It's Pat Roberts' fault
Following up on an earlier post for a moment, it may seem odd that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is just now, in mid-2007, producing a report on the White House ignoring warnings about Iraq in 2003. The war is already in its fifth year. Where has this information been? And wouldn't it have been a lot useful before, say, before the 2004 presidential election?
Let's take a stroll down memory lane. The Senate Intelligence Committee began a comprehensive investigation on the use (misuse) of pre-war intelligence towards the end of 2003. Initially, the committee was prepared to release one authoritative document on the intelligence, what it said, and how it was handled.
With the 2004 presidential election looming, and Bush's chances for a second term in doubt, then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) decided to split the report in two -- Phase I would document how wrong the intelligence community was (which was released quickly), while Phase II would report on how the White House used/misused/abused the available information.
And that's when the stonewalling began. First Roberts said publicly that he'd "try" to have Phase II available to the public before the 2004 election. He didn't. Roberts then gave his word, in writing, that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have a draft report on controversial "public statements" from administration officials. That didn't happen either. Then Roberts indicated that he might just give up on the second part of the investigation altogether, because, he argued, there was nothing left to learn.
Under pressure to release Phase II before the 2006 elections, Roberts agreed to release subparts of the report, which documented what Ahmed Chalabi and other well-paid Iraqi exiles told the administration before the invasion, but nothing about the White House's mistakes.
In January 2007, after the Senate changed hands, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) agreed that it was finally time to take this investigation seriously.
As for why Rockefeller and committee Dems decided to release the report on a Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend ... well, I can't figure that one out.
--Steve Benen
Phase II
At a White House press conference this week, NBC's David Gregory asked the president a highly relevant question: "Can you explain why you believe you're still a credible messenger on the war?" Bush didn't hesitate. "I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David," he said.
It's one thing to read intelligence reports; it's another to take the reports' warnings seriously.
Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.
The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.
More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction.
In other words, the White House managed to reject what intelligence agencies got right and embrace what the agencies got wrong. How exquisitely true to form.
In a strong dissent, Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), the committee's vice chairman, said the inquiry itself was "a bad idea," and called on the committee to stop asking questions about how badly the administration screwed up before and start focusing on "the myriad of threats we face today."
Of course. What’s done is done; let’s not dwell on who cherry-picked what in order to kill whom. Please. Accountability demands answers. Even more importantly, the same White House that made these tragic mistakes before is still at it. If we don't take note of how tragically wrong the Bush gang was in 2003, some may forget why they lack credibility in 2007.
--Steve Benen
McCain vs. Obama
Way back in February 2006, Barack Obama and John McCain got into quite a dust-up over a lobbying reform measure. McCain wanted a task force, Obama preferred using standing committees, and McCain lost his cool. (It's a long story.)
Yesterday, as you've probably heard, their rivalry grew considerably more intense. McCain took a shot at Obama over his war-funding vote; Obama responded in kind. McCain took another shot, highlighting a typo in an Obama transcript that the media finds fascinating, followed by a cheap shot by a McCain campaign aide to the Politico.
Now, it's possible this became fascinating to the political world because it was a slow news day, but I think we know better. We're talking about two of the most powerful personalities in American politics, both of whom are top-tier candidates for the presidency, and both of whom seemed to revel in trading shots yesterday.
There are plenty of opinions available about which of the two came out on top as a result of the scuffle, but one thing I noticed yesterday, watching Obama deliver his response to McCain's initial shot, was that he seemed to enjoy mixing it up a little bit. Obama is running a campaign in which he frequently talks about changing the way politics is done. His stump speech emphasizes above-the-fray concepts and bipartisanship. It's led plenty of Democrats to wonder if Obama is aggressive enough to swing a few elbows when he has to.
Indeed, the conventional wisdom suggests one of the central questions about Obama is whether he can take a punch. My question has always been the opposite: can he deliver a punch?
That was what made yesterday's back-and-forth interesting to me. Obama almost smiled calling McCain out, by name. It was one of the first, if not the very first, direct shots he took at the Republicans' top tier. It was almost as if Obama was delivering an underlying message to Dems: "Don't worry, I'm not nice all the time."
Good for him.
--Steve Benen
Feither interviews Lang
When it comes to Middle East policy, career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang is hardly a slouch. He was in charge of the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s, and was later tapped to run the Pentagon's international spying operations.
So when he sat down in 2001 with Doug Feith for a job interview, Feith probably should have been anxious to bring someone with Lang's experience, stature, and expertise into the young Bush administration. Feith needed someone to run the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, and Lang had been recommended for the position. The interview didn't go well. (via TP)
Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.
"He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.
"He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'
"He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'
"And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'
"That's too bad," Feith said.
The audience howled.
"That was the end of the interview," Lang said. "I'm not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out."
Feith & Co. apparently realized that it's best not to have too many qualified experts cluttering up the administration. Who knows what kind of reality-based policies they might have pursued?
