What took so long?
The fact that Dick Cheney considers his office distinct from the executive branch seems to have captured the political world's attention this week, and given the bizarre nature of the story, that's undoubtedly an encouraging development. Consider the lede from a piece in yesterday's LA Times:
For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.
Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.
One of the angles that's gone largely unnoticed about all of this is that it's actually old news. Cheney started holding himself out as some kind of unaccountable, pseudo-fourth branch of government way back in February. The blogs noticed, and explained how crazy the argument is, but the media yawned. No one pushed the White House to explain, the Republican-led Congress barely lifted an eyebrow, and everyone just moved on, satisfied that Dick Cheney had established his own superbranch.
It's interesting -- and if anyone can explain the reasoning, I'm all ears -- but the same important story that was ignored in February is suddenly fascinating in June. The same questions that bloggers asked then are unexpectedly interesting to everyone else now.
As Digby noted, "Nobody gave a damn until Henry Waxman decided to issue a report that wondered why Dick Cheney was trying to shut down the agency that had crossed him. Then everyone 'discovered' that Dick Cheney has created a fourth branch of government that answers to no one -- something we were talking about months ago."
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to see everyone asking, "Does Cheney really think this"? But I am curious: what took the non-blogging political world so long?
--Steve Benen
Reynolds and Patterson
Since the outset of the war in Iraq, Bush and his administration have enjoyed almost unfettered control over policy. Everything the president has asked for, the president has received.
Of course, more than four years after Bush launched the war, we now know that every decision the administration has made falls into one of three categories: a) wrong; b) tragically wrong; or c) you've-got-to-be-kidding-me wrong.
Therefore, when searching for someone to blame for the failures, it's only natural to target the one group of Americans who've had no influence on administration policy whatsoever.
IN THE MAIL: Col. Buzz Patterson's War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror.
I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly -- they just want Bush to lose the war on terror. I suspect, however, that Patterson's theme is one that we'll hear more in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq.
As Kevin Drum responded, "You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East."
What worries me is that some of these clowns actually believe their talking points. The RNC and Republican lawmakers churn out a lot of nonsense in the hopes of directing attention away from the White House's foreign policy fiascos, pointing the finger at those who had no power to speak of from 2003 to 2006. The rhetoric is more pitiable than infuriating; one gets the sense that GOP flacks know how pathetic it is.
But Reynolds, Patterson, and some on the right actually seem to buy into the claptrap. There's a disconcerting sincerity to it. Indeed, Patterson was recently asked, "Surely you're not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?" To which he responded, "I am." He did not appear to be kidding.
Honestly, it's like watching a Twilight Zone episode.
--Steve Benen
McCain and lobbyists
In an odd column a few months ago, Richard Cohen praised John McCain for having "a visceral hostility toward the ways of Washington's K Street lobbying crowd."
It looks like the Arizona Republican has come around on the lobbyists he claims to disdain.
John McCain, who made his name attacking special interests, has more lobbyists working on his staff or as advisers than any of his competitors, Republican or Democrat.
A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids -- although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.
"Too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided," McCain asserts on his web site, declaring that he "has fought the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."
In actual practice, at least two of McCain's top advisers fit precisely the class of former elected officials he criticizes so sharply.
For the candidate who based his 2000 campaign on challenging lobbyists and "entrenched" special interests, McCain has put together quite a crew: two of Washington's most powerful, high-paid lobbyists -- Tom Loeffler and Slade Gorton -- are co-chairmen of the senator's presidential campaign. "All told," Tom Edsall reported, "there are 11 current or former lobbyists working for or advising McCain, at least double the number in any other campaign."
To be sure, McCain's "clean" image was always more rhetoric than reality. Regardless, McCain still bills himself as a "reformer" who's wiling to challenge the DC establishment, and a surprising number of political journalists still buy into the hype.
It's what makes reports like these so damaging.
--Steve Benen
Try again, Jonah
Matt Yglesias had an amusing item this morning, mocking Jonah Goldberg for arguing that the media steered clear of embarrassing FDR photos "because the press almost unanimously agreed that -- despite the huge news value -- depicting FDR as a cripple would be bad for the war effort." Since Roosevelt had polio when he took office in 1933, and World War II didn't start until 1941, Yglesias is able to deduce -- using arithmetic -- that perhaps Goldberg is confused.
