It doesn't appear to be online yet,* but Seymour Hersh has a piece in the latest New Yorker on Pentagon contingency planning for a military strike against Iran. From Reuters:
Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.
The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.
The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.
In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.
In addition, Hersh reports that Israel has provided the U.S. with intelligence, the validity of which is still being debated, that Iran has developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads that could reach Europe, according to Reuters.
Update: Meanwhile, The Sunday Times reports:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
*Late Update: Hersh's piece is now posted.
--David Kurtz
That really is pretty stunning. Quinnipiac's new poll has Giuliani at 40% in the race for the GOP nomination. McCain clocks in at a relatively feeble 18%. And Romney, with 7%, is beat out by Gingrich at 10%.
I'm really not convinced Giuliani can win the GOP nod as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate. But numbers trump opinions.
--Josh Marshall
Peter Carlson has a little fun with a 139-count, 267-page indictment in a Pennsylvania public corruption case:
Normally, The Washington Post does not cover the legal woes of Pennsylvania state senators, but this indictment is simply too good to pass up. It's a deliciously entertaining document that should be read by every political-science student in America. It's a bizarre account of the adventures of a millionaire pol whose over-the-top greed makes recently convicted ex-congressmen Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney seem like penny-ante pikers. If this indictment is accurate, Vincent J. Fumo is a man driven by a compulsion to get somebody else to pay for everything his heart desires, including the aforementioned tiki torches, gourmet paint, vacuum cleaners and bobblehead dolls.
Unfortunately, the Post doesn't link to the must-read indictment.
Update: You can read the indictment here. (Thanks to TPM Reader TC for the link).
--David Kurtz
A couple of pieces out today examine K Street's role in a post-Abramoff Democratic Congress. More here and here.
--David Kurtz
Sixteen million Americans live in "severe poverty," defined as individuals making less than $5,080 annually and families of four making less than $9,903. Yeah, 16,000,000.
--David Kurtz
We all know intuitively that Dick Cheney is delusional when he says that the British partial withdrawal in southern Iraq is a sign of success in stabilizing the region; but, for a more concrete sense of how badly the British have failed and how cowardly Tony Blair has become, you can't do better than Patrick Cockburn's piece yesterday in The Independent.
--David Kurtz
From the conservative Daily Telegraph:
Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.
A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.
I suppose the Iraqis themselves--a sovereign country, we are reminded by the Bush Administration when it's convenient--would be militarily helpless to stop Israeli overflights, but one can imagine that the backlash against U.S. troops by Iraqi Shiites would be swift and fierce. We might find ourselves longing for the days when we were merely caught in a civil war.
Update: Then again, the Israelis may need help just to find Iran.
Late update: Reuters reports that Israel is denying the report in the Telegraph. More here.
--David Kurtz
As Paul noted yesterday, another U.S. attorney has resigned, this one in Michigan. The Washington Post today confirms that "Margaret Chiara, the 63-year-old U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., . . . was among a larger group of prosecutors who were first asked to resign Dec. 7."
That brings to eight the number of U.S. attorneys pushed out in the post-mid-term-election purge. DOJ has said the total was less than 10, but has declined to be specific. Were there others we still don't know about?
--David Kurtz
NRA crazies and their corporate sponsors cannibalize one of their brethren--'cause who wouldn't want the right to vaporize prairie dogs with military-style assault rifles.
--David Kurtz
A reporter calls Veep Cheney on his Brits in Iraq malarkey and the Vice President ducks and hides. From the presser down under ...
QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, you've said that the British draw-down from Iraq reflects their success there and not domestic considerations. Did the United States ask for them to redeploy those troops inside Iraq to take some strain off the U.S. forces involved in the Baghdad Security Plan and in al Anbar province? And if not, why not?...
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the Brits have been great allies in the efforts -- mutual efforts in Iraq. They have been there from the very beginning, as have our Australian friends. They have to make decisions with respect to their forces based upon what they think makes sense. Prime Minister Blair did consult with President Bush in terms of moving forward, and the comments I made reflected their communications with us, the fact that they believe the situation has improved in Basra and southern Iraq, which has been their prime area of operation.
