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 client were returned hours before Ms. Lam was to exit. . . . If it did come back to Carol Lam, it would strike me as the most compelling reason for dismissal,” Geragos told the court.
From separate reporting, I know this to be true: the DOJ was holding up the indictments. Why was that? And in that context what does her subsequent dismissal tell us? Let's not be fooled on this one. The White House and the politicals at the DOJ were and are doing everything it can to spring Wilkes and Foggo.
Remember, Mitchell Wade really only gets you to Duke Cunningham, the little-lamented hapless federal inmate. Wilkes was tied in with DeLay, Cheney, Doolittle, the whole rotten crew. And he skates.
--Josh Marshall
The Democrats need a more frontal response to the lies the president is now telling about Iraq funding. The president, of course, wants to force this into a discussion about funding for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc. That's funny given the president's atrocious record on these issues. But whatever. He's a liar. What's new? But here's the key. The public overwhelmingly supports a timeline for leaving Iraq. Overwhelmingly. Every poll shows this. For the first time the Congress has passed a law to do just that -- to put a time limit on our presence in Iraq. So the Democrats are on the side of a timeline for withdrawal (very popular) and the president is for staying in Iraq forever (not popular). And the president says he's going to veto that bill. The president is vetoing the Iraq timeline bill. Why? Because he supports staying there forever. Public wants a timeline. Democrats pass the law. President vetoes the law. Any Democrat is a fool who doesn't start every comment on this story with, "The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq." They have to say it over and over and over. It's accurate. It cuts politically. And to overcome the president's ability to spread lies about this it has to be said over and over and over. So who's going to say this more clearly?
Late Update: TPM Reader JC responds ...
Josh,You said "Any Democrat is a fool who doesn't start every comment on this story with, 'The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.'" I disagree. I would say that any democrate is a fool who doesn't start every comment on the story with, "The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc and a timeline to get out of Iraq."
Thanks,JC
I don't disagree with this. I'd say the two points can be made in unison since they are two sides of one coin. The president is vetoing this money bill because it sets a timeline. And he wants to stay in Iraq forever which almost no one left in America agrees with. The point is, don't hang back and let the president's lies hold the stage. At the moment that's what I'm seeing.
--Josh Marshall
The president just refused to answer the question of what role Bush 'loyalty' should play in hiring and firing US Attorneys. He didn't allow follow up. No answer.
--Josh Marshall
I'm not sure why no one brings this up. The president keeps saying that the Democrats are substituting their judgment for that of the generals on the ground. But this is an easily rebutted statement. The entire story here is that the president substituted his judgement for that of the generals on the ground. Remember, they didn't think the surge was a good idea. So what happened? He fired them. That's why Gen. Petraeus is there. The president looked around until he could find a general willing to agree with him. And when he did he put him in charge. This isn't about the 'generals on the ground'. It's about President Bush, whose judgment has been catastrophically abysmal from the start. Who can deny that?
--Josh Marshall
NBC's Andrea Mitchell confirms her scoop: GOP Senators privately say they'll withdraw support for the war if the "surge" doesn't show progress by late August.
--Greg Sargent
There you go. Another small fish about to get indicted in the Abramoff investigtion. This time it's Italia Federici. But what about the big fish in that one? Sure Jack himself is going to do serious time. And Bob Ney is already in the slammer for a relatively short stint. But for all the very real consternation about the eight fired US Attorneys and the Cunningham probe, in many ways, the Abramoff investigation is really the dog that never barked. What about Tom DeLay's fixer Ed Buckham? What about Tom DeLay for that matter? And the other members of Congress implicated in the scandal? The prosecutorial turnover in the Abramoff scandal bears a lot more attention, as does the current US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor.
And here's a bonus for you guys in the White House press corps. When do we get to see those pictures of Vice President Cheney with alleged Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes? Maybe it's time for someone up there to put in the question.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: remember the Niger uranium forgery? The Washington Post reminds us of what we don't know.
--Paul Kiel
Here's the lede of a piece from the always invaluable Warren Strobel ...
President Bush is losing his top day-to-day adviser on Iraq, the White House confirmed Monday.Meghan L. O'Sullivan, who has played a key behind-the-scenes role in implementing Bush's controversial Iraq policies over the past four years, will leave later this spring.
Her departure, which follows that of her deputy, could leave the White House with a vacuum of long-term experience on Iraq policy, and it comes as Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress prepare for a showdown over withdrawing U.S. troops.
Not to be catty. But could leave the White House with a vacuum of long-term experience on Iraq policy? Think that train's already left the station, hasn't it?
--Josh Marshall
I don't know if he was the first. But yesterday here at TPM, David Kurtz referred to the McCain trip to Baghdad as a Dukakis-in-a-tank moment for the once-widely-respected senator from Arizona. And he really hit it on the mark. In fact, with McCain's lackluster fundraising and leaden poll numbers already in place I wonder if it might not become a defining moment.