But as long as we're having fun at Goldberg's expense, let's also take a moment to review his recent LA Times op-ed, in which he recommended eliminating the national public school system and replacing it with a private system, subsidized through vouchers.
Consider Washington, home of the nation's most devoted government-lovers and, ironically, the city with arguably the worst public schools in the country. [...]
Private, parochial and charter schools get better results. Parents know this.
Condemning the nation's public schools by cherry-picking one troubled school district seems like the basis for a poor argument. For that matter, it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison -- private schools in DC can discriminate against applicants based on everything from test scores to behavioral problems, while public schools in DC have to take everyone.
But even if we put all of that aside and consider Goldberg's argument at face value, he still runs into empirical trouble: "Students in the D.C. school voucher program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, generally performed no better on reading and math tests after one year in the program than their peers in public schools, the U.S. Education Department said."
And what about Goldberg's contention that charter schools also perform better? Well, Bush's Education Department found that charter schools nationwide under-perform, with test scores showing "charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools." (The Bush administration responded to the report by announcing it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.)
Try again, Jonah.
--Steve Benen
Good for Rahm
In Washington, I think this is what one might call a "winning argument."
Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.
"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."
Very clever. Good for Rahm.
If the Office of the Vice President is a branch unto itself, I'm sure Emanuel will consider Cheney's own appropriations bill, independent of any actual executive-branch spending.
--Steve Benen
The company he keeps?
Following up on Election Central's piece, it looks like Rudy Giuliani has a real problem here. Time's David Von Drehle asked a highly relevant question in his latest piece: "How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?" Von Drehle posed the question after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, comes on the heels of revelations about Giuliani's connections with Bernard Kerik.
But if Von Drehle's deadline was just one day later, he would have been able to include an even more damaging example of Giuliani's questionable associations.
Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests." [...]
Placa has worked for Giuliani Partners since 2002. As of June 2007, he remains on the payroll. "He is currently employed here," Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel confirmed to Salon, adding that Giuliani "believes Alan has been unjustly accused." Mindel declined to discuss what role Placa plays with the consulting firm, or how much he is paid. Says Richard Tollner, who testified before the grand jury that Placa had molested him, "[Giuliani] has to speak up for himself and explain himself. If he doesn't, people shouldn't vote for him." Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, "I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester."
The Salon piece, by Alex Koppelman and Joe Strupp, touches on some very serious allegations. This is more than just Giuliani sticking up for a long-time friend after he came under fire. As Marc Ambinder explained, in 2003, "a grand jury concluded that Placa was at the center of a diocese-wide effort to cover up nearly 60 allegations of sexual abuse by its priests." The same report found that Placa was "cautious but relentless" in "pursuing his victims," but was never charged because the statute of limitations had run out.
Von Drehle's Time article noted, "[A]ll candidates live in fear that a prominent supporter will become an embarrassment in the middle of a campaign."
In Giuliani's case, there are three (Kerik, Ravenel, and Placa). And counting.
--Steve Benen
Despite mounting outcry, Rudy still refuses to sever ties to priest accused of sexually abusing children. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
He didn't 'listen to our military'
The president was in Alabama the other day for a couple of events, including a fundraising reception for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who's up for re-election next year. Bush delivered a fairly predictable speech on Sessions' behalf, but one comment stood out.
The president was explaining how his current war policy came together:
"I listened very carefully to senators like Jeff Sessions and senators who didn't agree with what Jeff and I believed was necessary. I listened to our military. That's what you want your President doing. [...]
"So I made the decision to name a new commander, as well as send troops into Baghdad, all aiming to give this young democracy a chance to survive the relentless attacks from extremists and radicals who want to prevent their emergence." (emphasis added)
This comes up from time to time, but the president is simply wrong. He makes this claim quite a bit, but Bush didn't shape his policy on the advice of "our military." Remember this from January?
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against. [...]
It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning the advice of his military advisers. In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.
In November, after the election, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected the notion of a so-called surge, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said, 'No.'"
Indeed, Bush fired Gen. Casey, in large part because he neglected to tell the president what he wanted to hear.
