TPM Reader RP, on a winning campaign theme for 2008:
Of all the damage that the Bushies have done, perhaps the worst blow has been to the fundamental sense of ourselves as the nation that "gets things done." We built the Transcontinental Railroad. We put a man on the moon. Our Arsenal of Democracy won World Wars I & II. (I know, I know, the Russians would argue the latter point).Thanks to the arrogant, hapless Bushies, we are the nation that bellows "Mission Accomplished!" and then gets bogged down in a hopeless, ever-worsening quagmire. We are the nation that suffers a catastrophic loss of an entire region due to hurricane damage, and then flounders helplessly as millions of our fellow citizens give up hope. We are the nation that blusters that its "unacceptable for "evil-doers" to develop nuclear weapons, and then watches helplessly as they go right ahead anyway.
I'm convinced Bush is at 29% because voters perceive him as (increasingly) pathetic, deluded and ineffectual -- a toxic mash-up of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. The Democrat who picks up this idea and runs with it -- the idea that America is a CAN DO country (and that government can be a part of restoring our national reputation for overcoming challenges) -- will be the one to win.
I think this is mostly right. I would argue that the worst blow dealt by Bush has been to America's reputation, domestically and internationally, as a more or less reliable narrator of the passing parade of world events. That reputation was shattered internationally when we re-elected Bush, but wasn't seriously tarnished domestically until later, beginning with Katrina. That particular loss is worse for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because restoring our self-image as a can-do nation is easier--we simply must start doing again.
But I would be the first to admit that RP's proposed campaign theme is much simpler, more compelling, and would resonate with voters at a deeper emotional level.
--David Kurtz
Are you going to brave tomorrow morning's Sunday shows?
If you are, we'd like your help with a new project we're doing. We're going to put together a compilation of all the best or rather worst moments. We're looking for the straight up fibs, the outrageous statements that deserve more attention and any sundry mumbojumbo or bamboozlement that comes down the pike. Of course, we also want to know about the good stuff -- concise and cutting statements of actual facts, unexpected moments of candor and non-weaselhood, etc. We're just not optimistic that the latter will outnumber the former.
In any case, you get the basic idea. Like all our reporting and projects, we know that the more eyes we have watching, the more key moments we'll catch.
So if you're going to be watching, here's what we'd like. If you see something we should include in our compilation jot down which show you're watching, about how far into the show the statement in question comes up and a brief description of what happened.
So, for instance, "ABC's This Week, about 37 minutes into the show, John McCain tells Stephanopoulos Club Med is opening a new resort in Basra."
Please don't say it happened at 9:30 or 11:43 because different readers are in different time zones and even within the same time zone the show appears at different times in different cities. So we won't be able to use that information. Just tell us how many minutes in it was from the beginning of the show.
And there it is. Watching the Sunday shows ain't for the faint of heart. But if you're already planning to endure the waves of bamboozlement, let us know what you see and what we should look at. We'll have every moment of every show recorded. And please include the subject line "Sunday Shows" on any email tip you send in.
--Josh Marshall
WSJ: "In short order, John McCain has gone from Republican presidential front-runner to political death watch."
--David Kurtz
The Senate Judiciary Committee will reportedly look into the circumstances of the mass resignation in the office of the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota. [Thanks to TPM Reader MO for the link.]
--David Kurtz
Will these guys never learn?
The U.S. Attorney purge scandal exploded after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty went to Capitol Hill in February and smeared the professional reputations of the eight fired USAs, who, having gone off quietly into that good night, suddenly reversed course and started defending themselves, which ignited a firestorm that continues to this day.
Which brings us to this morning's New York Times piece on the mass resignation of the administrators in U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose's office in Minnesota:
Ms. Paulose’s defenders at Justice Department headquarters said the criticism of her was unwarranted. They said older lawyers had difficultly dealing with a young, aggressive woman who had tried to put into place policies important to Mr. Gonzales like programs to combat child exploitation.
Got it? The administrators who resigned are a bunch of sexist old men (never mind that one of the four who resigned was a woman) who are soft on child exploitation. We're not told the identities of Paulose's defenders at Main Justice, but it's worth noting that she was briefly an aide to the aforesaid McNulty before her appointment as U.S. Attorney.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history . . .
--David Kurtz
DOJ throws a life raft to Paulose. Main Justice is sending John Kelly, Deputy Director of the US Attorney's executive office in DC, to help run the office in Minneapolis. Also, it appears Paulose was an aide to McNulty rather than Gonzales.
