Fouad Ajami
Fouad Ajami wrote a startling op-ed for the Wall Street Journal yesterday, imploring the president not to leave a "fallen soldier" behind. If Ajami were addressing actual soldiers, his piece might have even been compelling.
In "The Soldier's Creed," there is a particularly compelling principle: "I will never leave a fallen comrade." This is a cherished belief, and it has been so since soldiers and chroniclers and philosophers thought about wars and great, common endeavors. Across time and space, cultures, each in its own way, have given voice to this most basic of beliefs. They have done it, we know, to give heart to those who embark on a common mission, to give them confidence that they will not be given up under duress.
Alas, Ajami wasn't referring to a serviceman or woman; he was writing about Scooter Libby.
Scooter Libby was a soldier in your -- our -- war in Iraq.... Scooter Libby was there for the beginning of that campaign. He can't be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own.
So, as far as Ajami is concerned, it's entirely legitimate to compare a convicted felon who lied about leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in a time of war to those who actually wear the uniform and serve in Iraq.
Ajami adds that the Libby case "has been, from the start, about the Iraq war and its legitimacy." To which my friend Anonymous Liberal responded, "What planet does this guy live on? Scooter Libby is not and was not a soldier in anything. He was a public official who was intimately involved in the events that led to the outing of an undercover CIA officer. That's what Fitzgerald was investigating, not the war in Iraq or anything remotely related to the war in Iraq. And Libby lied and obstructed that investigation, crimes for which he was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers."
For all the recent talk about "amnesty," it's interesting to see just how many White House allies want Scooter Libby to face no penalty for his crimes, isn't it?
--Steve Benen
Judge Walton gets sarcastic
Emptywheel discovered a striking footnote in the court order Judge Reggie Walton issued allowing Scooter Libby's powerful legal friends -- 12 top-shelf lawyers, including Robert Bork -- to issue briefs on Libby's behalf.
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.
The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it. (emphasis added)
Ouch. Sarcasm becomes you, Judge Walton.
Let's also not forget, my conservative friends, that Walton was a Bush appointee, nominated for his no-nonsense style.
--Steve Benen
'We have made a deal with the devil'
For a while, part of the administration's war policy in Iraq was disarming sectarian militias. Now, U.S. forces are trying a different tack -- the opposite tack.
The worst month of Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl's deployment in western Baghdad was finally drawing to a close. The insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq had unleashed bombings that killed 14 of his soldiers in May, a shocking escalation of violence for a battalion that had lost three soldiers in the previous six months while patrolling the Sunni enclave of Amiriyah. On top of that, the 41-year-old battalion commander was doubled up with a stomach flu when, late on May 29, he received a cellphone call that would change everything.
"We're going after al-Qaeda," a leading local imam said, Kuehl recalled. "What we want you to do is stay out of the way."
"Sheik, I can't do that. I can't just leave Amiriyah and let you go at it."
"Well, we're going to go."
The week that followed revolutionized Kuehl's approach to fighting the insurgency and serves as a vivid example of a risky, and expanding, new American strategy of looking beyond the Iraqi police and army for help in controlling violent neighborhoods.
Apparently, U.S. forces have not only aligned themselves with dozens of Sunni militiamen, we're also now cooperating with sectarian militias, working outside the Iraqi security forces, that include insurgents that have attacked Americans in the past. What's more, we're allowing them to procure weapons and we're granting them the power to arrest other Iraqis.
"We have made a deal with the devil," said an intelligence officer in the battalion.
The dynamic is not without complications. Joshua Partlow's report explained that "fighters on both sides appeared nearly identical," using the same weapons and wearing similar clothes. "Now we've got kind of a mess on our hands," a leader of a U.S. Stryker team remembered thinking. "Because we've got a lot of armed guys running all over the place, and it's making it very hard for us to identify which side is which."
Might these militias turn on the U.S. sometime soon? No one knows. Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, a Sunni militia leader said, "Let's be honest, the enemy now is not the Americans, for the time being." (emphasis added)
What could possibly go wrong?