And yet, here we are, just a few months later, watching Bush brag about how his policy followed the advice of the generals -- which is "what you want your President doing." Please.
If Bush wants to reject the advice of top military leaders, that's his prerogative; he is regrettably the Commander in Chief. But he really needs to drop this I-listened-to-our-military schtick.
--Steve Benen
Executive Order-gate
For a White House that has offered a bountiful stream of substantive scandals for six years, the latest dust-up might be the most bizarre.
The background details are surprisingly straightforward. In 1995, the Clinton White House issued an executive order establishing uniform rules for protecting classified information. In 2003, the Bush White House revised it. The order plainly includes any executive-branch agency, any military department, and "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." The entire branch of government, the order said, is subject to oversight.
This week, however, in light of revelations about the White House ignoring its own E.O., the Bush gang started spinning like a top.
The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.
An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 -- amending an existing order -- requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
Look, I can appreciate the fact that the White House is in a jam here. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang repeatedly mishandled classified materials during a time of war, got caught, ignored their own rules, and is now struggling to rationalize their conduct. When the federal agency responsible for oversight tried to do its job, the Vice President reportedly tried to abolish the agency. This isn't a fact-pattern that's easy to spin.
But the explanations thus far have been transparently ridiculous, up to and including the notion that the Vice President, as defined in Article II of the Constitution, isn't actually part of the executive branch of government.
Perhaps it's best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers:
* Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?
* Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch?
* Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?
* When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?
* Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question?
* In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist?
* The White House insists, "There's no question that [Cheney] is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?
* In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday, "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic. In the end, neither Mr. Cheney nor his staff is above the law or the Constitution."
At this point, I think they might quibble with that assertion.
--Steve Benen
Olbermann Fact-Checks White House
In yesterday's painfully-amusing White House press briefing, spokesperson Dana Perino argued, without explanation, that the president exempted Dick Cheney from an Executive Order on preserving classified materials. In fact, she got rather specific about it, telling reporters that on page 18 of the E.O., "There's a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency." Perino added that this is "clear."
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's staff looked at page 18. Take a wild guess what they found.
"No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 -- which is about something else altogether -- and 5.2 -- which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.
Faiz added that the language of the E.O. is rather sweeping: "Sec. 6.1(b) of Bush's 2003 executive order governing classified material explicitly states that it applies to any 'Executive agency...any 'Military department'...and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.'"
Sounds "clear" to me.
--Steve Benen
I'm sure it's just a coincidence
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney General, resigned on June 22, 2007.
Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, resigned on June 15, 2007.
Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' White House liaison, resigned on April 6, 2007.
And what do all of these dates have in common? They're all Fridays. (And, in each instance, the resignations were announced in the late afternoon.)
The Late-Friday-Media Trick has been around since before Bush took office -- release embarrassing news when it's least likely to get noticed -- but no White House has ever been this shameless.
--Steve Benen
Army intel officer outlines flaws in 'enemy combatant' review program in court filing.
--Josh Marshall
So how does Sen. Ted Stevens 
(R-AK) slice off a few slabs of bacon from all that pork he sends up to Alaska? At TPMmuckraker.com we're closely following the federal investigation into Sen. Stevens and his son, former Alaska state senate President Ben Stevens.
It turns out that it's not just about the oil services business.
Stevens and son also have a little angle with the state fishing industry that's got the feds attention. Ted put his son Ben in charge of a board that distributed $12 million in federal money in grants to state fisheries companies. Ben in turn pulled down at least three-quarters of a million dollars in 'consulting fees' from the same fisheries companies for services the nature of which has never been disclosed.
Laura McGann has the story.
--Josh Marshall
Fred Thompson heading to early primary states. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
This is fun.
Senator James Inhofe made a lot of noise today by claiming he overheard Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer saying that they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
One problem: He's now told two versions of the story, and let's just say that they're strikingly, even comically, at odds with one another.
--Greg Sargent
Your Justice Department resignation o' the week: Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer.
--Paul Kiel
Today's New York Times has an enormous front page story today suggesting that John Edwards' antipoverty programs were set up merely to provide a "bridge" to his 2008 Presidential campaign.
But guess what -- the Edwards campaign tells us that The Times refused the chance to speak to people who actually benefitted from his programs.