--Josh Marshall
Was Monica Goodling another GOPer 'making the bullets' in the war against the Democrats?
We put this together before the news this afternoon that Goodling had resigned from the Justice Department. But look what one of our readers saw in the Tim Griffin video we brought you last week.
(ed.note: This won't make much sense until you see the video. But once you do, you'll notice that we re-view two scenes right at the end of our segment. In one Griffin calls out "Hey Monica, how we doin'". Then we show another scene in which the woman who appears to be Goodling walks past Griffin. However, it is important to say that in the scene where Griffin says "Hey Monica" you don't see the person he's talking to. Both clips were shot within about a half hour of each other in the same office -- the RNC oppo research war room on debate night in 2000. And we think both clips point to the conclusion that Goodling is the one shown in the video. But these are two clips which appear about a minute apart in the documentary.)
--Josh Marshall
There was a lot of buzz today about a corruption case in Wisconsin from last year. A Bush-appointed US Attorney indicted a government bureaucrat in a case that implicated the state's Democratic governor. But yesterday a circuit court threw out the conviction saying the evidence against the convicted official was "beyond thin."
Indeed, the circuit court judges thought the case was so bogus that it's hard not to ask whether the US Attorney in this case, Steven Biskupic, might not be one of those "loyal Bushies" who kept his job because he knew that one of his jobs was getting Republicans elected. It prompts the question; but it's certainly too soon to say that's the case. And yet look at how Biskupic's number two and spokesperson responded when asked if the prosecution was politically motivated.
In an interview, Michelle Jacobs of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Milwaukee denied that the prosecution was politically motivated."I can tell you that from our perspective it was not, but that is as far as I'm going to go," said Jacobs, a first assistant U.S. attorney.
Is that a strong denial?
--Josh Marshall
If I want to understand what's happening with Iran, I go to Bernie Kerik.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: If it's Friday, it must be more Attorney Purge news. Goodling resigning from DOJ.
Update: More here.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: John Edwards pulls out of Fox/Congressional Black Caucus debate.
--Greg Sargent
The Washington Post editorial page takes a beating from one of WaPo's own columnists over its bogus attacks on Pelosi's Syria trip.
--Greg Sargent
Here's a press release just out from 60 Minutes on the McCain Baghdad 'stroll' ...
Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he misspoke in comments he made about security in Baghdad and acknowledged that heavily armed troops and helicopter gunships accompanied him when he visited a market there. McCain tells this to Scott Pelley in his first interview since the visit for a 60 MINUTES report that will include the only video camera footage of McCain’s market visit, to be broadcast Sunday, April 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT).
In two interviews before the Army took McCain and 60 MINUTES on the heavily guarded visit to the al-Shorja market last Sunday, the senator said security had improved in Iraq. Upon his return, he also told a news conference he had just come back from a neighborhood one could walk around in freely. The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” says McCain. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life,” he tells Pelley, adding, “I’m happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun.”
He continues to maintain that the president’s surge policy has improved safety in Baghdad. “I can understand why [the Army] would provide me with that security, but I can tell you that if it had been two months ago and I’d asked to do it, they would have said, ‘Under no circumstances whatsoever.’ I view that as a sign of progress,” says McCain.
Continuing America’s military presence in Iraq has been a key position in McCain’s presidential bid. He says he knows he is out of step with the rest of the country. “I believe we can succeed and I believe that the consequences of failure are catastrophic,” he tells Pelley. “I disagree with what the majority of the American people want. Failure [in Iraq] will lead to chaos, withdrawal will lead to chaos,” McCain says.
McCain has been critical of the way the war has been executed and has severely criticized former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In the interview Sunday, he lays some of the blame on the president, as well. “I say that [Bush] is responsible and I’ll continue to say he is responsible. Should I look back in anger or should I look forward and say, ‘Lets support this new strategy, let’s support this new general and let’s give it everything we can to have it succeed,” McCain tells Pelley.
Now, I'm still curious about this Times of London report that said 21 workers from that market were abducted and executed the next day. As I noted later the same day, it's hard to know precisely what happened here or what it means without a lot more local knowledge. But on its face it seems at least worth seeing if these two events weren't connected. I haven't seen any follow-up on this. Is the original Times piece accurate? If not, I'd like to know. And if it is, as I assume, I'd like to hear about just what happened and whether it was tied in any way -- as retaliation, a statement, etc. -- to McCain's visit.
