and the Associated Press (his former employer) over Solomon's highly controversial and by most sentient standards discredited story about Reid's Las Vegas land deal?
It sure looks like something's going on. This evening at AmericaBlog, John Aravosis flagged a three day old AP day story that notes that Reid retained a high-profile specialist in libel law, Martin Singer, to "respond to a story by The Associated Press that was critical of a Las Vegas land deal involving the senator."
The report cites FEC records showing that Reid paid Singer $25,000 on December 14th, a bit more than two months after the story appeared.
Conceiveably that's for work he'd done in the preceding two months. But it looks more like a retainer, i.e., for future work, which would suggest that the legal wrangling continued well after the initial publication and possibly continues still.
--Josh Marshall
If you're having trouble watching Obama's speech on his Web site, we have video of his full announcement right here.
Update: Some takes on the speech here, here, here, and here.
--Greg Sargent
Rudy Giuliani's aides come up with a novel way to explain his flip-flop on "partial birth" abortion: Lie about it.
--Greg Sargent
This account is a couple of days old now, but deserves at least passing mention:
At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers, Soroush said, "Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.""I know," President Bush answered.
"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.
The president chuckled and walked away.
Thanks to TPM Reader LD for the link.
(ed.note: This post was edited to reflect a revised version of the excerpted news article.)
--David Kurtz
The Administration tries to run out the clock on congressional oversight:
The Justice Department, which serves as legal counsel in court proceedings for other departments, has repeatedly gone beyond merely protecting its own actions from scrutiny. Even when Congress was in Republican hands, Justice Department officials advised other government departments on how to stonewall congressional review. These efforts now appear to be ramping up.The Justice Department Legal Counsel's office recently held meetings with lawyers of other departments to discuss strategy for responding to congressional requests for documents and hearing appearances. In January, Senator Grassley charged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the DOJ has started running training "events" for other offices of the executive branch, teaching them how to handle congressional inquiries and hearings. Grassley's office says they were tipped off to this by someone in the Justice Department worried about this new program.
23 1/2 months to go . . .
--David Kurtz
I don't have any sympathy for Doug Feith, but Mark Thompson at Time makes a point that bears repeating:
Feith may have been one of the Bush Administration's most fervent supporters of war with Iraq but, in truth, he was only a bit player. Indeed, he is the third bit player in the Iraq fiasco to be paying for the sins of his superiors recently. For a couple of weeks now, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been in the dock in federal court in Washington, trying desperately to keep his one-time boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, from being stained by the responsibility for Libby's chats with reporters and government officials about Valerie Plame's CIA job. Then, just yesterday, Army General George Casey was raked over the coals by Senators who didn't think his past 30 months in command of U.S. ground forces in Iraq warrants his elevation to Army chief of staff. . . .This trio of woes seems to have a common thread: Underlings snared while trying to please their bosses. It's almost like blaming the hammer instead of the carpenter for a bent nail.
Update: Let me refine a point here. Some readers have objected to calling Feith a "bit player." I probably wouldn't have phrased it that way, but I don't think Thompson is letting Feith off the hook in any way. Nor should he be. Yes, Feith is an important figure who held a high-level position at the Pentagon. But he was merely implementing a policy that came down from the White House and the Office of the Vice President through the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Heaping scorn on Feith, who is no longer in government, is appropriate as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the buck stops with Bush and Cheney, who not only directed the policy in the first place but remain completely unapologetic, as strikingly demonstrated by the White House's refusal to cooperate with the investigation of Feith's office by the Pentagon inspector general. In that sense, Feith is a bit player.
--David Kurtz
How goes the surge?
A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change.Fewer than 20% of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 that have arrived have yet to make a visible impact in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of paramilitary gunmen patrol the streets.
U.S. officials are trying to manage expectations both domestically and in Iraq, continually asserting that the new forces will slowly take up positions in the capital over the coming months.
But after one of the bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Iraqis are increasingly impatient. A series of high-profile attacks on both civilians and security forces killed more than 1,000 Iraqis and at least 33 U.S. troops in the first nine days of the month.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he is investigating whether he can speed the pace of the troop buildup. But a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was unlikely that U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad any faster than planned. The five brigades going to the capital are due to arrive one per month, with the last coming in May.
--David Kurtz
From The Guardian today:
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
So there you have it. No real surprise. Just about anyone paying any attention understands that's where things stand: Gun loaded. Safety lock still on. In the hands of an Administration with an itchy trigger finger.
A few days ago, I linked to a James Fallows' column in which he suggested that Congress take steps now to head off an Iran misadventure. Several readers emailed wondering whether Congress has the power to preempt the President from taking military action.
As it turns out, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held hearings recently on this issue. In a column of his own, John Dean summarizes the bipartisan consensus that emerged from witnesses who testified at that hearing:
What is especially significant, in my eyes, is that the conclusion that Congress does indeed have power to significantly restrict the Administration in its plans for war, transcends politics: Even experts who have worked for Republican administrations have come to this conclusion.. . .
[T]here is no real question as to whether Congress could legally stop Bush and Cheney from going to war in Iran without coming to Congress to fully explain what they are doing and why. Congress has that power; the only question is whether it will dare to use it.
For those interested in the finer legal points, Dean provides links to the witnesses' written testimony.
You can come up with a laundry list of reasons why attacking Iran would be a disaster, and you can come up with a decent list of reasons why the Administration is presently constrained by circumstances from doing so (not enough troops and hardware, for example). But you'd be hard-pressed to come up with any good reasons for why this Administration would be constrained by either circumstances or potentially disastrous outcomes. Besides, do these clowns still deserve the benefit of the doubt?
--David Kurtz
From WaPo, the back channel fight over the warpath to Iran begins ...
Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.
The strategy has sparked a growing debate within the administration and the intelligence community, according to U.S. intelligence and government officials. One faction is pressing for more economic embargoes against Iran, including asset freezes and travel bans for the country's top leaders. But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials worry that a public push regarding the al-Qaeda suspects held in Iran could jeopardize U.S. intelligence-gathering and prompt the Iranians to free some of the most wanted individuals.