--Steve Benen
Bush's English
From the president's press conference this morning in Rome with Italian Prime Minister Prodi:
Q: And the deadline for the Kosovo independence --
BUSH: What? Say that again?
Q Deadline for the Kosovo independence?
BUSH: A decline?
Q Deadline, deadline.
BUSH: Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good. (emphasis added)
He said it; not me.
--Steve Benen
Thompson and Romney
Rep. Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), one of Fred Thompson's boosters on the Hill, recently suggested the actor/senator/lobbyist would make a good president, in part because of his speaking voice.
"He has a commanding voice," Wamp said. "He has a commanding presence. He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel confident."
Sen. George "Macaca" Allen (remember him?) apparently feels the same way. (via Steve M.)
Former Sen. George Allen is bullish about former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the actor who hasn't even gotten into the 2008 presidential race yet.
Thompson has the right philosophy, is articulate, has a record and is "the best voice in America," Allen, a Virginia Republican, told a lecture series audience yesterday.
He likened Thompson's voice to that of a "modern-day Rex Allen," drawing a reference to a now-deceased cowboy actor.
It's good to know substantive qualities weigh heavily on the minds of GOP leaders.
On a related note, interest in Mitt Romney's appearance is apparently still high among conservative political observers, with the Politico's Roger Simon applauding Romney for having "shoulders you could land a 737 on."
This, of course, follows Bill O'Reilly praising Romney's jaw and hair, and NewsMax celebrating the former Massachusetts governor's "sensational good looks."
The moral of the story: if a Republican candidate looked like Romney and sounded like Thompson, they could call off the primaries and give the guy the nomination. They might be tempted to ask this amalgamation a few questions about issues, but why bother?
--Steve Benen
Republican Presidential candidates and GOP officials battle it out over stalled immigration bill. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Dropping the pretense about Bush's last two years
Just two weeks ago, U.S. News reported on how happy presidential aides were for a change. After having a rough time, Bush's West Wing finally believed they'd turned a corner and were optimistic about the future.
Relieved White House officials say President Bush has finally broken the cycle of bad news and political setbacks he has endured for months.
The officials say the bipartisan agreement on immigration...is seen as a sign that times will get better for Bush as he pursues his second-term agenda. "Immigration cleared the air," a senior White House official told U.S. News.
Oops.
As Jim Rutenberg noted today, in case there was any doubt, the lame-duck period has officially begun.
[E]arly euphoria only made the grand bargain's grand collapse on Thursday night all the more of a blow, pointing up a stubbornly unshakable dynamic for President Bush in the final 19 months of his term: With low approval ratings and the race to succeed him well under way, his ability to push his agenda has faded to the point where he can fairly be judged to have entered his lame duck period. [...]
Rich Bond, a former Republican Party chairman and deputy White House chief of staff for Mr. Bush's father, said of the president, "He's in a greatly weakened state, and he's playing the best hand he can."
Which isn't saying much. On immigration, the president couldn't rally support from members of his own party, a failure which ultimately did the legislation in. In case there was any doubt, Bush's reservoir of "political capital" is now empty. The immigration bill was the one major, sweeping policy area in which the White House and congressional Democratic leaders are at least near the same page. With this legislation falling apart, Bush appears to have lost his only shot at scoring a major legislative victory in the 110th Congress -- and he won't be president for the 111th.
Bush can thump his chest and declare "I am the president!" as much as he wants, but that won't change the political reality. If he looks like a lame duck, and he quacks like a lame duck....
--Steve Benen
Couric's media criticism
Take a wild guess who shared these words of wisdom during a recent commencement address (via Jonathan Schwarz):
"While it's wonderful to have the world literally at our fingertips, the tsunami of information at our beck and call has the potential to drown us and actually make us less informed.... Surfing the web may be fast and fun, but sometimes pursuing knowledge requires you to go in the deep end -- and not just dip your toe in the shallow water. [...]
"The proliferation of celebrity magazines makes Lindsey Lohan's latest stint in rehab seem more important than what's happening in Darfur.