--Steve Benen
Edwards campaign accuses Hillary of swiping his health care proposals. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Bush’s new ‘charm offensive’
It's a familiar story for those who've watched Bush closely over the years. Shortly after the 2000 race, Matthew Dowd started analyzing election data and determined that the center was quickly disappearing. The key to political success, he said, was to govern via polarization. Dowd insisted that Bush and Rove give up on striving for consensus, and instead tear the country in half. As long as the GOP's chunk was larger than the Dems', everything would be fine.
After finding some success with this strategy for a few cycles, the plan faltered. Bush's popularity tanked and Republicans lost both chambers.
And wouldn't you know it, now Bush wants to be friendly again.
The meal was fit for a queen: caviar, Dover sole almondine and spring lamb. The setting was no less impressive: the upstairs residence of the White House, with its unrivaled vista of the National Mall.
"It's not Crawford," President George W. Bush told his guests, referring to the dusty central Texas town where he owns a ranch. "But if you can't be in Texas, what a view!"
As Representative Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat, admired the scenery, he said later, he was struck by his presence at the April 17 dinner -- his first such invitation from Bush.
Only 20 months before the end of his term, Bush has begun a cross-party charm offensive that many had expected at the dawn rather than the twilight of his presidency. His aim is to make bipartisan progress on a few big issues -- such as an overhaul of immigration laws -- before he leaves office.
See? Bush just wants to get along with the "Democrat Party." It would be the height of cynicism to think the president is insincere, and that perhaps political expedience might have something to do with his suddenly-friendly attitude. Heaven forbid. The more intuitive answer is that it just took six-and-a-half years for the president to warm up to the other side of the aisle.
Yeah, that's it.
--Steve Benen
'Concepts' for a troop reduction
Stop me if you've heard this one ... the administration is weighing "concepts" for a major reduction in troop levels in Iraq.
The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.
It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.
The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.
The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.
One administration official who has taken part in the closed-door discussions told the NYT, "It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren't sustainable in Iraq, they aren't sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home."
While this certainly has the appearance of welcome news, let's not lose sight of a couple of points. First, this reduction would begin after the "surge" is complete and proven a success story. Second, these "concepts" are, according to the Times article, "entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno," who may have some competing thoughts on the matter.
And third, as Glenn Greenwald explains very well, administration officials have made noises like this before. Indeed, they've done so several times.
In other words, don't get your hopes up.
--Steve Benen
'Enhanced interrogation techniques'
For all of the Republicans' many, many flaws, they're generally quite adept at manipulating language. A program to allow warrantless searches on Americans becomes the "terrorist surveillance program." A policy that allows more pollution becomes the "clean skies initiative." A withdrawal policy in Iraq becomes "cut and run."
And as Andrew Sullivan explained yesterday, torture becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques."
I'm not sure where exactly this came from, but George Tenet seems to have been the tipping point. But it's important to note that Tenet has a very personal interest in lying about torture. After all, he will be subject to war crime charges if he concedes that he authorized it. But in his rewording, he has also, it seems to me, conceded something very important. He was clearly concerned that the term "coercive" in the newspeak phrase "coercive interrogation techniques" could be legal peril. It implies physical or mental pressure so severe it renders any choice to cooperate moot. It implies, inevitably, "severe mental or physical pain or suffering," in order to extract information. That is the only relevant legal and moral criterion for torture. Is the information coerced, i.e. is the physical or mental suffering so severe that the victim has no choice but to tell the torturers what the want to hear? If it is, it's torture, under American and international law. And Tenet is a criminal.
Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.
They do, indeed. And where do the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" come from? According to one of Andrew's readers: from the Gestapo.
--Steve Benen
Selective outrage
When Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama joined 12 other Democratic senators in opposing Bush's war-funding package, Republican presidential candidates pounced. If Dem presidential hopefuls are willing to reject funding for the troops in a time of war, we now have proof, the GOP concluded, that they must hate the men and women in uniform.
* Giuliani: Obama and Clinton have "moved from being not just anti-war, but to being anti-troops."
* McCain: "[I]t is so irresponsible to tell these young men and women who are serving in uniform with the orders of their commander in chief that you're not going to give them the necessary ability to defend themselves."
* Romney: "Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat [sic] Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning."
Got it. But I have a quick follow up question: If opposing money for the troops in a time of war is necessarily anti-military and un-American, why did Bush reject war funding less than a month ago? If supporting the military means supporting funding measures, didn't the president deny those in uniform the resources they need?
Or is it more likely that rejecting funding for the troops in a time of war is perfectly acceptable to Republicans, just so long as they think there's a good reason to do so?
--Steve Benen
I was offline most of the day. So I didn't see this McCain/flak jacket ridiculousness in real time. 'Flak' without the 'c' is the spelling I know for 'flak jacket' or 'catching flak'. But as Greg Sargent notes here, Websters' says they're both acceptable spellings. But really, who cares how it's spelled since, My God, the candidate doesn't spell-check the press release.