--Josh Marshall
On offense ...
Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.
--Josh Marshall
New MoveOn.org ad slams GOP Senators for stalling escalation debate:
"They're willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq, but they don't have the courage to face a vote."
Video here.
--Greg Sargent
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said she doesn't remember hearing about a diplomatic overture from the Iranians in 2003 -- despite the fact that the proposal circulated among the highest levels of the government.
Well, here's a refresher, the actual fax circulated at the time that detailed the terms of the deal.
--Paul Kiel
More absolutely dismal coverage of Pelosi plane story.
Update: Another bad one, courtesy of Howard Kurtz.
--Greg Sargent
At The Blotter, TPM alum Justin Rood reports that though the GOP's congressional majority may be gone, their scandals have a lot of life left in them -- Reps. Lewis, Miller, Calvert, Cunningham, et al. Plenty of fun to go.
--Josh Marshall
House Dem leaders maintaining unity on planned anti-escalation resolution.
--Greg Sargent
When is intelligence analysis not intelligence analysis? Why, when it's against the law.
Spencer Ackerman explains.
Update: We'll have running updates on this over at TPMmuckraker.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: a new report has more details on how the administration got the intelligence they wanted to hear in the run up to the Iraq War.
--Paul Kiel
Picking up on the implications for evangelical Christianity, the Christian Coalition condemns Pelosi ...
Christian Coalition of America condemns the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from San Francisco, for trying to get luxurious travel paid for by the American taxpayers. Is a first class seat on a commercial jet no longer good enough for Speaker Pelosi? Nancy Pelosi is demanding that the Air Force provide her with a large jet on demand - "Pelosi One" - so she can transport her political cronies, favorite Members of Congress, congressional staffers, friends and relatives back and forth to her district in San Francisco every week.
And of course Lou Dobbs keeps flacking the story even though it's been completed discredited. Lou Dobbs.
--Josh Marshall
White House and Department of Defense at odds over meaning of testimony of Def Sec Robert Gates.
--Greg Sargent
Tom DeLay has some very unkind things to say about fellow GOPers Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
--Greg Sargent
He's always the last to know.
Tony Snow plays dumb about what that second naval carrier group is doing in the Persian Gulf.
--Paul Kiel
A new statement from the House Sergeant at Arms on the Pelosi-plane-ridiculousness ...
For Immediate ReleaseFebruary 8, 2007
As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: a long-awaited report on the Office of Special Plans, the intelligence shop in the Pentagon notorious for its bogus intel on Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda, is coming out tomorrow. Some details here, via the AP.
--Paul Kiel
Really putting the lawyers to the test (from the AP) ....
Libby's attorneys also will try to undercut the credibility of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who testified that Libby revealed Plame's identity to her. Defense attorney William Jeffress said he intends to call Miller's former boss, Times managing editor Jill Abramson, to try to refute Miller and question her credibility.
And Jill Abramson under oath about Judy Miller's credibility? I may have to take up that offer of a press pass for that incomparable moment.
(ed.note: Special thanks to TPM Reader DG for the catch.)
(further.ed.note: When I looked back on this post I realized that the last line might be taken as a dig at both Miller's and Abramson's credibility. That wasn't the intent. I was focusing on Miller's and the prospect of Abramson's candidly evaluating it in a public forum.)
--Josh Marshall
Here's something that isn't exactly going to cast a flattering light on the Senate's failure to get their anti-escalation resolution introduced.
House Democrats are planning to pass an anti-"surge" resolution of their own -- after an unusual three-day debate on the House floor in which every House member will be heard.
--Greg Sargent
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) keeps pressing for a straight answer from the administration on whether they think an attack on Iran would require congressional approval.
--Paul Kiel
Pelosi from last night on Fox ...
They told me the first day that I was supposed to go that I couldn't make it across the country. And I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial. ... I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family. ... I'm happy to go commercial. But they want me to go on this plane, so the issue was distance, not size. And again, it's not about having a plane. It's about having transportation. These planes are used for other purposes in between trips, which are, you know, take place once or twice a week, going or coming. So, it isn't about that. But there are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard. But it has nothing to do, as I say, with the president of the United States. He has encouraged my having the security I need.
A decent start. Let's see what Blitzer, Tapper and the rest do with it.
--Josh Marshall
Condi Rice's memory goes all hazy on Iran's grand diplomatic overture in 2003.
--Paul Kiel
Breaking: The Edwards campaign has just released statements from him and the two bloggers at the center of the controversy, and it looks like they're going to survive.
Read the statements here.
--Greg Sargent
I've given a lot of virtual ink to this Pelosi-jets story. So let me point out this AP story on the issue, which is vastly better than what we've seen from all the cable nets and most of the rest of the media. Not perfect but it puts in context the essential issue -- that Pelosi wants a jet that can carry enough fuel to reach California.
--Josh Marshall
CNN headline: "Libby defense to challenge Russert's credibility."
Join the club.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Vanity Fair on whether the administration is planning on war with Iran.
--Paul Kiel
Fourth try's the charm? From the WSJ: "U.S. officials are working to spare Saddam Hussein's former vice president from a rapid trip to the Iraqi gallows, fearful that his execution, following the flawed hangings of Mr. Hussein and a co-defendant, could further damage the credibility of the American-backed government."
--Josh Marshall
The Times has a further update on that rash of downed US military helicopters in Iraq. It turns out that in addition to today's apparent shoot-down of a CH-46 Sea Knight north of Baghdad, there was another as-yet unreported incident on January 31st in which a private security's firms helicopter working on behalf of the State Department was shot down on a flight from Hilla to Baghdad. Fortunately, no one flying on that helicopter seems to have been killed. And another helicopter swooped down a short time later and evacuated the survivors of the crash.
That brings to six the number of US military or de facto US military (i.e., private security firm helicopters) shot down in Iraq in little more than two weeks.