They're going to continue to have a major presence there. They're also I believe beefing up their operations in Afghanistan at the same time, so we're very comfortable with their decision.
I think that's called ducking the question, right? Maybe we can get some follow up on that one.
--Josh Marshall
President Carter gets into the act too ...
As Cheney crosses the region underscoring the Bush administration's commitment to the war in Iraq and rallying key American allies - Australia and Japan - he confronts a growing chorus of criticism at home.Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview to be aired Sunday morning by ABC News, sharply criticizes Cheney's record on the war.
"If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low," Carter says of Cheney in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be shown on ABC News' This Week.
"He hasn't been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen . . . He's just been almost completely wrong on just about everything he's said."
Maybe a little more ridicule and lampooning since Dick Cheney is such a joke. But this ain't bad.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JL for the tip.)
--Josh Marshall
Apropos of the post below, TPM Reader PP sends this in ...
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
Yes.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DB on Cheney ...
Why doesn't a prominent Democrat come out and basically repeat your post on Cheney? Why can't a Democrat on a Sunday morning talk show scream, "Cheney is a moron! He has no idea what the hell he is doing. He is an outright disaster. He should resign effective immediately and the country will be a lot better off." There really is no downside to this (of course the press may disapprove of the lack of civility but they'll get over it) if whoever says it stands by it and all the other Dems back them up. Cheney is incredibly unpopular, his policies suck and he is so far removed from reality he is a parody. The only reason he remains afloat is because he is a bully. Well it is about time someone called the bully's bluff.
So true.
Maybe not precisely those words that DB advises. But pretty damn close. In the sometimes hothouse world of blogging we go off on tears and lose sight of the fact that not everyone believes what we see as obvious. But Dick Cheney's an exceptional case. He stands on his own unique ground of ridiculousness. And because of that he's not simply a bully but a glass bully. Outside of the very hard right wing of American politics, pretty much everyone now sees that Dick Cheney is a screw-up and a moron of historic proportions. If you know more of the ins and outs of the administration's history you know that the hugest blunders were Cheney policies and the policies which weren't totally stupid were ones he fought tooth and nail. The best place to see the change even among DC establishment journalists, who used to revere him (Broder probably still does, but I think he's emeritus now) are in the set piece interviews. Each one is now followed by a Kabuki journo debrief in which half-smiling/half-awkward-looking reporters pick apart which statements seem incorrect, which are outright lies and which seem to come from a guy who's simply lost his mind.
He's the crazy uncle of American politics at this point.
You don't even have to be snide. Treat him like the joke that he is and a look of recognition and agreement will come over most people's faces.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader LJ carts out the TPM hermeneutic to size up the contenders ...
I was pondering your "GOP bitch slap theory" and was wondering how you think the various Democratic contenders would hold up to this kind of treatment in the general election. If the bitch slap is a real GOP tactic, they'll need to be able to handle it. Take Edwards, for example. I can't help but recall him sitting next to Cheney during the 2006 VP debates - Cheney lies and says he's never met John Edwards before and the next day there are pictures circulating showing Cheney and Edwards together at some kind of function. Why didn't Edwards turn and call Cheney a bald faced liar? It would have grabbed the headlines and the next day the photos would've proven that Cheney is a bald faced liar. Cheney made him look weak. So I think Edwards is vulnerable to the bitch slap. Obama. When the Australian Prime Minister said that Al Qaeda wants Obama to win, Obama responded that Howard needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war or else he's just spewing empty rhetoric. He didn't whine about being attacked. Howard's attack seems rather Cheney-esque and I don't think he succeeded in making Obama look weak. Clinton. It seems to me that Clinton's statement decrying the comments of Geffen and (somewhat bizzarely IMHO) demanding an apology from Obama is essentially whining. It's not fair that Geffen said that. It's not fair that Obama won't apologize for something said by a third party. Doesn't this show that she's incredibly vulnerable to the GOP bitch slap?
--Josh Marshall
The New Republic goes biweekly.
"A Weekly Journal of Opinion," as the masthead said, since 1914.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PR looks out his window ...