--Greg Sargent
TPM Reader SM writes in ...
It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".
Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.
I don't know if SM's claim is accurate in the particular. But it's very true as a general matter.
I've long been amazed at how freely reporters accept it when this or that Arab or Muslim with a gun is labelled as "al Qaida." And the issue is complicated by the fact that a new group -- a post-invasion group with a very uncertain connection to the actual al Qaeda -- has taken the name of al Qaeda in Iraq.
But is the standard bamboozle getting ramped up a notch? As Andrew Sullivan noted yesterday, even David Patraeus acts like the whole issue in Iraq now is just al Qaeda and Iranian arming of, I guess, al Qaeda. Otherwise things would be great.
This is the sort of thing that requires a close watching of the news and how things are being reported. Is 'insurgent' now being replaced across the board by al Qaeda. Keep an eye out and let us know what you see. We'll do the same.
--Josh Marshall
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on the vice president's "unique" role: it's "an interesting constitutional question that legal scholars can debate."
The Bush administration is just full of interesting constitutional questions, isn't it?
--Paul Kiel
Over the coming weeks and months we're going to be lining up interviews with the presidential candidates that will run on TPMtv. We're already talking to several of them. And we want you to be part of it.
Specifically, we want your questions.
So if you've got a question for Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Richardson or any of the rest, send us an email with the text of the question to our comments address with the subject heading "TPMtv Question: [Candidate's name]". We'll save them up for when we do the interview.
Of course, we can only pose the question if the specific candidate agrees to sit down with us for an interview. But I'm optimistic we'll be able to schedule most of them. And if we choose your question we'll credit you by name or you can remain anonymous. Your choice.
We'll keep you posted on what we've got scheduled.
--Josh Marshall
Hapless Romney aide Jay Garrity, under investigation for impersonating a trooper, realizes he's become a problem for his boss and takes a quiet leave of absence.
Late Update: Apparently Garrity was pulled over on his way to work today for speeding on the Mass Turnpike by Sherrif Cletus T. Romney and hauled off to the slammer -- jmm.
Later Update: Yes, that's parody.
--Greg Sargent
Okay, put this down as utterly irrelevant trivia, certainly in the context of American politics. But it's stuck in my head.
Clement Attlee was Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1945-1951, also Deputy Prime Minister in Winston Churchill's wartime national unity government. It was under Attlee's government that most of the British welfare state was created. And, depending on your judgment of Tony Blair's premiership, he is arguably the most successful Labour Prime Minister in UK history.
These days, former Prime Ministers are often ennobled and thus given a seat in the House of Lords. However it's virtually always as 'life peers', i.e., they're 'Lords' for their lifetimes but their eldest child doesn't inherit the title. Half a century ago, however, it was still common for ex-Prime Ministers to become hereditary peers. (Winston Churchill actually declined the offer to become hereditary 'Duke of London.')
And -- yes, I'm getting back to the point -- when he retired from the House of Commons in 1955 Attlee was ennobled as Earl Atlee and Viscount of Prestwood as an hereditar peer.
Now, today the title is held by Atlee's grandson John Atlee, 3rd Earl Attlee. And Atlee sits in the House of Lords as a member of the Conservative Party.
So, Clement Attlee's grandson sits in the House of Lords as a Tory!
That's all I got. But it's just too much of an irony for me, just had to pass it on.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer flatly deny a Drudge-flacked tale claiming they're seeking a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
--Greg Sargent
Talk about a false alarm. Not only is the Guantanamo Bay detention facility not on the verge of closing, but the Defense Department announced this morning that it's gained its first new prisoner in months.
--Paul Kiel
Yesterday we brought you the news that GOP Rep. Steve King was introducing a measure to prevent Nancy Pelosi from using State Department funds to consort with the enemy.
Well, the measure has just gone down to crushing defeat.
--Greg Sargent
A top good-government expert claims Obama is the most reliable Democratic Presidential candidate on goo-goo issues.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: that developing consensus within the administration about closing Gitmo? Not so much.
--Paul Kiel
Ha! Newsweek had Bush at 26%? Fuggedaboutit. ARG has him charging ahead to 27%.
--Josh Marshall
Ralph Nader discloses more details about his possible 2008 Presidential run. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
This should be fun ...