There seems little doubt now that this is more than a statistical anomaly. But investigators still don't seem to have a clear grasp of what's happening. The one piece of information that appears relative clear is that this is not being caused by new weaponry. It's been accomplished with high-caliber machine gun fire in most or all cases. The insurgents are just getting better, or more aggressive, or more ominously, they're getting better at knowing where the helicopters are going to be.
Notes the Times: "Historically, improved tactics in shooting down helicopters have proved to be important factors in conflicts in which guerrillas have achieved victories against major powers, including battles in Somalia, Afghanistan and Vietnam."
Late Update: On the general topic of helicopters, in this case attack helicopters, see this 2003 article by Fred Kaplan in Slate on the history of the attack helicopter, how well or poorly they work, and how the Army/Air Force rivalry played into the equation.
--Josh Marshall
If there's no ancient proverb stating that the victories of wounded and unpopular presidents don't last long, then there should be.
Here at Newsweek, Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey note what they call President Bush's "notable triumph" in shutting down the debate about Iraq in the senate.
Yet now we see that seven Republican senators, five of whom voted with their party caucus to shut down the debate on Monday, have now written an open letter to the leaders of the body pledging to "We respectfully advise you, our leaders, that we intend to take S. Con. Res 7 and offer it, where possible under the Standing Rules of the Senate, to bills coming before the Senate" and "explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."
I'll wait to see how aggressively they push this. But as a general matter the writing is on the wall. The president can no more plug the dike against the on-rush of reality in the senate than he can talk or bamboozle his way out of the mess he's made in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Yet another article from ABC -- this one on the front page of their website -- on the Pelosi-airplane bamboozle. I find it almost dazzling how nauseating and disingenuous this latest article happens to be. The new news, according to ABC's Jake Tapper, is that the Pentagon has rejected Pelosi's request for a military aircraft that can fly from Washington to her district in California without stopping to refuel.
We have here a pretty nice illustration of the iron triangle of right-wing sludge slopping. Queued up by the Moonie press, fed by congressional Republicans and orchestrated by Bush administration officials and then spread far and wide by the gelded mainstream press.
Here's something that jumped out at me though in the ABC News piece. Tapper provides a list he got from the Pentagon on the strict rules Pelosi must abide by with her US government plane.
Among those is this ...
Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics committee);
Now, first of all, do military regulations really pull in the okay of the House Ethics committee? That sounds a bit more like a House rule. More importantly, though, did the ABC reporters on this story give a close a look to whether this purported rule was ever enforced with Speaker Hastert? Did he routinely ferry fellow members of Congress around on his plane?
TPM Reader BL reminded me of an incident from back in the Foley scandal in which Hastert was trying to clean up the mess created by his congressional lickspittle Rep. Shimkus (R-IL), a close Hastert 'ally' from a nearby district who the Speaker installed to run the House page board.
Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times on October 9th, Lynn Sweet wrote ...
A week ago Sunday, about 8 p.m., Shimkus arrived at Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to pick up his ride back to Washington. As speaker, Hastert flies on U.S. aircraft. The government plane picked up Shimkus and then headed to Aurora to board Hastert, who spent the weekend at his Plano home.
So in the midst of the exploding Foley scandal, which the Ethics Committee would eventually whitewash, the esteemed Speaker Hastert had his buddy Shimkus get a separate pick up to fly back to DC with him on his military jet so both could head back to Washington to deal with FoleyGate.
The ABC piece merely quotes an Air Force spokesman saying that Hastert would use the plane only for "himself ... one to three staff members and two security staff — members of the Capitol police force. His wife would sometimes fly." No mention of other members of Congress.
Has anybody asked Hastert's office how often he shuttled other members of Congress on his military plane?
--Josh Marshall
Seven Republican senators have written Reid, McConnell, Dubin and Lott decrying the political gamesmanship that preventing a debate and vote on the 'surge'. I have a hard time buying their line. It was the Republicans who scuttled this debate. I have a hard time seeing this as a matter of equal blame on both sides. But read the details and see what you think.
I think Reid's words on this will carry the day. You can't escape this one. Iraq is the issue of the day. They can't get away from it. The debate's coming.
--Josh Marshall
How silly did the Pelosi-airplane story get today in the CNN retelling? Some choice squibs.
Chatting it up with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room Carol Costello noted that protestations to the contrary, "both planes are capable of flying coast to coast without refueling under optimal conditions."
Blitzer also noted that "In theory, [both plane] could fly coast to coast without refueling, but that would also depend on multiple factors, including winds, payloads and reserve fuel requirements."
Note, the plane the GOP says Pelosi must fly on "in theory" could make it to her district. That is, assuming good prevailing winds. Adverse wind conditions or a back up on the runway in San Francisco and it might fall out of the sky. But under "optimal conditions" it could well make it all the way there.
Go see the rest of the transcript to see if CNN asked any of Pelosi's accusers any adverse questions.
Late Update: TPM Reader JT from the airline industry writes in to say: "I work with aircraft logistics situations all the time. Having a plane that can make it to a destination non-stop (but only if conditions are right) is a nightmare for planning. It means you don't know if you need to plan for another hour on the ground for the fuelstop until a few hours before the flight. And the weather looked good yesterday but doesn't look good today. And (as you noted), if there's a lengthy ground hold before the flight, you'll make the stop regardless of weather. You would almost rather have a plane that definitely needed a fuel stop so you could at least plan around it."
Later Update: TPM Reader JT checks in again ...
In reading further about the planes… Hastert had a “C-20”… another name for a Gulfstream business jet. Assuming Hastert has the C-20A version, this would be like a Gulfstream II (able to make Illinois non-stop… but sometimes may not make it nonstop to California.Pelosi wants a non-stop to California plane. Terrific… upgrade her to the C-20H. This is the Gulfstream IV equivalent. It’s basically the same size plane but has the range she wants.
Republicans are accusing her (per ABC article) that she wants the C-32. This is equivalent to a Boeing 757 which holds as many as 200+ passengers in all coach configuration. If this is what she truly requested, this is indeed a giant step up from what Hastert had been using.