The kind of fluff that accosts us on the newsstand may seem like harmless fun, but it should also come with a warning label that says it can rot your mind and distort your values."
The words of Al Gore? Bill Moyers? Eric Alterman?
Try Katie Couric, anchor of the CBS Evening News, who would appear to have some power over how the mind-rotting fluff is reported to a national audience.
I have to say, Couric's remarks at Williams College last week sound encouraging, but they would be far less breathtaking if they matched her journalism. On Thursday night, the CBS Evening News' top story was Bush and Putin discussing missile defense, to which the network devoted two minutes and 35 seconds. The next longest item was Paris Hilton's release from jail, which garnered two minutes and 25 seconds.
During the half-hour broadcast, the Paris Hilton "news" got more coverage on CBS than a roadside bomb killing a U.S. soldier, the immigration legislation, and passage of the stem-cell bill combined -- times two.
Please tell us again, Katie, about how the media exaggerates the significance of celebrity nonsense.
--Steve Benen
Isn't our patience supposed to be 'unlimited'?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down yesterday with the editors of the New York Daily News to discuss Iraq policy. She repeated most of the mantras we've come to expect from administration officials, including the obligatory sense of impatience.
"[O]ur patience is not endless -- not just the patience of the American people but the patience of the administration.
"They're hard issues, but they don't have the luxury, really, of time."
Top administration officials, including the president, say stuff like this all the time. Iraqis need to get better, faster. Our patience is limited. Ours is not an open-ended commitment.
The Bush gang really needs to change its rhetorical approach, because none of this makes any sense. Or more to the point, the rhetoric is entirely inconsistent with administration policy.
Bush's approach to the war is predicated on the notion that our patience has to be endless. To do otherwise would be to leave before the job is done, which would mean, as the White House sees it, the decline of Western civilization. If our patience is limited, we might abandon Iraq, leaving terrorists to fill a power vacuum that will endanger the world.
Rice added that Iraqis don't have the "luxury" of time. This echoes the recent comments of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who insisted, "The clock is ticking." This, too, sounds nice, but contradicts the war strategy. As the administration sees it, if Iraqis are given a finite amount of time, the "suiciders" and "dead-enders" will think we'll eventually leave, and they'll "wait us out."
Put it this way: it's not helpful for Rice to suggest time is of the essence when the rest of the administration is talking about the "Korean model" in which the U.S. will maintain a presence in Iraq for the next five decades.
--Steve Benen
Schlozman can look worse
It's not that we need additional evidence of Bradley Schlozman letting partisanship drive his "voter fraud" prosecutions in Missouri, but evidence keeps coming anyway.
A voter fraud case brought by the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., just five days before last year's pivotal congressional elections was rejected by a Missouri prosecutor as being too weak and as inappropriate to pursue so close to the elections.
Mike Sanders, a Democrat who was Jackson County's prosecutor at the time, declined to elaborate on his reasons for not taking the case, but noted that even if he had sought indictments, he would have been "incredibly reluctant" to bring charges on the eve of balloting.
"As a prosecutor, you have to be incredibly mindful of the power you have and the potential that exercising that power has to influence public opinion just five days before an election," said Sanders, who is now the Jackson County executive.
The disclosure is likely to add fuel to allegations that U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman rushed for political reasons to bring the criminal charges despite a Justice Department policy discouraging pre-election prosecutions.
Ya think?
--Steve Benen
Mullen on surge
With Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen replacing Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Wall Street Journal noticed an interesting trend among top military officials.
Adm. Mullen, like many of his four-star colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was skeptical of the decision to send additional U.S. troops into Iraq.
This comes on the heels of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute's admission that he, too, registered his opposition to the president's surge policy.
And that came on the heels of Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressing his own opposition to the surge.
In other words, Bush will have a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a "war czar," and a Pentagon chief -- arguably the three most important war-related posts in Washington -- who are at least skeptical of the central strategy underlying the president's Iraq policy.
Odd.
--Steve Benen
Is the Wyoming law dictating that the late Sen. Thomas (R) be replaced by another Republican unconstitutional? Vikram Amar says so. And he makes an interesting argument. Not sure I'm persuaded. But it's worth a look.