That makes McCain's criticism so mind-boggling silly and juvenile that it breaks new ground even for those of us who've grown painfully accustomed to his now apparently permanent decline.
--Josh Marshall
Where the right is on the war. From TPM Reader JDG ...
Yes, our war in Iraq is very much like the one in Viet Nam, but not the way its opponents mean the comparison. What's similar is this: Both of these war efforts by the United States have been sabotaged, probably on purpose, and we will probably lose this one as we lost Viet Nam, by the media's practice of showing us the daily body count in color on the nightly news every single day, again and again and again and again!It is simply impossible for a democratic country to pursue any war, no matter how justified, to a successful conclusion under those conditions.
No matter what you think of the merits of the present war, it's obvious that two choices lie before America: either we go back to our pre-1950 policy (which most countries in the world still follow) of wartime censorship -- not just of information that would help enemy commanders, but also of information that would undermine our own public's morale -- or we may as well pack it in and invite China to rule our country, since we can never possibly win another war.
Telling on many levels. Perhaps the most revealing is the assumption that we'd be better off, in a better position to bring the endeavor to a successful conclusion if we were still under the illusion that Doug Feith, Paul Bremer and Don Rumsfeld were doing a bang up job -- and in all likelihood that they were still running the show.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy follows McCain, accuses Hillary and Obama of being "anti-troops." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
New poll: Seventy percent of respondents think Bush has let down our Iraq War veterans.
--Greg Sargent
Barack Obama blasts Romney and McCain, heaps scorn on McCain's Baghdad Stroll.
Late Update: The battle continues.
Later Update: Drudge makes an anonymous McCain aide's attack on Obama his lead story -- with no sign of Obama's response to McCain.
--Greg Sargent
It's an inspiring tale that would only be possible in the Bush administration.
How a lowly Republican aide, a rioter in the streets of Florida in 2000, rose to be an immigration judge. The politicization of the Justice Department at work.
--Paul Kiel
John McCain's latest wild and wacky claim: The only people who support withdrawal timetables and enforceable benchmarks are "MoveOn and liberals."
--Greg Sargent
A new poll finds that only 38% of Republicans are satisfied with their GOP Presidential primary choices. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: the Justice Department contradicts a key part of Monica Goodling's testimony.
--Paul Kiel
Hillary and Obama both vote against the no-withdrawal-timetables bill funding the Iraq War.
--Greg Sargent
House passes no-timetables Iraq funding bill, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi the only member of the leadership to vote against it. That and more news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Rematch, June 7! Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) versus GSA chief Lurita "How Can We Help Our Candidates" Doan.
--Paul Kiel
Our readers are truly a wonderful thing.
Apropos of the previous post about Iraq and Vietnam, here's a passage TPM Reader KS sent along. It's a tape of a conversation between LBJ and McGeorge Bundy about Vietnam back on May 27th, 1964 ...
Johnson: And we just got to think about it. I'm looking at this Sergeant of mine this morning and he's got 6 little old kids over there, and he's getting out my things, and bringing me in my night reading, and all that kind of stuff, and I just thought about ordering all those kids in there. And what in the hell am I ordering them out there for? What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country? We've got a treaty but hell, everybody else has got a treaty out there, and they're not doing a thing about it.Bundy: Yeah, yeah.
Johnson: Of course, if you start running from the Communists, they may just chase you right into your own kitchen.
Bundy: Yeah, that's the trouble. And that is what the rest of that half of the world is going to think if this thing comes apart on us. That's the dilemma, that's exactly the dilemma.
See the whole transcript here.
Late Update: And more. I'm not as sure of the provenance of this quote as the one above. But according to a 2003 article from Knight-Ridder, LBJ also said: "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."
--Josh Marshall
President Bush, yesterday: "Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam. There are many differences between those two conflicts, but one stands out above all: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.”
There are so many problems and distortions with this statement that it is difficult to know where to start. But here's one place. Can we review the main arguments for why we were in Vietnam? Or at least try to distinguish them from the ones for getting out?
President Bush appears to be embracing the argument that the Vietnam War was a fight against Vietnamese nationalists who wanted to kick us out of Vietnam but had no interest in us one way or another beyond that. Certainly they weren't going to launch attacks against the US mainland. But that was the Doves' argument. The premise of the war was that it was a battleground in the larger Cold War struggle, one against the Soviets (who certainly had the ability and arguably had the intent to attack us), the Chinese (though that's much more complicated) and international communism generally.
In any case, the arguments for staying in Vietnam and staying in Iraq are actually quite similar -- and the arguments for leaving actually have a degree of parallelism too.
Of course, if we're worried about armed jihadism, which we certainly should be, it's really difficult to think of a better way to exacerbate the problem than to permanently occupy a country at the literal and figurative heart of the Muslim and Arab worlds.
--Josh Marshall
In the days right before the Dems decided to send Bush a no-timelines Iraq War bill, 63% of respondents to a New York Times poll said they favored a timetable for withdrawal.