--Josh Marshall
As we've asked a number of times, what about the U.S. attorneys who weren't fired?
Well, here's one whose job seems secure.
--Paul Kiel
Memo to CNN: As Speaker, Gingrich thrust himself into Mideast issues with trip to Israel, defied White House, bashed White House foreign policy.
--Greg Sargent
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division under Bush has a sterling record of protecting whites from the peril of racial discrimination.
But oddly enough, when it comes to protecting African Americans, it's clearly not a priority.
--Paul Kiel
Check out our latest chart -- a handy comparison of the Iraq votes of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
--Greg Sargent
OK, so how many Republican lawmakers have called for Alberto Gonzales' resignation? By our count, six. The roll call's here.
--Paul Kiel
Flashback: Conservative commentators and Republicans strongly supported the idea of Speaker Newt Gingrich getting involved in foreign policy.
--Greg Sargent
Still more on the staff shake-up in the Minneapolis 
US Attorney's office, where 34-year old Federalist Society member and former Gonzales aide Rachel Paulose was just sworn in last month. Below we noted that the simultaneous resignations of all four top officials in the office came just after what the Star-Tribune called a "visit to the office by a representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington."
That reference to a visit from an official from Main Justice was a cryptic hint. And it seemed pretty clear there was more of a story there.
Now the local CBS affiliate seems to have the scoop. Apparently, the Gonzales Justice Department, already embroiled in a rapidly escalating scandal, was so worried about another shoe dropping (okay, more bad publicity) that they sent an emissary to the local office to beg the four to stay put.
Here's the CBS affiliate's more delicate phrasing ...
The Bush Administration did not want to see this happen and in an eleventh hour attempt to prevent it, sent a top justice official to Minneapolis Thursday to mediate the situation. The mediation failed.
As I said in the previous post, there was already a lot of smoke about the Paulose appointment. The circumstances of her predecessor's departure remain ambiguous. And is there any question now that the eight firings we know about now is only the tip of the iceberg of what's going on in the Bush-Gonzales DOJ?
--Josh Marshall
There've been a few hints that something fishy was up in the Minneapolis US Attorney's office where 34-year old Rachel Paulose was sworn in to office last month in a lavish 'investiture' ceremony some have called a 'coronation'. Paulose's predecessor left under murky circumstances. And there are some hints that the Justice Department may originally have considered giving Paulose a Patriot Act appointment rather than going down the old-fashioned senate confirmation route.
Now there's this just breaking this evening ...
It’s a major shakeup at the offices of new U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose.Four of her top staff voluntarily demoted themselves Thursday, fed up with Paulose, who, after just months on the job, has earned a reputation for quoting Bible verses and dressing down underlings.
Deputy U.S. Attorney John Marty is just one of the people dropping themselves in rank to simply a U.S. Attorney position. Also making the move are the heads of Paulose’s criminal and civil divisions and the top administrative officer.
The move is intended to send a message to Washington – that 33-year-old Paulose is in over her head.
As the article notes, before getting the plum US Attorney spot, Paulose was a special assistant to Alberto Gonzales and apparently big buds with none other than 5th amendment invoker Monica Goodling.
I think we may be hearing more about this.
Late Update: The Star-Tribune adds: "The job changes followed a visit to the office by a representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington."
Still Later Update: The Pioneer Press has more quotes from an unnamed source ...
A source said managers had been unhappy with Paulose and decided to collectively resign."They did it jointly because they couldn't stand her anymore," the source said, citing what been described as her "dictatorial management style and general lack of management experience."
Paulose replaced former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger, who resigned in February 2006. At 34, she's the youngest current U.S. attorney. She's also the first woman to hold the post in Minnesota.
The move might have come from a disagreement in the direction of the office, but is also "indicative of how the U.S. Department of Justice is acting now," another source said.
"These are career prosecutors who wouldn't do it without a reasonable basis," the source said. "If these folks took this action en masse and all of them are well respected career prosecutors, they wouldn't do so lightly."
--Josh Marshall
New TPMCafe contributor Michael Bérubé points out that Americans would sooner vote for a zombie or the GEICO caveman than an atheist.
--Andrew Golis
How revealing. Mitt Romney's campaign inadvertently lets slip the real reason for the GOP criticism of Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip: It's all about Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
I become frightened sometimes when I 
contemplate just how big a doofus Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) appears to be.