--Josh Marshall
Brownback vows to sting Romney in Iowa straw poll. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Here's a good example of the problem. In 2001, the White House put a guy named Peter Kirsanow on the US Commission on Civil Rights. Turns out he's a full-time 'vote fraud' bamboozler. Here he is at a senate hearing yesterday trying to get 'vote fraud' nonsense added to a bill intended to make voter intimidation a federal crime.
As you'll note virtually every claim he makes has been discredited -- most recently by the US government study the White House attempted to cover up.
--Josh Marshall
Fun facts.
A new poll finds that the same percentage of Americans know about John Edwards' $400 haircut that know Saddam didn't have WMDs.
--Greg Sargent
Bradley Schlozman to revise his testimony? Stay tuned.
Update: Bloomberg reports that he just might.
--Laura McGann
Rudy and Edwards trade blows again over terrorism.
And in the back-and-forth, Rudy's strategy is laid bare.
--Greg Sargent
Lawyering up. Prez adds nine new lawyers to the White House Counsel's staff.
Late Update: TPM Reader AB checks in ...
Did you note that three of the nine came from the Washington, D.C. firm previously known as Wiley, Rein & Fielding? It is now called Wiley Rein, LLP, since its name member, Fred Fielding, moved to the White House late last year, to help defend BushCo from Congressional oversight and investigation. It appears that Fielding's assessment is that the situation ahead is dire and so he is moving part of his lawyer firm into the White House as reinforcements, a "surge" of lawyers we might call it.
Later Update: As many TPM Readers have noted, not a single Regent Univ. Law School alum among the nine. For the people, Regent, for the prez, the Ivy Leagues.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhhh, Friday. Alabama state senate gets physical, or Codger Cage Match ...
--Josh Marshall
Fred Thompson's campaign raises over $350,000 in first 48 hours. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Remember how the American military was going to marginalize radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr? Well, not so much.
--Andrew Golis
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) responds to press questions about latest pork payoff with middle finger.
--Josh Marshall
It is a curious process by which some questions of dubious import get pressed endlessly and others, which matter far more, are entirely ignored. I think we have one of these cases here. And if you'll indulge me I'd like a moment to explain what I mean.
A lifelong Republican attorney from Alabama, Dana Jill Simpson, has come forward and sworn out an affidavit claiming that in 2002 a close associate of Karl Rove claimed that 
Rove had told him that he'd gotten the Department of Justice to investigate then-Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D) and that he was sure the investigation would eventually take Siegelman out of politics. Is the claim true? Was Rove successfully using the DOJ to pursue politics by other means as far back as 2002?
The 'denials' from the other parties on the conference call have either been feeble, non-responsive or non-existent. And the charge is serious enough that you would certainly expect that if the claim could be roundly denied it would be roundly denied.
Then there's the White House and the Department of Justice.
Had the last five months not happened, perhaps there'd be no reason for either to deny the charges. But we already have a rather detailed predicate -- abundant evidence of inappropriate contacts between the White House political office and Main Justice.
A few journalists -- included a TPM reporter -- have put this question to the DOJ and the White House. Did Rove have any contacts with the DOJ about investigating Siegelman and did he tell William Canary that Siegelman would be "take[n] care of"?
But the White House refuses to answer the question. As does the Department of Justice.
In the context, I don't think that's acceptable.
Remember, an Alabama attorney who is a lifelong Republican and actually did opposition research for Siegelman's 2002 opponent has signed an affidavit asserting that this is true. The other alleged witnesses won't deny it. Perhaps she's just lying or crazy or has bad memory. But she has a sufficient prima facie claim of credibility to warrant a denial if one can honestly be tendered.
Now, perhaps the issue here is that the Democrats in Washington won't press the issue, and thus the press won't either. And from a political standpoint their position may be understandable, even correct. Siegelman was eventually convicted. And he's set to be sentenced later this month. From what I can tell there are real questions about the prosecution and the trial. But he may well be as guilty as sin. And because of that risk or fact they don't want to touch this one.