--Greg Sargent
Bush to NBC's David Gregory: Terrorists "are a threat to your children, David."
--Greg Sargent
George Bush, sounding somewhat exhausted, bemoans how long the U.S. attorney scandal is dragging on -- or being "drug out," in his view.
--Paul Kiel
Last Friday was the fourth annual Personal Democracy Forum at Pace University in New York City. On Tuesday we brought you Part 1 of our visit to the conference. We bring you Part 2 in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Ben Craw
A glimpse into the Dem Congressional leadership's thinking: Dems offered Bush a no-timelines Iraq bill because if they hadn't, the White House would have criticized them for it. Terror of terrors.
--Greg Sargent
Jim Sleeper makes the case for combining Gore's wisdom and Obama's idealism to create the ultimate Democratic ticket.
--Andrew Golis
Today's Must Read: a Goodling testimony round-up and all those darned unasked questions.
--Paul Kiel
Edwards and Dodd turn up the heat on fellow Dem Presidential candidates over the Iraq funding showdown. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Romney blasts ABC News for "jeopardizing our national security." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
This has to be one of the funnier quotes I've seen about Alberto Gonzales in some time. Apparently the AG is the Justice equivalent of Wayne Gretzky, Winston Churchill and, I don't know, Albert Einstein rolled into one. Says Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO): "If he steps down, who is it that we can find to replace him? Right now, I don't see an alternative."
The irreplaceable man.
--Josh Marshall
Edwards slammed the phrase "war on terror" in his speech today -- but he's repeatedly used the term himself in the past.
An Edwards campaign adviser explains why his views of the phrase have changed.
--Greg Sargent
Monica Goodling: Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was "not fully candid" in his testimony to Congress last February.
McNulty: Oh, yes I was.
--Paul Kiel
The worst news for Alberto Gonzales in the testimony today: Goodling testified that one week after Congress requested to interview her, Gonzales laid out to her in a private discussion what his memory of the firings was. In other words, it sounds like the AG was trying to get their stories straight.
--Paul Kiel
Joe Klein versus Bob Shrum -- the smackdown!
Shrum, who was John Kerry's top strategist in 2004, is about to release a memoir about his campaign experiences that contains some pretty surprising assertions about Time magazine's Klein.
Now Klein, in an email to us, has responded to Shrum's charges -- and his reply sheds some interesting light on Klein's personal relationship with Kerry.
--Greg Sargent
It's interesting to note how the House Republicans continue to praise Monica Goodling for her testimony even as she admits to repeated criminal acts (namely, using partisan affiliation as a criterion for hiring career employees).
--Josh Marshall
Goodling, DOJ liaison to the White House: "I can't give you the whole White House story."
--Josh Marshall
In big foreign policy speech today, John Edwards will emphatically reject the notion of a "war on terror," deriding the phrase as a "bumper sticker" slogan.
Late Update: The full text of Edwards' speech is right here. How'd he do?
--Greg Sargent
Paul Kiel is going to be providing detailed coverage of the Goodling testimony at TPMmuckraker, as we've discussed. But just on first glance, beside calling Paul McNulty a liar, Goodling's line is that, like everyone else, she really didn't have much of anything to do with compiling the firing list.
Late Update: Here's Goodling's opening statement. Here's Paul Kiel's initial analysis of her statement.
--Josh Marshall
"In the most liberal state in the country, one Republican stood up..."
In a new and sneering ad, Mitt Romney bashes the state he served as Governor.
--Greg Sargent
Monica Goodling's testimony before the House is starting now. We'll be providing running updates over at TPMmuckraker.
--Paul Kiel
House liberals likely to bail on Dem leadership's Iraq funding bill. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: The central question today: was Monica Goodling acting on her own?
--Paul Kiel
Today's the day: Monica Goodling heads up to Capitol Hill this morning, compelled to testify with a grant of immunity before the House Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel has our rundown of who Goodling is and what role she played in the US Attorney Purge in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) talks about the warrantless wiretapping program at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Did I miss something here. This graf is buried down in an article just out from The Hill (emphasis added) ...
The postponements may be bad news for former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), who had close ties to Abramoff and whose Northern Virginia homes the FBI recently searched. Since the searches, both Doolittle and DeLay have vehemently defended themselves and lashed out at the FBI, demanding that agents “fish or cut bait” in their investigations.
Did Tom DeLay have his house searched? Did I miss that? Does Doolittle have two homes? Is there some editing error here?
Late Update: The Hill has now corrected/revised this passage. Seems it was just an editing error. No raid of DeLay's home. The honor is still Doolittle's alone.
--Josh Marshall
Federal Times ...
An Office of Special Counsel report has found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from partisan political activity while on the job, sources say.The report addresses a Jan. 26 lunch meeting at GSA headquarters attended by Doan and about 40 political appointees, some of whom participated by videoconference. During the meeting, Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy.
According to meeting participants, Doan asked after the call how GSA could help “our candidates.”