Yesterday I flagged the story, which a slew of others have already noted, about how Orrin Hatch completely made up a string of 'facts' about fired prosecutor Carol Lam. (I think Rachel Maddow was the first to flag Hatch's ridiculous whopper.)
What Hatch said on Meet the Press this Sunday was this ...
Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it's amazing to me she wasn't fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they're trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do. That's what these positions are. But politically they've appointed people who have been approved by the Justice Department--the Judiciary Committee, in most cases, who have served well, are strong people and, and, frankly, these, these seven were really mishandled.
Now, this was a pretty powerful indictment -- except that Lam has never been a law professor, was an Assistant US Attorney for 14+ years and, of course, was never a campaign manager for Bill Clinton. Except for that, well... anyway, you get the idea.
So now, in response to the windstorm of chatter about his brazen falsehoods, Hatch has released a statement in which he says ...
My comments about Carol Lam's record as a U.S. Attorney were accurate, but I misspoke when making the point of discussing politically connected U.S. Attorneys. I accidentally used her name, instead of her predecessor, Alan Bersin, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
This is kind of classic on a couple levels. My comments were accurate, just not the facts I used in the comments.
But that's only the half of it.
The simple fact is that Hatch's explanation makes no sense. He's saying: In the course of attacking Carol Lam I inadvertantly used Lam's name when describing facts that may or may not apply to, Alan Bersin, a guy Bill Clinton appointed to the same office back in the mid-1990s.
Does that make any sense at all? Of course not.
Now, just before starting this post I was chatting with one of my colleagues here at TPM, trying to figure out what the hell Hatch's whopper was all about. My take was that the pattern of facts is simply too ridiculous to be a lie in the narrow and specific sense of a knowing falsehood. I think it's far more likely that this was something some talk radio hound or blogger either intentionally or inadvertantly mixed up. Hatch heard it and since he just ad libs through this scandal without having any idea what he's talking about he just decided to repeat it even though it's transparently ridiculous on its face.
Think about it: different presidents are more or less political in their US Attorney appointments. But no president appoints someone who's served as a campaign manager for a key political opponent. And certainly not this president.
The whole episode is just another example of Hatch's complete indifference to acquainting himself with even the most basic facts of the US Attorney Purge story. On the whole saga, he doesn't even rise to the level of being a hack. He's simply a joke.
Late Update: TPM Reader CK disagrees ...
As a lawyer, my take on Hatch on the Lam episode as on other matters where I have observed him (espeically the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, but you may be too young to remember those) is that he is a very talented, very cynical, very dangerous trial lawyer. He has gotten his disinformation out there, he has a statement that he can claim is a correction (when it is not,as you point out), and so the disinformation stays out there, muddying up the waters as much as it can. That's what (some) lawyers do when they have no case -- they muddy the waters up and try to lead the triers of fact (in this case, the public) down irrelevant pathways. We saw this most recently with Lewis Libby's lawyer, too. He did a good enough job that no one was sure where the jury was going to go, even though the factual case against Libby was overwhelming.
Even Later Update: An anonymous TPM Reader thinks he's found where Hatch got his line. This reader points to the March 28th National Review article on the US Attorney story by Byron York. In that piece York writes ...
In 1993, Bill Clinton replaced the Republican U.S. attorney, a career prosecutor and veteran of 20 years in the Justice Department, with Alan Bersin, a law professor who had no prosecutorial experience but who had been a classmate of Clinton’s at Yale and head of the Clinton campaign in San Diego. (Bersin pledged to vigorously pursue Clinton priorities like environmental law.) In March 1998, Bersin resigned to become head of the San Diego school system.
So Hatch or someone who works for him glanced at York's article and caught this snippet and figured it might apply to Lam. Good enough for government work, I guess you might say.
--Josh Marshall
Success! CNN hears blogospheric criticism, defines James Carville as a Hillary supporter.
--Greg Sargent
Is Joe Klein hinting at impeachment? Editor & Publisher has a preview of what the big man has coming in tommorrow's column.
--Josh Marshall
Based on zero evidence, Associated Press declares that support for Pelosi's Syria trip is a "minority" view.
--Greg Sargent
From Doug Feith's lips to your ears.
Finally, a declassified version of the briefing slides (pdf) used by Feith's shop to illustrate the "mature, symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been made publicly available, courtesy of Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). The briefing was given to senior White House officials in the prelude to the Iraq War.
Levin also released a declassified version (pdf) of the Defense Department's Inspector General's report on Feith, which found that Feith's doings "inappropriate but legal."