State Police are investigating one of Mitt Romney's top campaign aides for allegedly impersonating a trooper by calling a Wilmington company and threatening to cite the driver of a company van for erratic driving, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the probe.Jay Garrity, who is director of operations on Romney's presidential campaign and a constant presence at his side, became the primary target of the investigation, according to one of the sources, after authorities traced the cellphone used to make the call back to him. The investigation comes three years after Garrity, while working for Romney in the State House, was cited for having flashing lights and other police equipment in his car without proper permits.
The New Hampshire attorney general, according to the Associated Press, has also opened an investigation into a report that a Romney aide, later identified as Garrity, pulled over a New York Times reporter in New Hampshire and said he had run his license plate.
Would sorta like to hear this call ...
In the phone call to the Wilmington company, which was recorded by an answering service and obtained by the Globe, a man who identifies himself as "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State Police" complains about the driving of a van owned by Wayne's Drains Middlesex Sewers of Wilmington. The caller repeatedly says he is a trooper and questions when the driver will return to the office.
I thought this sort of stuff only happened in low-budget teen movies. Anyway, fake cop, fake candidate. Of a piece.
--Josh Marshall
From The Hill: "Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is expecting a significant drop-off in campaign contributions for the second quarter that might look like a pittance compared to the dollar amounts Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are expected to raise."
--Josh Marshall
At least someone's paying attention.
Fred Kaplan takes a good hard look at Rudy's greedy decision to rake in cash rather than learn about what's actually happening in Iraq.
Any chance the WaPo editorial page takes a gander at this?
--Josh Marshall
New Goodling document dump from the DOJ.
And early this evening new documents on the Todd Graves' firing.
Let us know what you find.
Late Update: The only blockbuster I've come across so far is that Kyle Sampson was apparently fond of referring to Bradley Schlozman as "the Schloz". (note: OAG000002180)
Later Update: Also of some interest, Sampson to Goodling and Oprison, Feb. 2nd, 2007: "Tim needs to be managed very carefully." (note: OAG000001853)
Never Too Late for Monica Update: On a quick review, most of the Goodling documents appear to be the work product of her after-the-fact efforts to come up with justifications for the firings. There are reams of prosecution statistics, some Nexis searches trying to find ammunition for the 'Clinton did it too' defense and a lot of emails about how they're going to deal with Tim Griffin.
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards is bringing back his "two Americas" refrain tonight in a major policy speech here in New York City.
The policy centerpiece of his proposal? Longtime TPMCafe regular Elizabeth Warren's "Family Savings and Credit Commission."
Warren offers her thoughts here.
--Andrew Golis
Sen. Stevens' (R-AK) pal who had to have a chat with the grand jury also turns out to be his business partner. And for Stevens a pretty lucrative one.
--Josh Marshall
National Dems may be on the verge of scoring two big candidates for key 2008 Senate races. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Need some attention? Just dust off the ol' Pelosi-to-Syria flap.
GOP Congressman Steve King introduces legislation to restrict Pelosi's travel to enemy countries.
--Greg Sargent
Administration to close Gitmo and send prisoners to mini-gitmos. From the AP ...
The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.
--Josh Marshall
Rahm Emanuel to Cheney: If Veep's office is not an entity in the exec branch, then please move out of the White House.
--Greg Sargent
Oh, you mean the very highest levels?
During today's hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) finally asked a question we've been waiting to have asked for quite awhile here at TPM. The response was telling.
In early January, Paul McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston put the screws to Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for San Diego, when she asked for more time in office in order to deal with several important prosecutions in her office. Chief among those cases, of course, was the ongoing Duke Cunningham investigation.
But Elston told Lam that she should forget about her cases, that she had to resign within "weeks, not months," and that these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of the government."
What did Elston mean by that? Sanchez wanted to know.
“He was referring to his interactions with the attorney general‘s office in particular," McNulty replied. Huh. Given that Elston's regular contact in the attorney general's office was Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, does that mean Sampson was the "very highest levels?" It's certainly seemed like that at times.
When Sanchez asked if McNulty was sure about that, he waffled: "I'm not sure specifically who Mike was referring to there."
--Paul Kiel
Mike Bloomberg, last year: "What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who's divorced really have of becoming president?"