So much of this country's experience of Iraq -- and I mean the experience of those of us who've watched the carnage at a great distance -- has been the widening, agonizing, often comical but always awful gap between what we are told about what's happening in Iraq and the overpowering reality of what we can see, read and hear about it. A few quotes capture the disjuncture -- Dick Cheney's line about the insurgency in its "last throes". Perhaps, in retrospect at least, the president's Mission Accomplished stunt. Actually, for the best evidence that none of this is real and that we're all just characters on the pages of a tragicomic novel, you need look no further than the fact that our new public culture of cartoonish flimflam was prefigured in the words of the neo-jingoistically named 'Baghdad Bob' at the start of the story.
In any case, as I say, we all know the disconnect. But seldom has it been perfectly captured in image. And not just an image, because we've got plenty with the dingbat fibs and rah-rah nonsense. But you also want a bit of pathos and desperation, a measure of ridiculousness not just comic but somehow cosmic.
And here I think we have it. The aging war hawk, proving that security is returning to Baghdad by walking into a market encased in body armor, surrounded by rooftop sharpshooters and enveloped in a shield of a hundred soldiers, helicopters (Blackhawks), helicopter gunships (Apaches) and all after another group of soldiers went in for a pre-jaunt security sweep which, in the words of Larry Johnson, "searched for explosives, sent informants into the crowd, set up a perimeter, and secured the area before the Senators showed up with their 100 armed guards."
It's an iconic moment, like but much more than the Dukakis image, since its ridiculousness can be come at again and again. And from so many angles. Here, for instance, Times reporters go back to talk to the merchants on hand for McCain's dog and pony show, who promptly dump on the senator's malarkey. When asked about the senators' claims that their jaunt showed that security was returning to Baghdad, appliance shop ower Ali Jassim Faiyad said, "“What are they talking about? The security procedures were abnormal!”
Politicians can be wrong and successful. But what no politician can handle or sustain is to be ridiculous. And isn't that what we have here? And especially from someone who, at least some seasons ago, some of us had learned to expect so much more from.
--Josh Marshall
Harold Ford, Jr., fresh off his first major speech as the Chair of the DLC, will be joining us at TPMCafe this week to discuss his work and the policy initiatives he'll be pushing during the '08 primaries. Should be an interesting debate, the announcement alone started a pretty heated thread.
His visit is a part of our ongoing effort to bring interesting people to TPMCafe to engage the readers and the other writers all week with a specific argument. In the last two months, Matt Stoller, Chalmers Johnson, Amanda Marcotte, Jeff Faux, Marshall Ganz, and our own Mark Schmitt and E.J. Graff have all sparked conversations (and many more have joined in). Next week we'll have TNR Senior Editor Jon Cohn on his new book Sick.
What we want to know from you is: who would you like to hear from at TPMCafe? What issues would you like discussed? Email talk(at)talkingpointsmemo.com. We're all ears.
--Andrew Golis
You've seen it before: a former member of the administration publicly criticizes the White House, and the counterattack immediately follows.
So how did it play out with Matthew Dowd, the longtime Bush strategist who publicly broke with the administration this weekend? Simple: paint Dowd as a shambles of emotions, a man who's wandered off the reservation out of personal grief.
See the talking point in action during this afternoon's press briefing.
--Paul Kiel
McCain, the "establishment" candidate, announces his comparatively anemic fundraising numbers.
--Greg Sargent
Check out these hilariously loaded questions on the Attorney Purge and the Iraq War in the latest Fox News poll.
--Greg Sargent
Supreme Court rules against Bush administration in landmark global warming case.
--Paul Kiel
Yesterday, Josh mentioned Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) memorable Meet The Press appearance, during which Hatch sounded off on the Democrats' investigation of the U.S. attorney firings as if the last four weeks had never happened.
You can see it here. And for a bonus clip, we've added Hatch's coy response to Russert's question whether he would succeed Alberto Gonzales as AG.
--Paul Kiel
This just in from The Washington Post: Democratic victories bad for the Dems, good for the GOP.
Update: It gets worse. WaPo even ignored its own poll demonstrating the absurdity of its thesis.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: the administration wonders if we can please get this U.S. attorney purge scandal over with now.
--Paul Kiel
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."
Maybe he can go try that one out on some of the kids over at Walter Reed.
--Josh Marshall
The leakers sure have been quiet this weekend. Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, spent almost six hours Friday being interrogated by the staffs of the House and Senate judiciary committees about the U.S. Attorney purge. Per the terms of the agreement for the interview of Elston, staff was not permitted to disclose what transpired behind closed doors. Still, it is remarkable that nothing about the Elston interview has leaked yet, so far as I can tell. I can't help but contrast it with the GOP Congress of the Clinton years, which leaked like a sieve.
--David Kurtz
NBC's Tom Aspell has a kick-butt report tonight on John McCain's trip to Baghdad.
McCain declared earlier this week on CNN that the media was distorting the conditions on the ground in Iraq and that in fact you could stroll through many Baghdad neighborhoods, a rose-colored account that drew a quick rebuke from CNN's Michael Ware.