Highlights soon.
Update: Highlights here.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: on the ropes, Alberto Gonzales trains deep into the night for his upcoming Senate hearing.
--Paul Kiel
This is a note for the many journalists who I know read this site. I want one of you to come work for us. We have two positions open. And I think we may be near to filling one. But we've got at least one more waiting to be filled. The job is in DC. You'd be part of our small team of reporter-bloggers who write for TPMmuckraker and you'll be part of our expanded news coverage, which we'll be rolling out over the next month.
There's a formal job announcement here. But let me make a personal pitch.
If you're a regular reader you know the kind of muckraking reporting we do on stories like the Abramoff scandal, the always-expanding Cunningham scandal, the US Attorney Purge and a lot else. We dig deep into stories we think matter; we stick with them; we have fun with them -- and all following standards of journalism I'd be happy to stack against those of any other outfit in the profession.
And we're not only about scandal. We want to dig into what's happening in Congress today. Find more stories that deserve more attention but aren't getting it.
We work really hard and have a lot of fun doing it. And our relationship with our readers, who do a great deal of the frontline research which feeds into our more traditional reporting, plays a critical role in allowing us to get a jump, frequently, on bigger news organizations. And there's a lot of challenge and fun and satisfaction just operating in a new medium and playing some small role in creating it.
If you're interested in joining us, send in an application or drop me a line directly using the comments email address on the upper right.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader TP ...
There needs to be some attention paid to the fact Hillary Clinton didn't actually compete head-to-head on a level playing field with Barak Obama. Does any one honestly think Hillary would have raised $26 million without the help of her husband Bill? The Clinton campaign needs to be pressed on how much Hillary raised at her events and how much was raised by Bill. I suspect she would have reported something close to what Edwards did, $14 million. The New York Times reported last week that Bill was was used in 17 fundraisers over the course of 6 weeks by the Clinton campaign this quarter. Lets say he only raises a quarter million at each event, which is low balling it considerably, he brings in $4.25 million. Barak on the other hand raised $26 million without the star power of the biggest name in democratic politics. Even more so, the Clinton campaign did not report the overwhelming first quarter numbers they were widely expected to report. The media needs to question why Clinton only reported raising money from only 50,000 contributors when there have been news reports she has access to a list of 250,000 supporters her and Bill have maintained over 20 years. And the American people need to ask themselves if its fair that Bill finances his wife's campaign.
These comments clearly get on to some very dicey territory. And in Hillary's defense I think it's fair to say that on the national stage Hillary became Hillary at about the same time Bill became Bill, if that makes sense. This isn't quite the same as a famous political parent giving a child a boost up into political office.
The key though is that this is all beside the point. Life isn't fair and most fields aren't level. Whether it's the name or the history or the fundraising gusto, this is a big advantage she brings to the campaign. Or that's how it seemed. I don't think anybody thought Hillary would be the most challenging of the candidates or the most inspiring or the most exciting. The idea is or was (I'm not sure) that she's been on the national stage for going on twenty years. She's experienced and tested in high stakes politics and -- and this is the key part -- whatever pizzazz or excitement some newcomer might bring to the race she could overwhelm them with organization and money. (Like Gore and Mondale, and Dole and Bush and every other annointed frontrunner.) Why that's the case doesn't really matter. But if she can't do that, if Obama can over-match her on her key strength, then the outlook for her whole candidacy looks very different.
--Josh Marshall
There are so many things to say about the state of the presidential primaries that it is difficult to know where to start. But here's a stab at it. Whoever they support now, I think a big majority of Democrats would be comfortable supporting any of the three members of the current top tier -- Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Is there any member of the GOP top three -- Giuliani, McCain and Romney -- who even a majority of Republicans would be comfortable supporting?
Think about it.
On the Republican side, I think the money numbers are entirely secondary to news from the Giuliani campaign. Rudy still supports public funding of abortions. Apprently we're still supposed to be in that pretend place where we believe that Rudy Giuliani can be the Republican nominee. But let me go out on a limb. Nobody who supports public funding of abortion is going to be the nominee of the Republican party. Say all you want about Rudy's 'leadership uber alles' campaign platform: I'm not buying it. So I don't think Rudy can be the Republican nominee. And I think it's increasingly unlikely that John McCain will be either -- he's becoming a cliche.
So who? Romney? I'd have to say that seems like the most likely scenario at the moment. But only because the other scenarios don't seem possible.