I'm looking out my downtown Austin office window at Auditorium Shores where a huge crowd has been growing since the gates opened at noon to see Sen. Barack Obama speak. It's been raining lightly now for the better part of an hour and the crowd shows no signs of letting up. On line ticket requests totaled about 16,000 and the park looks pretty full right now. They say the capacity for the park (which holds the statue of Stevie Ray Vaughan) is 20,000. I know Austin is the bluest dot in a really, really red state, but this turnout in this weather (even here) is amazing.
He's hot. There's no denying it.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader TY responds to Dick Cheney's latest goofball lies ...
I think the main thing Cheney is doing here is making the point that the Iraq war is about al-Qaeda, when in fact al-Qaeda is only a very small part of the war, as the NIE indicates. The only was to validate the war is to constantly tie it to al-Qaeda (as they have done since 9/11). Pelosi and the Democrats should respond by knocking down the al-Qaeda canard. Perhaps they are tired of fighting this uphill battle but Cheney and the administration should be held accountable for continuously spreading misinformation. Even the media (yeah, sure) should question this assertion. But every time he says it, people believe it. The old trick of repeating a lie tirelessly and and it "becomes" true.
True. But the thing is, the bigger we screw-up in Iraq, the more unpopular we get in the region, the wider the pool of potential recruits for jihadist groups like al-Qaida. So, yes, it's a canard. But the scope and magnitude of Cheney's screw-ups and incompetence are so vast that they actually can increase the danger we face from al-Qaida, even though at the outset they had little to do with each other.
--Josh Marshall
So Vice President Cheney is keeping up his criticism of Speaker Pelosi, saying the Democrats' preferred policy would "validate the al-Qaeda strategy." I don't know how many times this needs to be said: stop complaining that he's questioning anybody's patriotism. 
Or Pelosi's judgment. Or any of it. I know it's a dicey phrase, especially when it's being employed against a woman. But I think explanatory value outweighs other sensitivities. This is a perfect example of the GOP's bitch slap theory of electoral politics. Cheney criticize; Dems, Pelosi, whoever says it's unfair.
The point of the whole exercise is not the underlying issue of Pelosi but what the exchange is supposed to demonstrate about both players -- that Cheney is strong (he hits) and Pelosi is weak (she complains when attacked.)
Why complain about anything Dick Cheney says? The man is simply too big a fool to hold any job of responsibility in the national government. Think of his history of failure, terrible judgment, reckless endangerment of the country. It's hard to imagine that there's anyone in this country not under active federal surveillance who has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda than Dick Cheney.
I know that seems like hyperbole or a throwaway line. But it's actually very true. Is America stronger now than it was before the Cheney era? Does al Qaeda have more fertile ground for proselytizing or less? Are we in a stronger or weaker position vis a vis Iran? Just one factoid you may have missed of late. A recent poll shows that since 2002 the percentage of Arabs who say their primary identity is as Muslims rather than as Arabs or members of their specific nationality has almost doubled -- now it's at 45%. That's in just four years.
It's true. So say it. Don't whine. Don't complain. The idea that Dick Cheney is telling anyone what helps or harms al Qaeda is comic. Bleak comedy, but comic nonetheless. Say so.
--Josh Marshall
How many times did Sen. Lieberman say he wouldn't switch parties? Let us count the ways. See our tally here.
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday we reported that the Justice Department appears to be stonewalling queries from the Congressional Research Service looking into the US Attorney purge. Now DOJ says they're working on coughing up the information. It's just taking them a while.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, this is fun. Whackjob member of Congress Michelle Bachmann, it turns out, has discovered that there's already a plan in place to divide Iraq. Iran will get half the country. And they'll set that part up as a "terrorist safe haven zone."
Says Bachmann: "And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made."
I can't wait to hear Juan Cole's reaction to Bachmann's scoop.
Shi'a Iran is going to run Sunni western Iraq as a terrorist safe haven. And the new terror country's official name will be the Iraq State of Islam.
Aren't the Shi'a Arabs in southern Iraq going to be a little bummed?
--Josh Marshall
Paul Rieckhoff, head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, at TPMCafe:
I am extremely pissed off about the recent news out of Walter Reed Hospital. And you should be too. Turn off the non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and let's have a little talk about how we treat our returning heroes.Read Rieckhoff's opening thoughts and jump into the thread. He'll be with us all day for the discussion.