Point #3 is the kicker. If she wants to go from Gulfstream to Boeing 757, that is quite a leap. If she just wants nonstop, give her the Gulfstream IV equivalent and be done with it.
--Josh Marshall
ABC picks up the bogus Pelosi-airplane story. Give it a read and see how they work their way around discussing whether the story has any merit.
--Josh Marshall
An army investigation finds no evidence of detainee abuse at Gitmo. And oddly enough, the investigator managed an absolutely thorough inquiry without speaking to any detainees.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader AG on Edwards, et al.: "I'm sad to see that this whole "controversy" over John Edwards' bloggers is yet another example of what you've termed the "bitch-slap theory" of politics. If the Edwards campaign buckles under the "pressure" of some as petty as Michelle Malkin and Bill Donahue, then the meta-message is that he's even more of a wimp that John Kerry. I can understand the campaign not wanting this to become a distracting "issue", but I think the way to effectuate that is to basically laugh off the entire "controversy" rather than buckle under."
And TPM Reader NG (no relaton) ...
My husband and I would likely be described as "liberal" Catholics by the rest of the world. Maybe we are. I do read TPM. I don't like William Donahoe either. He's way into victimhood. Yes people make remarks about the Catholic Church that they would never make about other religions. The criticism is often uninformed or ignorant. But Roman Catholics are not persecuted in the U.S. We are free to practice our religion. I've read Pandagon in the past. I read it because I wanted to read a feminist blog. I thought they spent too much time cruising the right-wing blogosphere. I also found their criticisms of the church to be rather redundant. Yes I really have read it all before. It's fine if you want to make them but don't pretend to be original or cutting-edge.There is another aspect of this case that has received little mention but I find it interesting. Marcotte made another controversial post about the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault case that received some attention. (I'm a criminal defense attorney and have been following the case.) The blog entry parroted the conventional feminist prosecutorial spin on the case with no real thought as to how the later developments have changed the case. Marcotte is never going to change her mind about this one. The problem is that John Edwards old law partner, Wade Smith, is representing one of the defendants in that case. Smith and at least one other defense lawyer have also contributed to Edwards's past campaigns. I do not know how close Smith and Edwards are. But I might be annoyed if my former law partner hired somebody to work for him that trashed my high profile client in a public forum. The situation may have made Edwards uncomfortable.
I do feel bad for almost anybody who loses their job. But I wonder why Marcotte was a good fit for a political campaign. She may be witty but she is terribly predictable and seems to have trouble adjusting to new information. I think that would be a problem for someone running for office. But I'm just a lawyer and what do I know.
Then there's TPM Reader GN ...
Normally I'd agree with you regarding Donohue's waiver of credibility, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. The comment regarding the Church forcing women to give birth so as to provide "tithing" Catholics smacked of (what I had hoped) was long-gone 19th century biases against Catholics-- that they are a slavish people in thrall to an all powerful hierarchy employing superstition to keep people in line, and that the Church itself is an organized racket to take advantage of such people. Look, there's more than enough legitimate reason to criticize the Church's position on birth control without resorting to ad hominem (or ad institutionem!) attacks. Obviously Edwards can hire who he wants-- but how can one be surprised that he'd fire people showing such cavalier disrespect towards an important traditional Democratic voting base?
Or TPM Reader DF ...
Edwards has staked out some pretty strong positions on healthcare, the war in Iraq, and although I can't remember him saying so, I'm pretty sure he's in favor of decisive action vis a vis climate change. Great. These are all issues that have reached a crisis point of one kind or another. So today the righties put a little heat on his bloggers (over the kind of nontroversy that they are so adept at exploiting)- and he cuts them loose. Can we expect him to stay strong on those important issues that are not yet crises?
--Josh Marshall
Guess who's subbing on the campaign trail for Hillary in New York this weekend? The answer is...
--Greg Sargent
Given how edgy blog writing is (some more than others), it seems inevitable that bloggers who go to work for campaigns will get their past writings scrutinized and then have their employers dogged to fire them. If there's anything that surprises me about this dust-up with the Edwards campaign, it's this. Is it really possible that they hadn't figured out who they were hiring, figured something like this would happen and planned for how they would react if and when it did?
That said, the 'incendiary' quotes I just heard referenced on CNN didn't really strike me as all that incendiary. And second, Bill Donohue? Chief rabblerouser and bullyboy of the 'Catholic League'? Please. I think he gave up his 'incendiary' language complaint rights when he said that " "Hollywood likes anal sex" or that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." I can't wait till he comes with the dig that gets Jews, Christians and anal sex all into one long smoldering sentence.
Please. Please. Please. Let's get someone on the right to complain who's not a complete nutball and Jew-basher and then we can talk.
--Josh Marshall
As noted below, Rudy is flip-flopping badly on a key issue for social conservatives: Whether he backs a ban on "partial birth" abortion. Here's another damning piece of evidence.
--Greg Sargent
Def Sec Gates: Senate debate of anti-escalation resolution doesn't hurt troop morale, after all.
--Greg Sargent
The surge focuses on Baghdad. But, according to the recent National Intelligene Estimate on Iraq, one of the upcoming flashpoints in the war is the multiethnic city of Kirkuk -- a city the Kurds are coming closer and closer to controlling.
The Iraqi President's son, a representative of the Kurds, tells us that the fight over the city is bound to be "messy."
--Paul Kiel
Is this really true? Have the two liberal bloggers working on the John Edwards campaign really been fired?
--Greg Sargent
The Times has a piece today about how the Pentagon is worried that the 'surge' can't succeed unless other civilian government agencies send their folks in too. Spencer Ackerman talked to a source at the State Department who explains why they're not eager to head to Baghdad.
--Josh Marshall
In some respects, I know this is like flogging a dead horse. But here's another example of why the Washington Times doesn't operate like a actual newspaper or follow any journalistic standards. You remember last week there was this dust-up over Nancy Pelosi's use of Air Force jets for travel purposes. After the piece ran in the Times, it came out the Denny Hastert had had just the same use of Air Force jets since 9/11. The difference is that the plane Hastert used won't fly cross-country without refueling. Here's the Times at the story again today. It's basically a rehash. But they again fail to mention this salient point, which more or less exposes the whole story as bogus.