From a Reuters article on how a Bloomberg candidacy might face "anti-New York bias."
--Josh Marshall
The deputy attorney general that wasn't.
That, at least, is the impression Paul McNulty gave today.
In March of last year, Alberto Gonzales signed a secret order to give Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson the ability to hire and fire junior political appointees (such as, say, McNulty's own staffers) with only the attorney general's say-so, and McNulty was intentionally kept out of the loop. The order effectively gave two young aides with close ties to the White House the ability to make hires without the knowledge of the department's career leadership.
Today, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) asked McNulty when he first found out about this. When National Journal published a story on it in April, McNulty said.
And what did McNulty think about the fact that he was kept in the dark? It "definitely was a concern" to him when he discovered that, he said, somewhat blithely.
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) also wanted to know about McNulty's non-involvement.
McNulty had nothing to do with the firing process until October of last year (about 18 months after Sampson began) -- so "you were left out of that process?"
"I'm not saying it was intentional or not, I just know I was," McNulty said.
Delahunt pressed on, asking about Alberto Gonzales' earlier remarks, shortly after McNulty announced that he was stepping down, that Gonzales had relied on McNulty's judgment in making the firings. If McNulty was out of the loop, how could Gonzales say that?
Well, McNulty had an easy answer for that, pointing out that on another occasion, Gonzales had said that one of his regrets was that McNulty had not been more directly involved in the process.
It's a dynamite alibi -- and an increasingly popular one, too -- the guy in charge who didn't know what was going on around him.
--Paul Kiel
In April, a group of anonymous Justice Department employees wrote to the House and Senate judiciary committees and accused Paul McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston, of leading an effort to eliminate applicants to the Justice Department who were Democrats.
And what did McNulty have to say when asked whether his right-hand man was working to politicize the hiring process at the Department.? He doesn't know. Faint comfort.
--Paul Kiel
World Exclusive: Elizabeth Edwards slams Matt Drudge, questions his intelligence!
--Greg Sargent
Amid his flirtation with an indy Presidential run, Bloomberg has been careful to distance himself from Bush and his foreign policies.
So where was Bloomberg on Bush and the Iraq War back in 2002 and 2003, when it really counted? Answer here.
--Greg Sargent
You might call this circular reasoning.
Monica Goodling testified last month that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had told her not to join him in a closed-door meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee because her presence might raise questions about White House involvement in the firings.
When asked about that today, McNulty confirmed that that had happened. But he had a different explanation why.
Here's his story: he thought that the Justice Department had made the firings at its own initiative, he said. It was his "own view" that the firings were not political and were based on substantive reasons. So he didn't see any reason to have the White House liaison in the meeting, because she was a political figure. Got that?
--Paul Kiel
Let's see what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says about this.
Sen. Schumer has said that McNulty told him in a private conversation that Kyle Sampson and other aides, like Monica Goodling, were to blame for his incomplete testimony. According to Schumer, McNulty told him, "I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me." McNulty had asked direct questions, Schumer said, and Goodling and Sampson had stayed mum about the White House involvement in the firings.
But today, McNulty testified that he hadn't "accused anybody of withholding information." He'd simply acknowledged in the conversation that he hadn't had that information when he testified -- "that was basically the extent of it." So just one big misunderstanding.
--Paul Kiel
As many of you likely know, just after 9/11, the White House forced the EPA to suppress warnings about the possible toxicity of the air and dust in lower Manhattan. The culprit was an outfit called the Council on Environmental Quality headed up by a guy named James Connaughton, a former polluter lawyer and lobbyist.
Connaughton, back in 2003, claimed the press releases were rewritten in the name of 'national security'.
Well, yesterday, Connaughton got called up to Capitol Hill for a hearing into what happened and why. And the result was such a tour de force of testimonial BS that we wanted to show you some of it. We see a lot of congressional testimony and thus a lot of non-denial-denying, obfuscation and generally bamboozling crap. But this performance stood out. Watch these excerpts of Connaughton's explanation in today's episode of TPMtv and see if you can figure out even what he's saying and why the guy is still in office ...
Late Update: For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
Lying under oath? That's no big deal, says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).