--Andrew Golis
As you know, Gov. Vilsack has gotten out of the presidential race. Not a big surprise really. And arguably the big story so far in the 2008 cycle is just how fast the race is developing -- how quickly frontrunners are being annointed, how soon formal announcements are being made, how quickly people are dropping out, etc.
And I'm curious how much of this sped up cycle is due to blogs and web media. I don't mean to ask whether this is the 'netroots' flexing its muscle, though that's an interesting question in itself. But the pre-primary presidential winnowing process is largely a matter of buzz and a feedback loop between buzz, organzing and fundraising. People generate buzz, they get supporters, they get more money, that leads to more buzz, etc. Or in other cases, people have a lot of money. So they look formidable. And they get supporters and buzz, etc.
We can argue over whether money is driving buzz or vice versa. But a lot of the pre-primary phase is this process of sampling, often with relatively small sets of people. And the perceptions of those samples pick up steam and often become self-fulfilling. So is it the web and the more rapid sampling it allows -- partly in fundraising but much more in buzz -- that's ramping the process forward and making it so fast?
--Josh Marshall
"Major announcement" coming from Vilsack.
Maybe he'll announce his VP pick?
Late Update: Alas, no. He's dropping out.
Sigh, and then there were 31. Or, I guess actually seven. My bad.
Later update: Sources say Vilsack bailed because of money.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: the Democrats' new strategy for combatting the president's handling of the war in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
It's gotta be good if ... (from the WSJ ...)
In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration's new push to secure Baghdad succeeds.In a new post created earlier this year, Mr. Chalabi will serve as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city. The position is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy.
...
The new position is vaguely defined, and it is too early to tell how much power Mr. Chalabi will ultimately wield. How much money will be available to pay claims and how it might be awarded and disbursed remains to be finalized, too. But he is a skilled political infighter who has often shown a talent for making the most out of whatever hand he is dealt. Mr. Chalabi also maintains close ties with key political allies of Mr. Maliki such as radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which gives him extra sway within Mr. Maliki's government. Indeed, U.S. Embassy officials suggest Mr. Chalabi's closeness to Mr. Sadr is a major reason he was offered the liaison post.
Already, some U.S. officials are expressing concern about Mr. Chalabi's new role, fearing he will undercut the elaborate system of elected and appointed local governments that American officials have been cultivating over the past three years. American and Iraqi critics also worry that Mr. Chalabi, a Shiite, will use his clout to ensure that Sunni Muslim neighborhoods of the city are hit hardest by the new security crackdown, a move that would further inflame Iraq's sectarian tensions.
--Josh Marshall
From Ha'aretz ...
The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter.
The American argument is that even "exploratory talks" would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there.
...
When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don't even think about it.
Israeli officials, including those in the intelligence community, are divided over the degree to which Syrian President Bashar Assad is serious and sincere in his call for peace talks with Israel.
Anyone want to try this question again?
--Josh Marshall
Random but interesting political trivia, courtesy of TPM intern Eric Kleefeld.
Before Senator Linc Chafee was turned out of office in 2006, when was the last time a senator had lost his seat in Rhode Island? Seventy years ago. It hadn't happened since 1936.
And if you think that's a streak. How about Vermont? An elected US Senator from Vermont has never been defeated for reelection.
Ever.
Now, bear in mind that senators have only been elected for about a century. And there was one Vermont senator who got booted out of office. That was Republican Sen. Frank Partridge way back in 1930. But he was an appointee. The people of the state never voted him into office.
--Josh Marshall
Obama on the Iraq War resolution from November 2002, a month after the vote ...
--Josh Marshall
Andrew Sullivan: "What's more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That's not the America I love - but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq."
This is the critical question, when you consider the aftershocks of what President Bush has wrought over the last 6 years. On the evidence of the last six years, is the US an aggressive, destablizing force on the global stage or a benign, ordering force?
Who can give an answer to that question that they're proud of?
--Josh Marshall
This looks like a critically important piece just out from Michael Hirsh in Newsweek. The quick summary: the implications of the 'surge' policy aren't at all understood at all in the US political conversation. The 'surge' isn't a ramped up effort to get a hold of the security situation in Iraq so that American troops can come home. The whole policy is based on the assumption that Iraqis can't police or stabilize Iraq, that the American military will have to do it for them and that we'll be there for five or more likely ten or more years more before we have any hope of leaving.
Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago.
There's a really biting irony here, which is that this really is how you run a successful counterinsurgency, albeit with many more troops than we have available or in theater. And, in a modified form, it's also how you prevent an insurgency from coming into existence or spiraling out of control. I know there's this often doctrinaire debate about whether the occupation was destined to come to this bleak point or not. But things wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the White House and the Secretary of Defense hadn't insisted on the shiftless, lackadaisical and incompetent approach we've followed, ignoring the reality of the situation until domestic politics in the US forced their hand.
But what's done is done.
Set aside whether the Petraeus plan is unlikely to succeed or virtually certain to fail. And set aside -- for the sake of clarifying a separate set of issues -- how many more US troops would die with this new approach. (With this sort of intensive involvement in securing Iraq, the answer has to be, a lot.) The question that we need to ask is whether it's worth trying to prevent the Iraqi civil war from running its course given our now depleted resources and how many other vital national interests are now imperiled by our continued presence in the country.
Central to the Republican line on Iraq and much more to the Democratic one than I think is sometimes realized, our whole vision is now governed by Iraq-myopia, the delusion that our national destiny is at stake in Iraq. But it's not. We've done horrible harm to ourselves and the Iraqis. It's a disaster, a catastrophe. But it's not everything. It's actually not even close to everything. And until we really get our collective heads around that fact I doubt we'll ever get ourselves free of this mess.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader WB flags this passage in a piece just out from the Times of London ...
But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
A bit further down there's this ...
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
--Josh Marshall
Former Coroner wants to deep-six Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) in 2008 GOP primary.
--Josh Marshall
Remember Frank Gaffney, the conservative Washington Times columnist who got busted publishing a fake Lincoln quote to argue that Iraq War critics are committing treason?
Well, Gaffney's back pushing Lincoln yet again -- and he gets another smacking down for his troubles.
--Greg Sargent
Over at TPMmuckraker, we tell a tale of romance that has all the hallmarks of a love affair during the Bush administration: big oil, lobbyists working government from the inside to suit their corporate clients, ethical violations, misleading Congress... Who's got the movie rights?
--Paul Kiel
A number of TPM Readers have written in suggesting that former US Attorney Carol Lam's firing was at the heart of the US Attorney purge. The others were meant as cover, to deflect attention from what looked like an attempt to shutdown her investigation and make her appear to be just one of several firees. I think that's quite possible actually. And there are people involved in the case who think the same thing.
--Josh Marshall
Sometimes a really big story is sitting there, right in plain sight. That's the case with the firing of San Diego US Attorney Carol Lam and the on-going Duke Cunningham investigation.
As per Washington conventional wisdom we're now supposed to accept that the firing of seven US attorneys around the country was, yes, perhaps unprecedented, but more an example of Bush cronyism than an effort to short-circuit one or more investigations. But the firing of Lam just doesn't bear out that reading.
Earlier this month, Lam indicted Brent Wilkes, Dusty Foggo and John T. Michael.
By almost any measure this is a public corruption indictment of historic proportions. Wilkes corrupted the sitting US congressman who got the longest sentence ever given to a member of Congress. Foggo was the executive director of the CIA, the number three guy, the one who actually ran the agency on a daily basis. Michael helped bribing Duke and he also appears to have lied to investigators. He's also the nephew of Tommy Kontogiannis, a key player in the scandal who is listed as an unindicted briber-and-coconspirator in Duke Cunningham's plea agreement. One of the big mysteries in this case is why Kontogiannis still hasn't been indicted, especially now that his nephew -- whose role in the case was secondary to that of his uncle -- has. On Kontogiannis, it's probably worth considering the widespread reports of his role on the fringe of the intelligence and criminal underworlds to see why he might, as yet, have drawn a pass.
In any case, a pretty weighty indictment. And the prosecutor gets forced out so that she only barely has time to bring the main indictments? That sounds very fishy.
And what's the reason for her firing?
We were originally told that she was let go on the basis of poor performance and management. But McClatchy later reported that, like other fired US attorneys, Lam's performance reviews were strong.