Late Update: I didn't see this when I first read this story. But buried down deep in the article there is this passage: "Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff." So, my bad, they did mention it, though it was buried. And of course they included the further claim about wanting to ferry other, a claim for which there appears to be no basis. The general point about the lack of any journalistic ethics or standards at the Washington Times, alas, still very much applies.
--Josh Marshall
Study finds that recent federal investigations of Democrats far outnumber investigations of Republicans.
--Paul Kiel
Another US helicopter down just north of Baghdad.
This article in the Washington Post notes that the US military in Iraq has already adjusted procedures for helicopter missions after the four shoot downs over the previous two weeks.
Late Update: Reports say seven killed.
--Josh Marshall
Reuters ...
The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.
Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.
On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.
It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.
--Josh Marshall
At Election Central I noticed a link to this article about how Barack Obama decided to quit smoking over the winter holidays. His wife wants him to quit for the obvious health reasons. Perhaps just as importantly smoking is just bad PR in this day and age. The article linked above in the Trib has some interesting discussion about the negative associations smoking has today. The article quotes a communications studies prof saying smoking "doesn't go with the social, environmental message of reform he would like to project."
So, an interesting set of questions about the culture and politics and Obama's public image. But here's another question. Aren't people who are in the early stages of quitting a nicotine habit really irritable and on-edge? And isn't running for president extremely stressful?
To preempt all the emails about the dangers of smoking and the importance of quitting, I'm certainly not disagreeing. It just made me think that presidential campaigns are usually times when people revert to bad habits (eating, smoking, drinking, etc.) not when they quit them.
--Josh Marshall
CIA's Foggo gave special Iraq contract deals to Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes.
Grand unified scandal watch resumes ...
Update: More here.
--Josh Marshall
Forget the Senate. If you want to see members of Congress pass judgment on Bush's escalation, the House of Representatives may be the better place to look.
--Greg Sargent
I recommend reading Edward Luttwak's oped today in the New York Times.
The argument is simple: The US shouldn't completely withdraw from Iraq but it should 'disengage', by which he means that the US should stop trying to patrol the streets of Iraq, stop trying to quell violence and in so many words let the militias and contending parties fight it out. Eliminating those missions would allow most of the US troops to head home. The rest would relocated to sealed off camps on the periphery of the country or into Iraqi Kurdistan to be on hand if a neighboring country tries to invade or visibly interfere or if there's some big concentration of jihadists we want to attack.
One can agree or disagree with whether or not we should 'disengage' or withdraw entirely. But Luttwak hits on the key point that our current national debate seems to ignore entirely: Namely, that Iraq is in a state of civil war which we our combat forces are not in a position to stop. We cannot stop it. But our presence is dragging it out, arguably making it even more deadly by making it more protracted.
Here is what Luttwak says about what would happen ...
Politically, on the other hand, disengagement should actually reduce the violence. American power has been interposed between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites. That has relieved the Shiite majority of responsibility to such an extent that many, notably the leaders of the Mahdi Army, feel free to attack the American and British troops who are busy protecting their co-religionist civilians from Sunni insurgents. For many Arab Sunnis, on the other hand, the United States must be the enemy simply because it upholds the majority of the heretical Shiites.Were the United States to disengage, both Arab Sunnis and Shiites would have to take responsibility for their own security (as the Kurds have doing been all along). Where these three groups are not naturally separated by geography, they would be forced to find ways to stabilize relations with each other. That would most likely involve violence as well as talks, and some forcing of civilians from their homes. But all this is happening already, and there is no saying which ethno-religious group would be most favored by a reduction of the United States footprint.
This is another example where fairly straightforward and I believe indisputable facts suggest pulling our troops out of the midst of this civil war, not pushing more of them into it. But denial is pushing our national policy in the opposite direction. I think that some key players in the White House realize this. And the surge is either a way to blame 'failure' on the Iraqis or pave a path into Iran. Others, perhaps the president, don't even get this. I don't know.
But getting our policy in order is also being stymied because the political opponents of the war aren't willing to say that, yes, the policy has failed. Not 'defeated'. To be 'defeated' you need to have some other party 'defeat' you. This is just a failure. But whichever it is, that bogey is being used by the White House to scare off the opposition. It's a failure. There's no recovering it. And the unspeakable reality -- truly unspeakable, apparently -- is that it's not that bad. Horrible for the Iraqis. Horrible for the American dead. Terrible for American prestige, power and honor. All that. But not the end of the world. The future of our civilization isn't at stake. And our physical safety isn't at stake. We'll go on. We are not the brave British standing behind Winston Churchill bucking us up with the confidence that "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender ..." Those aren't the stakes here. Put it in those words and it's almost comical. President Bush wants us to believe that it is because it serves his grandiosity and direct political interests to believe that, to believe that his political interests -- where everything, history, legacy, etc. is on the line -- are the same as ours as a country. They're not.
--Josh Marshall
Out of all the talking going on at the House oversight hearing this morning on the administration's handling of Iraqi reconstruction, you're not going to get a clearer summary of the problem than this.
--Paul Kiel
Conservative writer: Rudy is "not conservative." Rudy "will not win."
Update: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins agrees.
--Greg Sargent
It gets better. Now Sen. Specter (R-PA) says his staff was responsible for inserting that US Attorney provision into the Patriot Act. He didn't know anything about it until Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) told him about it.
--Josh Marshall
Phew! What a relief. That board of four ministers appointed to cure disgraced minister Ted Haggard of his homosexuality has been meeting pretty intensively. And it turns out Haggard is now "completely heterosexual."
Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur, one of the four, said: ''He is completely heterosexual. That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing.''
As part of his continuing recovery and presumably in the spirit of forgiveness and caring, the group has also recommended he leave Colorado permanently and go into a different line of work. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now," said Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, another member of the board, "It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed."