--Josh Marshall
Ten days and counting. A senior political appointee at the Justice Department says she'll invoke her 5th amendment right against self-incrimination and remains on the DOJ payroll.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, caught in a comical lie about fired US Attorney Carol Lam.
Take a moment and follow the link and read what it says. It's fascinating and should be the kind of embarrassment Hatch should never live down.
Late Update: For those of you who are interested, here's the exact text of what Hatch said (emphasis added) ...
Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it's amazing to me she wasn't fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they're trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do. That's what these positions are. But politically they've appointed people who have been approved by the Justice Department--the Judiciary Committee, in most cases, who have served well, are strong people and, and, frankly, these, these seven were really mishandled.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PM on the McCain campaign event ...
I just wanted to provide a comment regarding McCain's Iraq trip from a slightly different perspective that I don't believe has been considered by many. U.S. government officials including elected representatives have regularly visited Iraq for a host of reasons and, of course, all have been provided with necessary protection by our servicemen. This is all completely reasonable under most circumstances and indeed part and parcel of the military's responsibilities in Iraq. However, is it still justified to use our military, both men and machines, in such an overwhelming way to simply provide McCain with what amounts to a political ad for a presidential campaign? McCain's intent was to demonstrate the wisdom of a surge he fully supported and provide the electorate proof of his good judgment. Unfortunately, the only way to fulfill this illusion was with the use of heavy military cover. Since all military operations involve some risk, I ask: Was it reasonable to risk the lives of our soldiers for a staged photo-opportunity?
--Josh Marshall
Earlier today I posted this clip from the Times of London that reported that "21 Shia market workers [from the market John McCain visited the day before] were ambushed, bound and shot dead."
Now, we know that people get killed in Iraq every day. And there are inter-sectarian murders for various retaliatory, symbolic or terroristic reasons. But 21 workers from this same market attacked, bound and shot in what sound like execution style killings? Right after McCain was there the day before in a walkaround to demonstrate the success of the surge?
This hadn't occurred to me until I saw this email from TPM Reader KT who wrote. "Do we know whether the ambushed market workers were the ones who had done business with McCain's group, and therefore with the US military? I really hope not."
I don't know if claims of collaboration would have to be the issue. It could be as simple as sending a counter-message.
Before going any further, let me say clearly that I don't know anything about this particular market. How big it is. Whether things like this happen there routinely or whether this incident stands out in a particular way. More local knowledge could quickly show these two events are totally unrelated. But if the Times report is accurate, I think this bears more scrutiny.
--Josh Marshall
There are all sorts of things you can say about the brouhaha about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria -- most of which boil down to it's stupid that there's a brouhaha in the first place. We've already gone over the standard points -- the administration is sending people to Damascus, Republican congressmen are going to Damascus, the Baker-Hamilton 
Commission went to Damascus, the Israelis thanked Pelosi for going to Damascus because she took an important diplomatic message with her from the Israelis when she went. On and on.
A better question than 'why is it such a brouhaha' is 'why is the White House making it such a brouhaha'?
At one level, just to score points domestically. We all understand that. But more broadly the whole episode comes down to a commentary on Bush's irrelevance.
The president has been despised abroad for years. But that's not a bad thing for an American president -- at least judged in domestic political terms. Now, however, he is also wildly unpopular in his own country. And all his initiatives on the world stage are seen at home and abroad as unmitigated disasters.
In response, the president has withdrawn into a cocoon of his fantasies, ignoring most of the stuff that's actually happening in the world, most of the drivers that will be affecting our lives for years into the future.
The Israelis use of Pelosi as a go-between between them and the Syrians tells not only the specific but the larger tale. Isn't this what the US -- or whatever country has the pretense of being the great power in the region -- is supposed to do?
Here's what the message was about. As often seems to happen between these countries, the Israelis had been picking up hints that the Syrians thought the Israelis were going to attack this summer. And the Israelis worried that the Syrians would preemptively attack on the Golan Heights to get a jump on the Israelis. But the Israelis say that they're not planning anything like that. So they asked Pelosi to convey this message to Damascus -- to prevent a possible chain of misunderstandings leading to war.
This seems of a piece with February's news that the Bush administration was insisting that the Israelis not pursue exploratory talks with the Syrians about a potential peace deal.
Pelosi's trip is an embarrassment for the president because it shows an American actually involving herself in realities on the world stage rather than stuck in denial and fantasy. That may sound a bit starry-eyed. But think about it and I'll think you'll see that that's a lot of what this is about.