But from a rule of law perspective of view it doesn't matter. It can be both. Rove may have been playing games with the Justice 
Department, getting enemies investigated and Siegelman may also be guilty. It simply does not have to be one or the other.
Because of that, the question might not play politically. But we should want to know one way or another whether the allegations about Rove in this case are true.
So who's going to press this question with the White House and the DOJ? TPM may not be able to get answer but the big papers can. So who is going to ask? Or does this one just get ignored?
My gut tells me this one gets asked. But when?
Late Update: Scott Horton has more on this at his Harpers blog.
--Josh Marshall
I haven't had time to dial in on this story. But I think it's big: massive bribes, kickbacks, whatever you want to call them to Prince Bandar, longtime Saudi Ambassador to the US and still a hugely influential figure in US-Saudi relations. This story relates to arms deal in the UK. But I'd be surprised if it ended on that side of the Atlantic.
Late Update: Now CNN picks up on the story.
--Josh Marshall
A new poll finds that a solid majority of Americans self-identify as or lean Democratic. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Very interesting. Joseph Rich, head of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division until 2005 says he suspects Bradley Schlozman may have gone to Craig Donsanto's superiors to pressure him to approve those election-timed vote fraud indictments.
If you're lacking the context for the story, you can see a fuller explanation here. But the upshot is that no one knowledgeable about Donsanto, the top guy on election crimes at DOJ, seems to think he would have approved of what Schlozman did unless he was pushed.
--Josh Marshall
Former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl breaks his silence about Foleygate: "Foley was a ticking time bomb." Says he had "dozens" of confrontations with Foley over the years.
--Josh Marshall
Camp Hillary concerned about Iowa?
Former Iowa Governor and Hillary campaign co-chair Tom Vilsack to meet privately with Hillary's top fundraisers next week.
--Greg Sargent
I've been watching presidential campaigns pretty closely for more than twenty years. And I've certainly never seen a presidential cycle when the Republican field looks more feeble, dispirited and generally languid than this year -- which is a real turnabout. But I can't get past this one point. Mitt Romney. Set aside the familiar propensity to name themselves after small bits of fabric. This guy really rubs me the wrong way.
Of course, by most measure, who cares what I think? It's not like any of the Republicans are going to get my support. And the target audience for these candidates doesn't care what I think if they even know who I am. But Romney seems so transparently phoney, so willing to say anything that I find him genuinely frightening. And this is something I don't feel about any of the other credible Republican presidential candidates, though I obviously have criticisms of each. Romney seems almost like a caricature of the political phoney.
Now, other than warning the country about the terror of a Romney presidency, I bring this up because I've always been interested in the dog whistle nature of our reactions to presidential candidates and other prominent political figures. Setting aside all the GOP noise machine blizzard against Bill Clinton, there was clearly a certain kind of person who couldn't hear Bill Clinton's voice without thinking he was a two-faced, lying, phoney, say-anything whatever. A lot of that was people who hated him for his politics. A lot of it was because of propaganda for the right. But not all of it. There's a cultural-political tuning fork out there. And there's a kind of person who heard Clinton's schtick and reacted just as I do to Romney. Some mix of cultural assumptions, experiences, regional imprints, etc.
I feel it to an extent with Bush, though nothing like I do with Romney. And setting aside what people feel about Bush now it was, by and large, the people who reacted so negatively to Clinton who heard Bush and thought, why, what a genuine, down-to-earth guy.
So who makes you hear the dog whistle? And what sort of cultural imprint makes some of us hear it with (a shocking phoney like) Mitt Romney and others with Bill Clinton?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DM on the Tube ...
JoshI noticed that youtube feature yesterday or the day before...watching one of your videos. It’s awful, annoying and I’m sure likely to go away real quick.
But for some time now, I’ve come to realize that youtube is probably the worst video sharing service despite its dominance. Metacafe and filecabi.net are better for finding cool/funny/interesting videos and, ironically, google video is way way better as far as resolution and user interface goes. In fact on that last point – user interface and resolution – almost every other service is way better than youtube.