--Josh Marshall
Last month we reported extensively on the purge of US Attorneys across the country and the fact that at the administration's request Sen. Specter (R-PA) had inserted a provision into the USA Patriot Act that allowed the administration to appoint new US Attorneys without senate approval.
This morning at a senate hearing on the US Attorney purge, Sen. Specter responded to the TPMmuckraker report, calling it "offensive." But 'offensive' in the sense of also being true apparently. See the details and his explanation.
Late Update: Apparently Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) isn't buying it. She repeated the 'slipped in' language when it was her turn to speak.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RM checks in ...
As a lawyer at a large corporate law firm and fomer Navy veteran, I am no expert on theparliamentary procedure but am a bit perplexed at the approach the Democrats are taking on this. They have manuevered to get Republicans on record "blocking" debate, but only because Harry Reid seeks to limit debate and a substitute proposal by McConnell. Thus the Republicans can argue about a convoluted process and complain that they could not offer an alternative they wanted. And at that, all the Democrats want to debate is a chocie between two Republican (Hagel and Warner) alternatives.I have a modest proposal. Why don't the Senate Democrats put forward a proposed rule that the debate:
(1) is subject to any and all amendments (for binding resolutions, for the "no cutting off funds" proposal that McConell wants) and that there shall be no limit on the debate;
(2) will be held from 9 am to 7pm every weekday, Monday through Friday, until the debate is concluded;
(3) will require, just like the Clinton impeachment trial, that every Senator be physically present in their seats for all of the debate (I mean, the issues are at least equally important).Maybe the inability of Tim Johnson to be present will cost the Democrats a vote. Maybe the Republicans can filibuster adoption of this rule. But at least the Democrats would have a clean record on which to argue that the Republicans really do not want to debate. If the Republicans manage to get the substantive votes to adopt some alternative resolution, so be it. They will be stuck with their vote come 2008.
And, as a cherry on top, the rule should also specifically invite the President of the Senate to preside personally over the entire debate, every weekday, until it is over. Let's see Dick Cheney say he has more important things to do. After all, George Bush is the Commander in Chief and the Decider, so why can't Cheney take the time (especially in light of TPM Muckraker's find that Cheney is uniquely suited, as the previously unknown fourth branch of government, to moderate this debate). Let's offer Cheney the opportunity to be on CSPAN every day, dealing with this. Then we shall see who "cuts and runs."
It escapes me why the Democrats appear to have no skill at setting up the parliamentary process in a way that makes their points in a simple way. Force the debate. Even in the House, when the vote was forced, and the Republicans tries play games over the Murtha resolution, we all saw that the American public understood exactly what was going on.
Curious (and apoplectic),
RM
RM makes a very important point. But before getting to that issue, it's important to understand precisely what happened on the senate floor today, what parliamentary procedures were in play and why it ended up as it did.
The Republicans main aim here was to prevent a no-confidence vote in the senate on the president's war policy. They threatened a filibuster for a while until they finally came up with a rationale for the filibuster. And what they came up with was this ...
There were three resolutions in play today. The Warner-Levin anti-surge resolution. The McCain-Graham-Lieberman pro-surge resolution. Then there was a third resolution offered by Sen. Judd Gregg. The key is the Gregg resolution. All the Gregg resolution really said was that it's the Commander-in-Chief's duty to assign military missions and the Congress's duty to fund them. (Constitutionally, it's a ridiculous claim. But let's set that aside for the moment.)
Now, here's the rub. The Democrats wanted them all to go to a simple majority vote. The Republicans wanted each to go to a 60+ filibuster-breaking vote.
How do the two thresholds shape the debate?
If each goes to a simple majority vote, the anti-surge resolution wins, the pro-surge resolution loses and the Gregg amendment probably wins too. But the headline is the repudiation of the president. The Gregg amendment is an afterthought.
However, if each resolution goes to a 60 vote test, the thinking was that both surge resolutions (pro and con) would fail. And only the Gregg amendment would win.
So opposition to the president would lose and the only winning amendment would be one that gets the senate on the record saying that Congress is obligated to fund whatever missions the president chooses.
That's what happened.
--Josh Marshall
Who's right and who's wrong?
Below we noted that the Washington Times story about Nancy Pelosi's demand for a military aircraft for travel back to her district appears to be a crock. According to Thinkprogress and reporting in Roll Call, former Speaker Denny Hastert used a military plane for travel to his district. But the plane he used couldn't carry enough fuel to fly nonstop across the country.
A Pelosi aide told Roll Call: "The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast. All we’re asking for is what Hastert had."
So this seems to be the issue: a military aircraft for the Speaker has been the rule since 9/11. But a larger plane is needed for Pelosi since she flies back and forth to California, not Illinois.
Okay, let's move along.
Now, the original Washington Times story said that Pelosi wanted the larger plane so family and friends and staff and others could fly with her. But apparently that was false.
Now, Lou Dobbs has been whacking this story nonstop for a week or so on his CNN show. And he returned to it this evening with yet another segment by reporter Lisa Sylvester. And at the end of the segment he had this chatty exchange with Sylvester ...
DOBBS: Lisa, let me see if I've got this right. She wants a plane that accommodates 42 people, private stateroom. And the reason is because she wants to be able to go nonstop from Washington to the West Coast? My goodness, she could have done that in the plane that Hastert was using (italics added).SYLVESTER: That's exactly correct, Lou. You've got that. It would be 42 people, and clearly she won't be the only one on this plane. She wants to have members of the congressional delegation. And her critics will say, look, this is a very nice perk that she can share with her colleagues and use as leverage, should she need to.
DOBBS: Well, it's really a fascinating thing: 42. She could take a circus with her, for crying out loud. All right, thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester.
Now, this whole issue is silly. But Dobbs and Co. has been on it for like a week regurgitating the bogus Washington Times piece. And here he says that the Hastert plane actually could fly coast to coast.
Does he know something everyone else doesn't?