So why was she fired?
We're now asked to believe that she was canned because a few conservative congressmen were complaining that she wasn't doing enough on the illegal immigration front.
Please.
A look at the cases against the men in question leave little doubt that this investigation wasn't over. But the job of the person who's led the prosecution from beginning is.
Who's foolish enough to believe this is all a coincidence?
--Josh Marshall
Will Joe Lieberman jump to the GOP? Though he repeatedly said during the campaign that he wouldn't, he's now saying there's a "remote possibility" that he'll do just that.
--Greg Sargent
Lieberman opens door to switching to GOP?
As I mentioned a few days back, there's no recall mechanism for federal officeholders. But I would think at that point, there will be quite a few calls for Joe to resign since he will have lied to the voters about which party he'd caucus with.
--Josh Marshall
Camp Hillary accuses Obama of being behind big David Geffen attack on Hillary yesterday.
--Greg Sargent
Small uptick for Bush, due to consolidating support among Republicans. 39% approve, according to ARG.
--Josh Marshall
If you missed it, check out this article in Wednesday's Times on 'mag crews', teams of young adults and teenagers who sell magazine subscriptions door-to-door around the country. It's surreal and riveting -- a mix of Fight Club, Urban Cowboy and pretty much any other dark, sex, violence and drug drenched movie or cultural phenomenon you can think of.
I'm not sure quite how to briefly describe the story. But, in short, it is an underworld of lost or trying-to-escape-bad-homes kids who get recruited into these team of magazine subscription sellers, door to door, as I said. But once there, most seem to be held in a thinly-disguised form of debt servitude and kept in line with routine beatings. The teams are run by contractors of contractors or contractors, so the glitz magazines they sell don't have to dirty their hands with any direct ties to the operations.
If it all sounds too outlandish to believe, that was my reaction too. But it seems to be there right under our noses, unregulated and ignored.
Late Update: Here's a July 2006 story from New Mexico about two guys from a mag crew passing through town who murdered a local in a bowling alley parking lot. Another story here from the Portland Tribune.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: a senior Iranian official extends the olive branch to the U.S.
--Paul Kiel
McCain declining to comment on Cheney's assertion that the Senator privately apologized after criticizing him over Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Katha Pollitt debuts at TPMCafe, talking about the Edwards-Amanda Marcotte case.
--Josh Marshall
Conservatives are aggressively pushing a new poll by a GOP firm which allegedly shows that there's more support for the Iraq war than anybody thinks.
So we asked another Republican pollster to look at the poll's numbers, and get this: He tells us that the poll is bogus.
What do you think?
--Greg Sargent
Another US helicopter (a black hawk) down in Iraq. This time, thankfully, no casualties. It's listed as a 'hard landing'. But seems likely that it was due to enemy fire or RPGs.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RS on Cheney ...
Josh, one of the arguments made by Cheney in the interview (and others such as John Howard) is that the British withdrawal is good news because it reflects improvement in the situation in the South. Well, if this is the case, then why aren't the British troops being moved to where they are needed instead of being withdrawn? Why is nobody asking this question?
--Josh Marshall
Contest? Who is Dick Cheney's secret friend.
Here's a squib from Vice President Cheney's ABC interview that hasn't gotten a lot of attention so far ...
I talked to a friend just the other day, a guy who knows the region very well, has spent a lot of years in that part of the world who had driven from Baghdad down to Basra in seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved compared to where it was a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view that they have made progress in southern Iraq, and that they can therefore afford to reduce their force posture.
Chalabi? Perle? Michael Rubin?
Who do you think it is?
--Josh Marshall
Dem Rep. Carol Shea-Porter slams young pro-surge GOP state chair: If you're so pro-escalation, why don't you enlist?
--Greg Sargent
The GOP discovers due process?
Paul Kiel flagged this briefly yesterday. But it's just too rich for me to pass up.
You know that this guy Alishtari -- who gave more than $15,000 to GOP congressional committees -- was indicted in federal court in New York on Friday for allegedly attempting to send over $150,000 to Pakistan to be used to fund terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Now, the NRCC finally had to give some response yesterday. But it turns out that they're not going to assume there's a problem with Mr. Alishtari until this alleged terror financier has had his day in court. "We need to be careful," said the statement, "not to rush to judgment as the judicial process moves forward."