Plus, and this might interest you – metacafe (with whom I have no affiliation) offers cash money for original content based on views. I think it’s $200 per 10,000 views. Not gonna get you out of the flower district, sure, but it’s still some scratch in your pocket.
At any rate, it’s funny that youtube decided to upgrade their service not to make it better but to make it more annoying. Sounds very much like a plan hatched by a bunch of squares in a windowless conference room urging each other to “think outside the box.”
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: News about Sen. Stevens (R-AK) that's NOT tied to Veco bribery probe.
--Josh Marshall
Youtube jumps the shark?
Youtube has just created a new 'feature' in which all their lame social networking 'related video' nonsense is forced into the videos you watch themselves. Here's what I mean.
Below I've linked a short clip from Fox News we published yesterday.
Play the video and then wave your cursor over the video as it plays ...
As it happens, you can go in and fiddle with the code and remove this new 'feature'. And we'll be doing that with all the videos on Youtube we post. But it's hard not to see this as a case where Youtube, facing new competition among video sites, starts forcing annoying crap on users and generates a backlash. Tell us what you think.
Late Update: The Shark jumps Youtube? Most TPM Readers don't seem to mind that much.
Later Update: The tide turns. More readers say it blows.
--Josh Marshall
Here's an interesting article about Iran by Peter Hitchens in the American Conservative. Peter is the younger brother of Christopher Hitchens. And until a few years ago, Peter was the right-winger of the clan. Here though he's poking holes in the scare-mongering about Iran as the new threat to bring down the West and generally take over the world. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Lieutenant General Doug Lute has his confirmation hearings today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And we've got live running coverage from Spencer Ackerman at TPMmuckraker.
--Josh Marshall
Later today Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, will hold the first in a series of oversight hearings titled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America," delving into such issues as the NSA's domestic wiretapping program. Earlier this week we caught up with Congressman Nadler (he's TPM's congressman, after all), and in today's episode of TPMtv we talk with him about warrantless wiretapping, the politicization of the Justice Department, and that dusty old constitutional concept known as congressional oversight ...
--Ben Craw
Edwards to deliver big speech on terrorism today. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Follow the Coconut Road... to find $10 million in earmarks from Rep. Don Young (R-AK)!
--Andrew Golis
Gettin' dicey for Sen. Stevens (R-AK).
Over the last week we've been bringing you news about the Veco Corp. corruption scandal in Alaska getting closer to Sen. Stevens (R-AK). Stevens' problem is that Veco, the company at the center of the bribery probe, which is a smaller scale version of Halliburton (an oil services company) oversaw the 
renovation of Stevens' house. And now the Post has more.
In what the Post terms a "brief interview" Stevens, who's been refusing all comment about the Veco probe, concedes the FBI "put me on notice to preserve some records."
I'll bet.
As we noted on Monday, the main contractor on Stevens's suspect home renovation, Augie Paone, has now lawyered up and clammed up after giving an interview to a local TV station that can't have made Sen. Stevens very happy.
Paone told the Post: "My lawyers told me it would not be wise to talk while the investigation is ongoing. We'll just see what happens in the next couple of weeks."
Here's our report on Stevens' home renovation from Tuesday's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
When Bradley Schlozman testified yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee he repeatedly claimed that he'd been authorized to issue a series of 'vote fraud' indictments just before the November 2006 by Craig Donsanto, director of the Election Crime Branch at the Department of Justice. That surprised the committee such indictments violate DOJ rules against bringing such charges just before an election. And Donsanto himself actually wrote the manual that includes that policy.
TPMmuckraker.com researcher Will Thomas 
thought he rememebered Donsanto's name. So he searched through the Department of Justice document dumps from this spring. And he found Donsanto's name referenced in an October 4th 2004 email from fired New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias. And in that email Iglesias restates the policy against such late-campaign indictments. "I am not aware," writes Iglesias, "of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same."