Or did he just make that up out of whole cloth?
Many consider it poor form to point out these small-ante falsehoods. But this is how the Obama-Madrassa story got jazzed all over the place.
--Josh Marshall
A special moment.
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) sets aside time for Sen. Lieberman (ID-CT) to speak on behalf of the GOP Iraq filibuster and refuses Sen. Warner's (R-VA) request to give some time to Sen. Collins (R-ME). Collins was one of two Republicans to vote against the Republican filibuster of the anti-'surge' resolution.
Lieberman.
--Josh Marshall
Larry Johnson looks at the Plamegate timeline emerging at the Libby trial.
--Josh Marshall
So, the Washington Times story about Speaker Pelosi demanding a military aircraft to ferry her and staff and supporters around the country? Turns out it was a total crock.
Now, I thought I heard Tucker Carlson yapping this story up only this afternoon. So, here's a question I'd love some help with. If you saw another publication -- web, in print, or on TV -- pick this 'story' up, can you drop us a line? Just shoot us an email with the basic details and as much specificity as you can provide.
Remember too that the Washington Times is a sister publication of 'Insight magazine', the outfit that ran the Obama slur just a couple weeks ago.
Late Update: Okay, here's Brit Hume hawking it.
Later Update: Apparently Lou Dobbs ran with this whopper like there was no tomorrow.
--Josh Marshall
Jim Webb on his infamous encounter with President Bush: "I don't think the lack of courtesy was mine."
--Greg Sargent
So there you have it. Two Republicans buckled and voted against the filibuster -- Sens. Coleman and Collins.
Update by G.S.: Here's a list of all the GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 who backed it.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader SS on the senate squabble: "I think it's pretty simple. Everyone voting today to shut this down "voted to support President Bush's escalation in Iraq." That's the language I would bash them over the heads with for the 21 months between today and election day 2008. There's nothing untrue about that statement. It's a parliamentary tactic designed to support the president's escalation in Iraq by silencing those who wish to criticize the President's decision."
--Josh Marshall
There you have it: Sen. Lieberman just vote 'against cloture', i.e., for the filibuster to prevent the anti-surge resolution from coming to a vote.
--Josh Marshall
We had our late afternoon editorial meeting here at TPM this afternoon. And the five of us on the call had a difficult time figuring out just what the Republicans were fighting for other than using the filibuster to prevent the senate from voting a vote of no confidence in the president's war policy. But this article in the Washington Post explains pretty neatly what's up. The nominal issue is the Gregg Amendment which, pretty ridiculously, claims that the Congress has the responsibility to fully fund any mission the president decides to authorize for the US armed forces. But the key is they won't let the senate vote on the Iraq War. It's that simple. No vote, no debate on Iraq that can't get over 60 votes. That simple.
That's fine. The senate allows for that. The filibuster is an important right that sizeable minorities have in the US senate. But you take responsibility for what you try to filibuster. So let's note exactly what's happening here. The Republicans -- even ones who say they're against escalation -- are using the filibuster to prevent the senate from opposing the president's war policy. That simple. That's all this is about. Every Republican vote here is for a free hand for the president in Iraq.
Both sides try to spin these things to their own advantage. Sometimes they make them sound simpler than they are. But this one's just clear. They're using the filibuster to protect the president's war policy.
--Josh Marshall
I don't know who else gets it or where else it gets published. But for the last month or two I've been on the mailing list for something called "Dick Morris Reports." I didn't sign up. Someone else must have. But I don't know who since it's on my personal email address. In any case, today's just showed up and the message today is that John McCain is now officially no longer the frontrunner for the 2008 GOP nomination. At least in MorrisWorld, though I think I'd agree. Anyway, a few snippets.
Until now, the status of front-runner in the Republican primaries for president was jointly held by Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is clearly no longer the front-runner. In the last week or so, Giuliani has moved out to a clear lead.* McCain's latest fund-raising report, for the fourth quarter of 2006, was pathethic: He raised only $1.7 million and has only pocket change - $472,454 - on hand.
* A Fox News poll of Jan. 30-31 shows the former mayor jumping out to a significant lead among Republicans - 34 to 22 percent.
* A Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-28 shows Giuliani is better liked by Republicans than McCain -74 to 21 percent and more trusted to handle a crisis (68-20). Some 60 percent say Giuliani "better understands the problems of the average person," against 33 percent who pick McCain. By 58-34, America's Mayor is seen as the stronger leader.
Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani - a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions. Feelings seem bitterer over McCain's role in Washington battles - his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and for campaign-finance reform.
I think even some DC folks are clueing in to the reality that Republican just don't really like John McCain. But this why these are fun days not to be a Republican. Let's run that sentence again: "Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani - a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions."
Let's be frank. On most or all of these issues, Giuliani is to the left of a good number of Democrats outside the northeast and the west coast.
Basically, for social conservatives, Giuliani is way on the wrong side of every signature, litmus issue. But there's a "remarkable openness." How about remarkably desparate? They just don't have anybody in this race at the moment that's catching any kind of fire in the nomination process and has any chance in a general.
--Josh Marshall
At 5:30 P.M. today, we'll find out if the GOP leadership will succeed in its plot to scuttle bipartisan-backed efforts to condemn President Bush's escalation plan in the Senate.
You can watch live coverage of the all the intrigue right here. Tune in at 5:30.
--Greg Sargent
This was started on a lark. But our TPM Fans group at Facebook.com has more than 500 members now. So if you're registered at Facebook, stop by and join.
--Josh Marshall
Here's an aspect of the president's new escalation strategy that hasn't been discussed enough: it creates two chains of command, one of them under an Iraqi commander, the other under a U.S. commander -- an arrangement against military doctrine and, some argue, common sense.
Spencer Ackerman gives you the rundown.
--Paul Kiel
More video highlights from the presidential candidate speeches at the DNC winter meeting on Friday.