Late Update: TPM Reader YK points to this article that says the Prime Minister's Office is now saying that Pelosi carried no message from the Israelis. But look at the sourcing on the Ha'aretz article linked above.
--Josh Marshall
CNN's Suzanne Malveaux: Because of Syria trip, Nancy Pelosi may be on her way to becoming "the most controversial Speaker yet."
--Greg Sargent
Far too bleak for snark. From the Times of London ...
A newborn baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed when a suicide bomber detonated a lorry laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk yesterday.The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.
--Josh Marshall
Boy, you know it's bad for the Justice Department when even their cover stories lead to investigations.
--Paul Kiel
You knew it was coming. Justice Department official Monica Goodling's lawyer hits back against Democrats seeking her testimony, even throwing in a reference to Joe McCarthy.
--Paul Kiel
One of Hillary's top fundraisers reacts to the news of Obama's big haul.
And one other number: Obama had more individual donors than Hillary Clinton and John Edwards combined.
--Greg Sargent
Dem Presidential candidates outraise GOP counterparts by over $25 million.
--Greg Sargent
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) continues to pursue the White House on their use of RNC email addresses. Today he requested a batch of emails from the RNC.
--Paul Kiel
We've got some interesting responses to DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr.'s call for an intra-Democratic truce.
Max Sawicky welcomes the idea on the grounds of political necessity, but still makes a list of "rotten ideas that follow from DLC doctrine." Ed Kilgore echoes Ford's call to get past the bad blood to the policy questions at hand. Jo-Ann Mort sees value in the DLC's effort to make the party "competitive and majoritarian" again, but rejects the conservative wonk rhetoric it employs. And Nathan Newman sees common ground only on the one issue where Ford is willing to call for employer responsibility: work/family issues.
Ford will be responding later today. Stay tuned...
Late update: Reader RA makes an interesting argument that reminds me of the Care Crisis conversation we hosted a few weeks ago:
The DLC wants to identify itself as "pro-family" but also "pro-business." There's two problems here. One is that we already have a pro-business party--the Republicans--and we don't need another one; rather, we need one that is dedicated to restraining business' excessive power. The other is that "pro-family" and "pro-business" is inherently contradictory, at least at this point in time. Business policies are probably the biggest single factor negatively affecting families these days (inadequate leave, long hours, downsizing, shrinking health care coverage, stagnant to dropping wages). The Dems need to be an effective counterbalance to business, not another "Republican lite" handmaiden to it.It all comes back around.
--Andrew Golis
Astounding. Obama rakes in $25 million, nearly tying Hillary's record haul.
Update: Obama received contributions from over 100,000 individuals.
Late update: Obama had more donors online than Hillary had in total.
Later update: One hidden moral of today's fundraising story: Maybe Matt Drudge doesn't rule our world, after all.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: House Republicans don't believe Gonzales' story for the U.S. attorney firings, either.
--Paul Kiel
McCain camp finds solution to campaign ills: embrace big money donors and give Iraq speech.
--Josh Marshall
Pelosi and Israelis coordinate on actually accomplishing something while Bush flails.
--Josh Marshall
Did the Bush administration privately help arrange a trip to Syria by GOP members of Congress even as it bashed Nancy Pelosi for making the same trip?
--Greg Sargent
Hilarious. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the only photos of John McCain's heavily armored, guarded "stroll" through that Baghdad market have come from a US Army photographer. See the photo below. But apparently he let a CBS 60 Minutes crew tag along to shoot some B roll footage. IraqSlogger has more.
--Josh Marshall
OK, so Monica Goodling is the first Justice Department official in history to remain in office while invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege. But the Democrats just won't leave her alone.
In the Senate, they want to know whether she'll cooperate with an internal Justice Department investigation into the U.S. attorney firings. If she does or she doesn't, it's pretty clear she ought to be fired.
And in the House, they're not convinced by her lawyer's justification for taking the Fifth. So they want to have her come over and explain it herself.
--Paul Kiel
I knew as a general matter that the White House was just bamboozling the press with this Pelosi-in-Syria malarkey since plenty of Republicans from Congress have recently gone there too. But I didn't know the precise details. In addition to recent trips by other Congressional Republicans there's actually a GOP House delegation in Syria right now, according to ThinkProgress. And in March a senior State Department official held talks in Damascus about flow of Iraqi refugees.