Then this afternoon, TPMmuckraker.com's Laura McGann spoke to Iglesias by phone to ask him about the October 2004 email and his understanding of Donsanto's policy on such late-campaign indictments. Iglesias told McGann: "I actually saw the email that I sent on TPMMuckraker and I know exactly what you’re talking about. I had numerous conversations with [Donsanto] over the course of two years, I can’t believe that he’d have gone 180 degrees on that policy. I just don’t believe it."
It's not an idle point. Given Schlozman's record of supporting efforts to suppress minority voter turnout, purge non-Republicans from key jobs in the Civil Rights Division and other infamies, it looks very much like he timed the indictments to drop just before the 2006 election to provide Missouri Republicans with a cudgel to use against then-candidate now-Senator Claire McCaskill.
So what's the truth here? Schlozman said repeatedly and unequivocally under oath that Donsanto had authorized the indictments. Did Donsanto change "180 degrees", in Iglesias's words? By my understanding of DOJ guidelines Donsanto is not permitted to speak to the press. So I think only the investigators on Capitol Hill can find out from him what really happened.
--Josh Marshall
This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee released James Comey's answers to written questions from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) about the Ashcroft hospital room incident. We've just added the written answers to the TPM Document Collection.
Separately, in written answers to 
questions from Sen. Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey confirmed that Vice President Cheney blocked a subsequent promotion for a Justice Department official, Patrick Philbin, who played a key role in blocking the recertification of the NSA warrantless wiretap program.
In a telling detail about Gonzales, the Attorney General apparently planned to promote Philbin to be principal deputy solicitor general. In other words, it would appear that for all the rest we have learned about Mr. Gonzales, he was not inclined to punish Philbin for his role in the Ashcroft-Comey recertification incident. However, Cheney intervened. In Comey's words: "I understood that someone at the White House communicated to Attorney General Gonzales that the vice president would oppose the appointment if the attorney general pursued the matter. The attorney general chose not to pursue it."
So, two sides of Mr. Gonzales, but a composite that fits the profile of the man -- not personally vindictive or perhaps even a person of malign will, but an obedient servant of bad men.
--Josh Marshall
Is it possible that President Bush could bobble this back-and-forth with the Russians any worse than he has to date? Today the president managed to find himself answering a question in which he said there didn't need to be a military response to Russian provocations. "As I said yesterday, Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we are not at war with Russia."
I should think not.
What is the president doing exactly? Can he be set up with a minder? Can the whole White House be set up with one, for that matter? We need an escalation in tensions with the Russians at the moment? We don't have our hands full? Can someone step in and help the White House exercise any degree of competence in this situation? It's bizarre and embarrassing and even dangerous.
--Josh Marshall
We've just posted the documents from the latest DOJ document dump. If you'd like to help us rake them, join us in our document dump research thread.
--Josh Marshall
Romney "welcomes" Fred Thompson to the campaign, says he'll bring a "Hollywood aura" to the contest. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Yesterday, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, DOJer Bradley Schlozman claimed that the director of the Election Crimes branch, Craig Donsanto, had authorized his election timed 'vote fraud' indictments in Kansas City last year. But it turns on that fired US Attorney David Iglesias worked closely with Donsanto on this very issue when he was overseeing the DOJ's vote fraud task force. And Iglesias tells us he doesn't buy Schlozman's testimony.
--Josh Marshall
About that Turkish incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan: apparently it didn't happen.
--Josh Marshall
New Abramoff guilty plea: Italia Federici come on down!
For a backgrounder on Federici's role in the case, see the TPMmuckraker bio.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: Pundit actually praises Nancy Pelosi, says she could prove to be an "exceptional" speaker!
--Greg Sargent
We hear that the DOJ has closed its inquiry into former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ).
No prosecution. No further action.
--Josh Marshall
Fox News takes a second stab at apologizing over the Conyers/Jefferson 'goof' ...
--Josh Marshall
Fred Thompson debuts new position on abortion just in time to debut new campaign for president.
--Josh Marshall
Latest News from the Turkish/Iraqi (Kurdistan) Border: We got a statement from the DC rep of the Kurdistan Regional Government. He says there are no Turkish forces in Kurdistan "as of today."