Doan has until June 1 to respond to the OSC report, which was delivered to her May 18, according to officials. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the report has not been made public.
--Josh Marshall
New Attorney Purge testimony is released on the eve of Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning. And what made Goodling break down in tears in her conversation with career DOJ official David Margolis back on March 8th?
--Josh Marshall
Maybe the Ashcroft bedside showdown wasn't about the warrantless wiretap program?
--Josh Marshall
Two polls in one day find Bush's approval rating at record lows. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Abramoff/Rove aide Ralston to plead the fifth.
It's the latest fad for young Republican guns.
--Josh Marshall
Russ Feingold blasts the Dem Congressional leadership for dropping Iraq timetables, says he won't support "toothless" bill.
--Greg Sargent
The Nation's Ari Berman responds to M.J. Rosenberg's questions about his recent article "Hillary Inc."
--Andrew Golis
Join us as we go down the voter fraud rabbit hole and follow yet another player in the scam, this one bouncing from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to the voter fraud hype group American Center for Voting Rights.
--Paul Kiel
It's official: No withdrawal timetable in Congressional Dems' Iraq bill.
Late Update: Harry Reid explains why this wasn't a defeat for Dems.
--Greg Sargent
Is The New York Times giving short shrift to the Edwards campaign?
Our survey shows that in the last three months, Hillary and Obama have each earned mentions in nearly twice as many Times articles as Edwards has.
--Greg Sargent
Financial expert Robert Hormats, sitting this week at TPMCafe's Table for One, breaks down the costs of the Iraq war.
--Andrew Golis
Fox News contradicts its own reporter to falsely declare that Bush has "won" the Iraq War funding showdown with Congress.
--Greg Sargent
Reports from the Middle East.
Daniel Levy gives context to the fighting in Lebanon and Jo-Ann Mort looks for some hope in Gaza while Kassam rockets fall.
--Andrew Golis
Former Giuliani aide questions Rudy's 9/11 performance. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Last Friday was the fourth annual Personal Democracy Forum at Pace University in New York City. It's an annual conference that looks at the intersection of technology and politics. And this year the focus was on integrating user-generated content in political discussions, coverage, etc. TPM's Ben Craw and I went to see what was going on and talk to a few of the participants. And here's part one in today's episode of TPMtv ...
(ed.note: Today's episode includes portions of the song 'Laura Bush's Eyes', available at music.podshow.com.)
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Duke Cunningham gives new meaning to the phrase 'dirty politician.' You won't want to miss this.
--Paul Kiel
Joe Lieberman again threatens to switch to GOP -- less than a week after admitting he'd promised not to.
--Greg Sargent
If you're interested in reading a good run-down of the Republican party's deeply immoral campaign to suppress minority voter turnout with bogus 'vote fraud' allegations, read Richard Hasen's article from Friday in Slate. All the key points, the phony American Center for Voting Rights, the front group to spread the bogus stories, the inherently ridiculousness of the claims of vote fraud, the ringleader of the scams Mark "Thor" Hearne. All the crap. It's really enough to make you sick.
By rights, these crooks should be facing justice themselves. But, shall we say, ironically, Alberto Gonzales ended up putting the US Attorney system in the service of these hucksters, firing ones who wouldn't play ball.
That's the big picture.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Doolittle's (R-CA) long time Chief of Staff, Richard Robinson, bails. Says replacement, political consultant Ron Rogers, "I consider this an opportunity to do some public service for a public servant I believe in. Whether that's an 18-month or an 18-year assignment, I don't know."
--Josh Marshall
Edwards forced to address haircut "controversy" yet again. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Has the Dem Congressional leadership decided to give Bush his war spending bill with no withdrawal timetables?
Late Update: The leadership isn't confirming the story.
--Greg Sargent
House Judiciary Committee writes White House to make "one last appeal" for cooperation in the U.S. attorney firings investigation. Then come the subpoenas.
--Paul Kiel
Okay, it's a tad obvious. And a TPM Reader suggested just the same analogy just last night. But this made me chuckle. And it's pretty well put together. Click the video, you'll get a kick out of it ...
--Josh Marshall
There are many policy debates I understand well enough to navigate on my own. But immigration policy isn't one of them. I have clear-cut general views. But I'm not familiar enough with the details to navigate the debate or the particulars of specific pieces of legislation. But one thing that does seem clear to me is that a temporary worker program is bad policy on almost every count. It gives you all the downsides of unrestricted immigration -- downward pressure on wages, weakening of unions, etc. -- with none of the upsides. You have a cheap, readily exploitable labor pool with no prospect of the people who make up said labor pool of gaining any political power to provide some counterweight to the tendency to exploit them. I would even say that having a large body of resident aliens with no prospect of actual buy-in into the country is inherently dangerous -- in economic and civic terms. The fact that birth in the US still guarantees US citizenship, I guess, prevents the nightmare of intergenerational non-citizenship like they have in Germany and other countries. But I'm not sure it's much better.