So which member of the White House press corps or which cable network host has directly asked an administration official why they're only concerned when prominent Democrats visit Damascus and not Republicans? Wolf Blitzer, whatever hack they've got on the air at the moment on Fox, MSNBC? Whichever. Someone let me know when someone puts a question like this directly to an administration official.
Late Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Sometimes even before you asked. From today's White House briefing ...
Q Thanks. The Speaker said in Beirut today that -- first of all, she's criticizing the White House for what she says is ignoring other Republican lawmakers who have made trips to Syria in recent days. And, also, she said she thinks it's a good idea to establish facts and to try to build confidence with Syria. Why is that not a good idea? And how is that just a photo op?MS. PERINO: Let me unpack that a little bit. First of all, last week when I was asked about her specific trip, I said in my comments that, in general, we discourage members from going to the region. And that is true. In fact, I looked back, when Tony Snow was asked at this podium months ago, when Senator Nelson made a similar trip, he said the same, that this was a blanket policy -- but I was asked a specific question about Speaker Pelosi, which is why I said that.
Speaker Pelosi is a high-ranking United States official. Nothing changes -- nothing has changed in Syria's behavior over the years when high-ranking U.S. officials go to see them. We sent Secretary Powell early on; the behavior doesn't change. Syria uses these opportunities to flaunt photo opportunities around its country and around the region and around the world, to say that they aren't isolated, that they don't need to change their behavior, and it alleviates the pressure that we are trying to put on them to change their behavior.
And by changing their behavior I mean as in, stop undermining the democratically elected government of Lebanon; stop allowing foreign fighters to flow from Syria into Iraq, in which they are then killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi soldiers. They are state sponsors of terrorism, of both Hezbollah and Hamas, and they support Palestinian terrorism.
And so that was the reason that we said that we discouraged her from going. But that policy applies to all. So I think that maybe she wasn't able to see my exact comments, so I won't judge her on that. But the policy applies everywhere.
...
Q I want to clarify on the -- you're saying it was a bad idea, then, for Speaker Pelosi to go for all these various reasons to Syria. It's a bad idea, then, for Jim Baker to have gone, a bad idea for Frank Wolf to go as well, right?
MS. PERINO: We think that it is not a good idea for U.S. officials to go and meet with Assad, because it alleviates that pressure, and also because meetings haven't produced anything. They've been meeting just to meet, and he doesn't change his behavior. In fact, he uses those meetings as a reason to say that he doesn't need to do anything.
Q When you don't meet with him, he doesn't change his behavior either.
MS. PERINO: Well, we'll see.
Unless I'm a lot more dense than I think, neither of those was an answer. So it stands: Republicans visiting Damascus, Okay. Democrats, visiting, Hurts America.
As Greg notes here, the president said today that he doesn't like Republicans or Democrats visiting Syria. But he only gets his press office to make a stink when it's a Democrat.
Enough on this one. A bunch of reporters got played on this one. And now they're too embarrassed to retrace their steps.
--Josh Marshall
Bizarre.
In its coverage of Bush's presser today The New York Times fails to report Bush's acknowledgment that Republican House members visited Syria. Instead, the paper only reports Bush's criticism of Pelosi's trip.
--Greg Sargent
Did Alberto Gonzales lie to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) when he promised to put Karl Rove's former aide up for Senate confirmation? All indications are that he did.
It's just one line of questioning that's sure to make Gonzales' April 17 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a memorable one.
--Paul Kiel
"I hope we can take this opportunity to put aside stereotypes and identify some common ground." DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr., blogging this week at TPMCafe, calls for a truce. If the comments are any indication, it'll be an uphill battle.
--Andrew Golis
Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos tries to get the case against (alleged) Duke Cunningham briber, Brent Wilkes, tossed by attacking Carol Lam.
Let's remember on this one -- Duke and Mitchell Wade have already been sent to jail or pled guilty. The big fish, Wilkes, is still out free. And his lawyer may use the White House's interference in the Lam investigation as the wedge to help his guy beat the rap entirely.
And what about those pictures of Wilkes hanging out with the Vice President?
Here's the key passage in the piece (emphasis added) ...
Geragos contended that Lam wanted the indictments to happen before she was forced from office by the Bush administration. But Lam was meeting resistance from bosses in the Justice Department, who had rejected drafts of indictments against Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, saying they needed revisions.Lam, Geragos theorized, wanted to force reluctant officials to go along with her plans by leaking details of the indictments before they were officially released. Geragos has said he learned about indictments from reporters.
“These indictments as to my clien