And we've got more background on what may have triggered the crisis: a little discussed turnover of security control in Iraqi Kurdistan from US control to that of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
Late Update: State Department spokeswoman tells us that the report of a Turkish military incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan "is not a true story." More soon. -- SA
--Josh Marshall
Fox's Roger Ailes says: "The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda. And that's what's coming."
I guess we at least agree about the nature of the organization?
Late Update: From TPM Reader RT: "I guess he validates the theory you shouldn't negotiate with terrorists."
--Josh Marshall
If you're a regular TPM Reader you know about Bradley Schlozman, voter suppression kingpin at the Bush Department of Justice. Yesterday, he went before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer why he timed a series of dubious 'vote fraud' indictments for just days before the November 2006 election. It was one of the most acrimonious, combustible and frankly mutually-contemptuous testimony I've ever seen. We bring you a montage of Schlozman's testimonial weaseldom in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: Here's the TPMmuckraker piece we reference toward the end of the episode, and for a summary of today's episode click here.
--Josh Marshall
I'll be honest. TPM produces so much material these days that even I'm not able to read it all. We've got TPM, TPMmuckraker, Election Central, TPMCafe. So every morning our staff packages all the best stuff together into the TPM Daily Digest.
It's a short, quick summary of what we think is the key reporting we've done over the previous twenty-four hours -- in one concise package -- as well as the latest polls, links to other must-read articles around the web, and the TPM Daybook with a calendar of major political events coming over the course of the day.
If you'd like to subscribe you can sign up in the little subscription box right there in the upper right hand corner of the top blog post. It's free. You'll only get the single email each day. And we will never share or sell or do anything else with your email address other than use it to send you the TPM Daily Digest.
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards' bumbling campaign advisers, caught on video making fools of themselves!
--Greg Sargent
Mitt Romney offers first taste of his long-awaited "J.F.K. speech" on his Mormonism. That and other news about last night's debate in today's Election Central Debate Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
TPM Reader SL on Schlozman ...
Monica Goodling told the truth as she saw it, which is different from the truth but is all you can hope to get from someone. Sampson and Gonzales told neither lies nor the truth; they didn't say much of anything, sort of a pregnant silence. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Schlozman lied. Specifically, I think he lied about contact with the White House over the Acorn indictments. His whole tone and demeanor changed when he gave those particular answers. He became monosyllabic, his delivery was flat (prior to that it had been passively aggressive), and a hard look of despair took over his demeanor.
I had a slightly different breakdown of Schlozman's testimony yesterday. But on balance I agree with SL. Sampson and Gonzales, for better or worse, played the faulty memory card on pretty much every significant question. But Schlozman gave a number of pretty unequivocal answers that I think were almost certainly false. A number of readers have commented on his often telling affect. But in addition to being a first class weasel who appears to have dedicated much of his professional career to cutting down on minority voting I think it's pretty clear that a number of Schlozman's claims will be easily contradicted in subsequent testimony.
We're going to have a video compilation of Schlozman's testimony up later this morning.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Sure, diplomacy is important. But do we really need all those diplomats? The L.A. Times this morning reports that the foreign service is understaffed by 1,000 positions.
--Andrew Golis
One among many reasons why NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg has no future in the national Republican party.
On Monday Bloomberg weighed in on the JFK bomb plot -- the one where a few Trinidadian ne'er-do-wells who didn't understand how the jet fuel pipelines worked thought they'd blow up the whole city.
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life. You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
--Josh Marshall
As most of you know, Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY) died Monday night while undergoing a second round of treatment for acute myeloid leukemia, a cancer of the blood and bone marrow. Thomas had been reelected for a third term in the senate only last November.
Now, a number of readers have written in to ask why it is that though the state's governor, Dave Freudenthal, is a Democrat, he'll be appointing a Republican to replace Thomas in the senate. The reason has to do with Wyoming's unique law governing the appointment of senators, which we explain here.
TPM extends our condolences and best wishes to Thomas's family, friends and supporters.
--Josh Marshall