--Josh Marshall
I wanted to take a moment to flag everyone's attention to the James Fallows' quote excerpted here by David Kurtz over the weekend. The 'surge' and the accompanying political jousting surrounding it is important. But it pales in importance compared to the possibility of drifting or getting gamed into a shooting war with Iran. This is what Congress really needs to get on top of right now. As Fallows put it, "War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq."
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read(s): Gen. David Petraeus' war gurus assemble as the new strategy has its first major failure in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
Today's profile in courage:
When Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) saw reporters approaching him last week, he took off in a sprint, determined to say as little as possible about a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation plan expected to come before the Senate today."You know where I stand," the senator, who is considered politically vulnerable back home, said repeatedly as he fled down stairways at the Capitol. "I'm still looking."
Pretty shabby for a senator from New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live free or die."
"I'm still looking" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
--David Kurtz
If you're registered at Facebook.com, last night we set up a TPM Fans group.
--Josh Marshall
Greg Sargent flags this paragraph from today's Post
Moreover, Pelosi told her colleagues that if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so, according to Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.
We touched on this approach a bit yesterday, linking to a James Fallows' piece in The Atlantic.
Here's the problem with Pelosi's approach. Waiting to act until war with Iran "appears likely" strikes me as politically unfeasible.
As Josh has sketched out, there are any number of ways for military confrontation with Iran to evolve, and none of them plausibly involves the President announcing his intentions in advance in an address from the Oval Office. Rather, there will be an incident (some would say, "incident") which becomes the justification or the tripwire, call it what you will, for U.S. military action.
Pelosi seems to be saying that only then will Democrats throw themselves in front of the train to keep it from leaving the station. Too late. That's politically untenable, and the train will roll right over Democrats.
--David Kurtz
Replacing several U.S. attorneys around the country was driven by political considerations from the White House, not Main Justice, the Washington Post reports.
I know it's a little disingenuous to act as if U.S. attorney appointments are not usually political. They always are. But usually the appointments are driven by local partisan considerations in the district in question, closely overseen by the state's senator(s) who is from the same party as the President.
Removing sitting U.S. attorneys to deepen the GOP's bench for future judgeships, appointments, elections, etc., may be unprecedented. Paul Kiel has more.
--David Kurtz
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) regrets voting for the Iraq War resolution in 2002:
The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.
I think that's farther than Sen. Clinton has been willing to go.
--David Kurtz
In a piece headlined "Vice President's Shadow Hangs Over Trial," the WaPo has a nice synopsis of Cheney's involvement in the Plame matter.
Actually, you could headline just about every story that way these days: "Vice President's Shadow Hangs Over _________."
Fill in the blank: Iraq. Iran. Global warming. Renditions. Domestic surveillance.
I will confess to having been extremely skeptical in the early years of the Bush Presidency that Cheney was really running the show. It seemed too facile an explanation for what I was convinced was a far more complicated situation. Until the 9/11 Commission report came out.
Even the watered-down version of events in the Commission's report made it absolutely clear that Cheney, ensconced in the White House bunker on the morning of the attacks, had issued shootdown orders outside of the chain of command and then conspired with the President to conceal this fact from the Commission.
Since then, I've gone from being open to the idea of an Imperial Vice Presidency to being convinced that historians will debate whether something approaching a Cheney-led coup d'etat has occurred, in which some of the powers of the Executive were extra-constitutionally usurped by the Office of the Vice President.
Last week, in trying to break the lock on who actually works in the OVP--which the Vice President refuses to reveal--the guys at Muckraker stumbled across this entry from a government directory known as the "Plum Book":
The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).
It appears that Cheney's office submitted this entry in lieu of a list of its employees, as federal agencies must do. It sounds like something Cheney's current chief of staff, David Addington, might have written. Cheney and Addington have been the among the most powerful proponents of the theory of a "unitary executive," but there are indications that they have also advanced, though less publicly, a theory of a constitutionally distinct and independent vice presidency.
For a long time, talk of Cheney's unprecedented power carried with it a whiff of left-wing radicalism and Oliver Stone conspiracies. But in the last year, several serious journalistic efforts have explored the Cheney vice presidency. Robert Kuttner surveyed the field in his essay, "See Dick Run (the Country)," for The American Prospect. While it is axiomatic that Cheney is the power behind throne, what remains missing, as Kuttner pointed out, is the sort of relentless, day-to-day media coverage of Cheney that befits his claims to constitutional power:
If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.Yet the press buys the pretense of Bush being "the decider," and relentlessly covers Bush -- meeting with world leaders, cutting brush, holding press conferences, while Cheney works in secret, largely undisturbed. So let's take half the members of the overblown White House press corps, which has almost nothing to do anyway, and send them over to Cheney Boot Camp for Reporters. They might learn how to be journalists again, and we might learn who is running the government.
The other thing missing has been congressional oversight. Since Kuttner penned his essay, Democrats have gained control of Congress. A hearing on the constitutional role of the vice president might be an excellent place to start. From all indications, Cheney has amassed considerable power due to his experience and savvy vis-a-vis the President's relative lack thereof. But that is a separate issue from the constitutional role of the OVP, and whether, or in what ways, various statutory regimens, particularly in the national security arena, apply to the OVP.
By custom and tradition, the Vice President's role had been circumscribed by how little express power and authority the Constitution granted the position. Hence, all the jokes over the years about the vice presidency. But in a move that is decidedly anti-conservative, in the conventional sense, Cheney moved to fill the void. I fear that what we will eventually find are structural flaws that were deliberately exploited by the OVP, which in turn further undermined constitutional and statutory structures.
Still, I can't help but be fascinated by the more pedestrian issue of how Cheney continues to assert himself so vigorously without running up against the ego of a cocksure President. How is it that Bush, who is so caught up in macho public demonstrations of his own personal strength and courage, can tolerate a shadow presidency within his own White House? What kind of spell has Cheney cast that allows Bush to continue to believe he is the decider? You can imagine all sorts of dysfunctional psychological dramas playing out behind the scenes.
But whether it's the legal or political aspect of Cheney's role, it all comes down to the same thing: we just don't know.
It's about time we find out.
--David Kurtz