I know none of this is particularly original. All these points have been made more acutely and articulately. But whether you want tight limits on immigration or expansive ones, untying the connection between work and citizenship seems bad for America.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts. And I'm interested to hear from others who understand the ins and outs of this bill what else can be said in its favor or against it.
--Josh Marshall
The Democratic Party's fundraising edge over the GOP for the 2008 House races continues to grow.
Update: The rising Dem advantage on the Senate side is also striking.
--Greg Sargent
Here's what happens when Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) just can't keep up with his own party's reforms.
--Paul Kiel
What happens when Congress, the irresistible force, meets the White House, the immovable object?
As the subpoenas mount and the administration continues to signal that it will stonewall, a number of readers have asked us this question. So we went to an expert for the answer.
--Paul Kiel
Get this: The Dem Presidential candidates are outraising their GOP counterparts in, of all places, the GOP stronghold of the south.
--Greg Sargent
Democracy promoters, on the Left and Right, are forgetting something. 
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Steven Cook argues this week at TPMCafe's Book Club, much of the Middle East is and will remain quite stable. The overlooked factor? Powerful military institutions and traditions that bolster authoritarian regimes in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Algeria.
Joining him in the Book Club to debate this thesis will be Jason Brownlee, Yasemin Congar, Michele Dunne, Mona Yacoubian and Jon Alterman.
--Andrew Golis
Dems are dramatically outpacing the GOP in online fundraising and activism. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Last week's Comey testimony may have turned the tide on Alberto Gonzales. We take a look at what happened on the Sunday shows in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
USNews has more on how James Comey's testimony is helping turn the tide on Gonzales.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: meeting the major players behind the voter fraud myth. Next up: Hans von Spakovsky. Collect them all!
--Paul Kiel
This afternoon Ben Craw and I were working through the discussions of Alberto Gonzales on the Sunday shows for tomorrow's episode of TPMtv. And there's no mistaking that the tide has turned again on the AG.
But why? Little less than two week's ago Gonzales appeared confident of his job as he recapped his series of dodges and lies before the House Judiciary Committee.
So what changed?
It's not a difficult question to answer: James Comey.
At one level, that's understandable and as it should be. Comey's narrative of events back in March 2004 was a riveting example of the special mix of sycophancy, lickspittlism and lawlessness that is at the heart of Alberto Gonzales's tenure as Attorney General.
But does it really tell us more about the man than we already knew? Or is there more that we really needed to know to know he had to go? I think the answer to that question is 'no'. The bare facts of the ICU showdown had been reported some time ago. And more to the point, incredibly damning information has already come out about Gonzales's role manipulating the federal prosecutorial system to advance the narrow interests of the Republican party and encourage fraudulent indictments.
The Comey story is extremely important. And it deserves all the attention it's getting. At the same time though it shows the outsized importance granted to stories told as gripping first-person narratives. The point is too rooted in human nature to criticize it. It is what it is. One might as well criticize the rain.
But the point still deserves mentioning: What we've already learned about Gonzales is just as bad as the Comey story. We already knew more than enough to know he was morally and ethically unfit for the job.
--Josh Marshall
Reid targets recess appointments
The White House's recess appointments in early April seemed to strike an immediate chord among Senate Dems. They've become accustomed to a certain amount of offensive behavior from the president, but these appointments, especially Swiftboat Financier Sam Fox's, were just so brazen. Dems went from frustrated to insulted overnight.
Dems sent out word that they saw this as a slap in the face. One senior Democratic Senate aide told Roll Call, "The administration hasn't heard the last of this.... They managed to make a whole bunch of members mad and it doesn't bode well for future attempts to move nominations through the Senate."
But what, exactly, is the Senate Majority going to do about it? Apparently, Harry Reid's office has an idea. (via Memeorandum)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush's devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie "pro forma" session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall.
Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he's the new sheriff in town.
Good for him.
--Steve Benen
The Court and the 2008 Election
It may seem a little early -- OK, it is a little early -- to consider motivating factors in the 2008 presidential race, but Tom Goldstein emailed me with a heads-up on a terrific piece he wrote about the election and the future balance of the Supreme Court.
While acknowledging upfront that justices' retirements are unpredictable, Goldstein makes a compelling case that the next president will likely be in a position to name at least two, possibly three, members of the high court.
The next President similarly will have two appointments immediately (replacing Stevens and Souter), and there also is a very substantial prospect that a Democrat would quickly be in a position to appoint a third (replacing Ginsburg). In fact, if a Democrat wins, there will be something of a race for the exits.