If only those guys down in Guantanamo Bay knew about this little known perk of ponying up cash to the GOP.
--Josh Marshall
The gloves are off: Hillary campaign blasts Obama and demands he cut loose fundraiser David Geffen over his anti-Clinton comments in today's Times.
Update: Obama blasts back.
--Greg Sargent
From ABC News' interview with Cheney:
Jonathan Karl: And I wanted to ask you. You probably heard John McCain again come out and say that your friend Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the worst secretary of defense ever. What do you make of that?Cheney:I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld.
Karl: So what's your take on where Secretary Rumsfeld fits in?
Cheney: I think Don's a great secretary [sic]. I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He and John McCain had a number of dust-ups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq -- other issues that were involved. John's entitled to his opinion. I just think he's wrong.
Karl: And I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify, Sen. McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?
Cheney: Yes, yes.
Karl: What did he say?
Cheney: Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology, which I was happy to accept.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: controversy rages over a rape case in Iraq, and Prime Minister Maliki, apparently a stranger to the phrase "damage control," does what he can to further inflame the situation.
--Paul Kiel
In an email I got this evening, here's how Peter Bergen introduced the new article he's written with Paul Cruickshank on Iraq and Jihadist terrorism ...
Paul Cruickshank of NYU's Center on Law and Security and I coauthored this attached study which we believe is the first attempt to measure the effect of the Iraq war on jihadist terrorism. The headline-- a sevenfold increase in jihadist terrorist attacks since the beginning of the Iraq war compared to the period after the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of iraq in March 2003. Much of that increase is accounted by jihadist terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also found enormous increases in the Arab world outside Iraq and some real increases in attacks against US NATO allies. The only good news was in Southeast Asia where there was a 67% drop, but that had little to do with events in Iraq.
Here's the article.
If you approach the Iraq War in common sense terms rather than as an exercise in ideological grandiosity and historical narcissicism, the results are not surprising. Grim, but not surprising.
--Josh Marshall
John Kerry on Britain's phased withdrawal: “America’s leading ally in Iraq has decided that a timetable for the phased redeployment of troops is the only responsible policy to help force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. After years of touting Prime Minister Blair’s resolve, the Administration should now pay attention to his new policy. This announcement makes it all the more inexplicable that the President and leading Republicans actually want to send more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war.”
--Josh Marshall
Tony Snow: Note how Bush feels about the troops -- not what he says or does.
--Greg Sargent
Jessica Valenti, Executive Editor of Feministing.com, joined TPMCafe's Coffee House today. Here's her first post.
--Andrew Golis
Read the National Republican Congressional Committee's statement on Alishtari, urging against "rushing to judgment" on the guy just because he's been indicted for supporting terrorism, here.
--Paul Kiel
Ahhh, the Alishtari case, the
man who just kept giving to the Republican party and now the story that just keeps giving.
Here at the right you see the man himself. And if you click this link you'll see the 'press release' the Republican National Committee sent out when Mr. Alishtari was appointed to the NRCC's 'Business Advisory Council'.
Alishtari had the document posted on his company's website GlobalProtector.Net.
His site also apparently had copies of signed photos from President Bush as well as a note from President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush thanking Alishtari for contributing to the Republican party.
From what we've heard the NRCC and NRSC still won't say whether they plan to return Alishtari's money.
(ed.note: Special thanks to TPM Reader PK.)
Late Update: The latest we hear is that the NRCC is saying they don't want to rush to judgment but want due process for Alishtari. They'll cough up the money if and when he's convicted.
Even Later Update: It seems that before Mr. Alishtari got hit with those terror financing charges, his site hosted a photograph of him meeting former GOP Rep. and now CNN Yakmaster J.C. Watts.
--Josh Marshall
DSCC asks what's up with terror financier who says he's member of NRSC's "inner circle."
--Josh Marshall
Another nail in the coffin of the Pelosi plane tale.
The GOP Rep. who took the lead in pushing the bogus story now admits he didn't know or care if it was true.
--Greg Sargent