Aspell reports that McCain's "stroll" today through a Baghdad market was guarded by 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships.
In his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, McCain himself wore a bulletproof vest on his stroll.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader RM ...
I was a bit surprised (and disappointed) that Tim Russert and Sen. Leahy let Sen. Hatch's false "there isn't a shred of evidence" of impropriety canard on MTP go unchallenged, when discussing purge-gate. A Republican former U.S. attorney testified to Congress (under oath, if I recall correctly) that two Republican congressmen called him in an attempt to influence his prosecutorial discretion to benefit one of those congressmen. That's definitely at least a "shred" and more.
I didn't see this myself. But Sen. Hatch (R-UT) has shown pretty clearly that he doesn't have enough respect for the proper administration of the Justice Department to even be on the Judiciary committee. None of his Republican colleagues on the committee have been so exclusively focused on carrying the White House's water on this one at the expense of the rule of law.
--Josh Marshall
Some precious background information on Monica "buzz saw" Goodling, the Justice Department official who's pleading the Fifth.
--Paul Kiel
Glenn Greenwald hits another one out of the park:
Two of the three leading Republican candidates for President either embrace or are open to embracing the idea that the President can imprison Americans without any review, based solely on the unchecked decree of the President. And, of course, that is nothing new, since the current Republican President not only believes he has that power but has exercised it against U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. -- including those arrested not on the "battlefield," but on American soil.What kind of American isn't just instinctively repulsed by the notion that the President has the power to imprison Americans with no charges? And what does it say about the current state of our political culture that one of the two political parties has all but adopted as a plank in its platform a view of presidential powers and the federal government that is -- literally -- the exact opposite of what this country is?
Worth reading the whole thing.
--David Kurtz
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (via Atrios): “If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidate’s personal life and personal conduct in office doesn’t matter, then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology.”
--David Kurtz
We learn more of the sordid details of the plea agreement of Australian David Hicks, whose five-year detention by the U.S., mostly at Guantanamo Bay among the purportedly most dangerous of the dangerous, ended in a nine-month prison sentence.
The plea agreement, which includes a one-year gag order on Hicks, was not negotiated by the military tribunal's prosecutors but by the official overseeing the tribunals, reports the Post this morning. In fact, the agreement was reached without the knowledge of the prosecutors, who favored a much stiffer penalty.
Australians have long suspected that the political fortunes of Prime Minister John Howard, who is up for re-election this year, would have some bearing on Hicks' fate. The circumstances of the plea agreement further cement that notion:
Marine Maj. Michael "Dan" Mori, representing Hicks, took his plea negotiations to Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official, rather than dealing with prosecutors who were seeking a lengthy penalty, according to both sides in the case. In what became a highly politicized situation involving the Australian government, Crawford allowed Hicks a short sentence in exchange for a year-long gag order, a guarantee that he will not allege illegal treatment at the hands of his U.S. captors, and a waiver of any right to appeal or sue.Though Australian officials have said they were not directly involved in plea negotiations, Mori declined to answer questions about what, if any, influence they had. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, up for reelection this year, has been under public pressure to bring Hicks home. He turned to Vice President Cheney to implore that the case be resolved. Crawford was the Defense Department's inspector general from 1989 to 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary.
"What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it," said Australian lawyer Lex Lasry, who was in Cuba to monitor the case over the past week.
Could the outcome of the Hicks case be any less legitimate?
On the one hand, you have Hicks being held for five years without trial amidst allegations of torture and other mistreatment, fighting simply to get a fair hearing. His case has become an internationally known example of the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for basic human rights.
On the other hand, you have the outcome of the case determined not by conventional Anglo-American standards of due process, including evidence presented to an impartial fact-finder, but by the political considerations of the Bush Administration and its ally Howard. Or as a spokesperson for the military commissions candidly told the Post, "Like it or not, the detainees at Guantanamo are from different countries, and that sometimes is a factor."
It's another example of politics trumping the War on Terror when it suits the Bush Administration. While you might feel some relief that there is an end in sight to Hicks' Kafkaesque detention, you can't help but be left with niggling doubts. Was Hicks a true danger? Perhaps not. But prosecutors thought Hicks would have received a decades-long sentence if the case went to trial. Has Hicks been vindicated? Not at all. The able representation of Hicks by Maj. Dan Mori took advantage of the political situation in Australia to win his client's eventual release. Mori knew the game that was being played, and played it.
It is a deeply unsatisfying outcome.
Late update: Here's the Hicks plea agreement. [Thanks to TPM Reader JG for the link.]
--David Kurtz
Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson, the New Mexico pols whose phone calls to then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias ultimately lit the fire under Purgegate, have been laying low, but the Post has a nice takeout on how close their political relationship has been from the very beginning and remains to this day. Says Domenici's chief of staff of the role his boss had in first getting Wilson elected to Congress, "It was substantially more than an endorsement." All of which helps explain why Domenici would take such an interest in Wilson's re-election last fall, going so far as to call Iglesias to pressure him to bring corruption indictments against state Democrats before election day.
--David Kurtz