Justice Stevens is 87. He seems in great health, but it is not reasonable to expect him to extend his tenure to age 93 (i.e., past the 2012 elections). Justice Souter is only 67. But he seems the most enthusiastic about leaving; he never embraced the job (or Washington, DC) as a lifetime commitment. Justice Ginsburg is 74. Many people say that she is in poor health, but I just don't see that; it is easy to mistake her somewhat timid physical demeanor for broader health problems and she is certainly intellectually in top form. Nonetheless, one does get the strong sense that, having served 16 years by the time the next President takes office and facing the prospect of serving in the current environment until she reaches 80, Justice Ginsburg would very seriously consider allowing a Democratic President to nominate a replacement to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Even a Justice on the left who is planning on leaving and would prefer to have his or her successor appointed by a Democrat will likely retire relatively early in a Republican presidency. The Senate will probably remain in Democratic hands in 2009, limiting the prospect of a very conservative replacement. So, I would be very surprised if Justices Stevens or Souter would stay. But the dilemma of leaving under a Republican President would be substantial for Justice Ginsburg, and I expect she would stay so long as her health permitted. [...]
In sum, the 2008 election window presents the most significant opportunity to shape the direction of the Supreme Court that can be anticipated for roughly the next two decades – i.e., as far into the future as anyone can reasonably hope to look. For the left and the right, the stakes are genuinely high.
As Goldstein sees it, a Democratic victory in 2008 would help maintain at least the status quo on the Supreme Court for quite a while. A Republican victory would mean a rather dramatic opportunity to reshape American law.
Take a look; it's a persuasive argument.
--Steve Benen
Iraq helping raise money for al Qaeda
It wasn't too long ago that al Qaeda was considered cash-strapped. More recently, however, the CIA, in the midst of an unsuccessful search for the terrorist network's top leadership, noticed a new problem: the war in Iraq is helping fill al Qaeda's coffers.
In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.
The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.
A senior U.S. counter-terrorism official added, "Iraq is a big moneymaker for them."
This isn't exactly a huge surprise, but it's nevertheless a heartbreaking reminder about why the administration and its allies have Iraq backwards. Indeed, we learned last September from the National Intelligence Estimate that the war is "shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives," creating a "cause celebre" for jihadists, which in turn "cultivat[es] supporters for the global jihadist movement." Or, put another way, the war in Iraq is making it harder, not easier, to combat global terrorism, and in the case of al Qaeda, our presence has become something of a cash-cow.
I heartily endorse Kevin Drum's take on the broader dynamic.
Say it with me: We. Need. To. Get. Out. The sooner the better. Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing for Iraq itself, which is doomed to sectarian civil war no matter what we do. It's actively hindering the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will almost certainly proceed more quickly and more ruthlessly once we leave. It's made Iran into a more powerful regional player than it ever could have dreamed of. It's produced a relentlessly worsening foreign policy catastrophe by swelling the ranks of Middle Eastern Muslims who support anti-American jihadism in spirit, even if they don't directly support al-Qaeda itself. And it's turned into a bonanza of recruiting and fundraising among those who do directly support al-Qaeda.
In almost every way you can think of, our continued presence in Iraq is bad for Iraq, bad for the Middle East, and bad for America's own national security. I can't even think of anything on the plus side of the ledger anymore, and every additional day we stay there only makes the ledger look worse.
--Steve Benen
Newt on an 'anti-religious bias'
Less than a week after Jerry Falwell's death, Newt Gingrich appeared at Falwell's college, Liberty University, to address to the school's 2007 graduating class. The former House Speaker and likely presidential candidate denounced the "growing culture of radical secularism."
In a speech heavy with religious allusions but devoid of hints about his presidential ambitions, Gingrich drew applause from the graduates and their families in the school's 12,000-seat football stadium when he demanded: "This anti-religious bias must end."
"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive," Gingrich said, deriding what he called the "contorted logic" and "false principles" of advocates of secularism in American society.
"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard," he said during his 26-minute speech. "It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."
Impossible to miss? It can't be that impossible; I have no idea what on earth he's talking about. Religious beliefs don't have a chance to be heard? Since when?
I'm hard pressed to imagine what country Gingrich and the 12,000 people who applauded his worldview are living in. Out of the 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, the president, vice president, the Bush cabinet, and nine Supreme Court justices, there is exactly one person -- not one percent, just one guy -- who does not profess a faith in God. If polls are to be believed, less than 5% of the population describes themselves as non-believers.
In the last presidential election, one candidate announced during a presidential debate, "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth.... I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith." This was John Kerry, the more secular candidate of the two.
As for "discrimination," the New York Times had an interesting report last week showing that so much public money is now going to ministries, religious groups are hiring lobbyists to get more.
In our culture, religion is common in the media — I can’t remember the last month Time and/or Newsweek didn’t feature religion as a cover story — almost exclusively in a positive light. In sporting events, celebrating athletes routinely express their religiosity. At awards ceremonies, entertainers routinely “give thanks to God” from the outset, usually to considerable applause.
Gingrich sees all of this and believes an “anti-religious bias” dominates U.S. society. I have no idea why.
--Steve Benen
Romney grabs huge lead in Iowa in new poll. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Sadr makes a new play
Sudarsan Raghavan has an important front-page piece in the Washington Post today on what appears to be a major overhaul of Moqtada al-Sadr's political tactics. Sadr seems to be making a new play: giving up on Maliki's government and "moderating" the Mahdi image. Raghavan calls it one of the most "dramatic tactical shifts since the beginning of the war" for Sadr's movement.
The 33-year-old populist is reaching out to a broad array of Sunni leaders, from politicians to insurgents, and purging extremist members of his Mahdi Army militia who target Sunnis. Sadr's political followers are distancing themselves from the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which is widely criticized as corrupt, inefficient and biased in favor of Iraq's majority Shiites. And moderates are taking up key roles in Sadr's movement, professing to be less anti-American and more nationalist as they seek to improve Sadr's image and position him in the middle of Iraq's ideological spectrum.
"We want to aim the guns against the occupation and al-Qaeda, not between Iraqis," Ahmed Shaibani, 37, a cleric who leads Sadr's newly formed reconciliation committee, said as he sat inside Sadr's heavily guarded compound here.
The whole piece is definitely worth reading. As Juan Cole noted, Sadr may very well be "maneuvering to have a Sadrist PM succeed al-Maliki if the latter's government fall."
Naturally, given the circumstances, Sadr's "reform" efforts and outreach to Sunnis are viewed with skepticism. Raghavan spoke with a Sunni seamstress who lives in Baghdad's Risala neighborhood, who was recently forced to flee from her home by the Mahdi Army, which broke her young son's leg during a home invasion.
"Moqtada is saying something, but on the ground they are doing something else," she said. Sadr's call to reconcile with Sunnis is "all nonsense," she added. "They want to know who the Sunnis are, so they can start butchering people at their own pace."
--Steve Benen
Specter on Gonzales
It's kind of amusing to think that literally just 10 days ago, it seemed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was, facts be damned, going to keep his job. He believed he had "weathered the storm." He was caught in the midst of a massive scandal he still can't explain, his Justice Department is divided and dysfunctional, and he'd lost the trust of pretty much everyone who has objectively considered the facts, but Bush is satisfied -- so Gonzales is "confident" that he's going to stay right where he is.
For that matter, it seemed, for unclear reasons, that there was nothing Congress would do about it. Since James Comey's Senate testimony on Tuesday, however, it's become clear that Gonzales hadn't weathered the storm, he was just in the storm's eye.
After Sens. Schumer and Feinstein unveiled their no-confidence resolution, all eyes were on Senate Republicans to see how much, if any, GOP push-back there'd be. The White House dismissed the measure as a "stunt," but the Senate minority has barely lifted a finger to oppose the resolution. Indeed, the afternoon it was introduced, more GOP lawmakers abandoned Gonzales. (For those keeping score at home, there are 10 Republican senators who've said, publicly, they think it's time for Gonzales to go, one way or another.)
This morning, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales' days as AG are numbered.
[O]n CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) underlined the importance and seriousness of the vote, calling it a "rare" and "very forceful, historical statement." He predicted that "before the vote is taken that Attorney General Gonzales may step down."
Maybe. But reading over the transcript of Friday's White House gaggle, a Bush spokesperson made it sound as if Congress may have to impeach Gonzales, because losing the confidence of lawmakers just isn't enough.
--Steve Benen
Reconsidering Ashcroft
James Comey's startling testimony earlier this week stunned much of the political world, but for many of us on the left, there was one point that was particularly hard to digest: in this dramatic tale, John Ashcroft was (gulp) something of a hero.
Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt report today that the revelations are leading some observers to reconsider the former Attorney General in a new light.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised his "fidelity to the rule of law." The Wonkette Web site posted the headline: "Ashcroft Takes Heroic Stand." Under a similar headline, "John Ashcroft, American Hero," Andrew Sullivan expressed astonishment on his Atlantic magazine blog that "John Ashcroft was way too moderate for these people. John Ashcroft."
Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way and one of Ashcroft's strongest critics over the years, said the incident told more about his successor, Gonzales, who was one of the two Bush aides at the hospital that night.
"I did not think it was even possible to make John Ashcroft into a civil libertarian," Neas said in an interview. "But somehow Alberto Gonzales for at least one moment managed to make John Ashcroft into a defender of the Constitution."
Indeed, Baker and Schmidt point to a variety of instances in which Ashcroft took on the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis, including opposition to indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and the administration's model for military commissions.
All of this is true, of course, but let's not go overboard. Ashcroft starts to look sensible and reasonable in large part because his successor is such a joke.
This is, after all, the same Ashcroft who relentlessly pushed some of the most dangerous provisions of the Patriot Act, endorsed torture, made poor choices, showed bizarre priorities, suffered crushing defeats at the Supreme Court, issued highly dubious terrorist threat warnings, fought with Congress over documents to which lawmakers were legally entitled, and may have even fibbed in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. And that's not even including the "Spirit of Justice" incident.
Confronted by Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales over warrantless surveillance, Ashcroft did the right thing and defended the rule of law. But I'd probably hold off on sending him an ACLU membership application.
--Steve Benen