Here he is during this morning's hearing lamenting how the U.S. attorney firings investigation has taken to scrutinizing misstatements under oath -- not "real wrongdoing." It's part of a pattern, Smith says, of "so-called scandals" (presumably referring to Scooter Libby).
--Paul Kiel
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty is just about to start his testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. He will, as expected, field a number of pointed questions about his February testimony before the Senate.
Is it true, as Monica Goodling testified, that McNulty had not been “fully candid” about his knowledge of White House involvement in the U.S. attorney firings, of Karl Rove’s involvement? What about Goodling’s statement that McNulty had asked her not to join him at a closed door meeting with Congress, because her presence might raise questions about the White House?
But as I’ve argued before, McNulty has a lot more to answer for beyond his testimony. The deputy attorney general acts as the direct supervisor of all U.S. attorneys, yet McNulty let himself be steamrolled by junior aides like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson – in one case agreeing to fire a U.S. attorney because he was a bachelor and thus didn’t have a family to feed (a fact that didn’t prevent him from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the attorney, Daniel Bogden, was removed for “performance related” reasons).
And it’s worth pointing out that McNulty’s chief of staff, Michael Elston, is also at the center of the firings. Three of the fired U.S. attorneys have come forward to say that Elston threatened them that the Justice Department would detail the reasons for their firings if they did not say quiet. National Journal reported last month that Elston had made the calls on McNulty’s orders. And that wasn’t all Elston was up to.
McNulty so far has passed for something of an innocent bystander. Let's see if today's hearing changes that.
--Paul Kiel
We're working on a server upgrade at TPMmuckraker.com today, so we'll be bringing you our coverage of today's House Judiciary Committee testimony from Deputy AG Paul McNulty right here on TPM.
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards planning to revamp "two Americas" theme in speech tonight outlining proposals to go after abusive lenders.
--Greg Sargent
Obama says he'll reveal his earmarks, calls on Presidential rivals to do the same.
--Greg Sargent
A new poll finds that only 14% have "confidence" in Congress. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Bradley Schlozman demanded nothing short of loyal Bushies at the Justice Department -- just being a Republican wasn't good enough.
--Paul Kiel
Steven Griles, former #2 at the Dept of Interior, is one of the smaller fish who pleaded out in the Abramoff scandal. And to keep him out of jail his lawyer has a novel argument: he's nowhere near as bad as Scooter Libby.
Probably true.
Lotta good it'll do him.
--Josh Marshall
The Post has a fascinating and very sobering article about the Maliki government on A1 in Thursday's paper. It describes the centrifugal forces pulling away at the Iraqi state which have the Maliki government bobbling between impotence and irrelevance.
--Josh Marshall
Big Romney fundraiser faces lawsuits over allegations of child abuse. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Monica Goodling all but called Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty a liar when she testified before Congress last month. But judging by McNulty's opening statement for tomorrow's House committee hearing, it looks like he's not going to return fire.
--Paul Kiel
Whichever side of the debate you're on, few can dispute that the paramount issue facing America today is the war in Iraq. How could it be then that a major presidential candidate chooses to avoid said issue whenever possible? Rudy Giuliani shows us how in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Ben Craw
What's next? No Justice, No Peace?
McClatchy has debuted their new website along with a new motto: "Truth to Power", as in speaking truth to power.
That's a fairly bold claim for an establishment news organization to make. But I will be the first to say that they're the only ones in the business who can make such a claim without garnering endless well-deserved snickers.
McClatchy, after all, has led all the big news organizations on the US Attorney story. And in as much as its the inheritor and successor of Knight-Ridder (which they recently bought and merged with) they were simply without peer as a news organization in covering the build up to the Iraq War and War on Terror and not getting taken in by the conventional wisdom and the prestige leaksters.
So all things considered, more power to them. I can't think of a news organization that, story for story, has a prouder record over the last six years.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy responds for the first time to the story about him blowing off the Iraq Study Group.
And needless to say, his response is thoroughly bogus.
--Greg Sargent
There's plenty more, you can bet on that. House Judiciary Committee launches effort to reach out to potential Justice Department whistleblowers.
--Paul Kiel
Mike Bloomberg's my mayor. And I like him. But what's his appeal nationally exactly? Seems to me that his electoral success was heavily based on the unique partisan dynamics of recent New York City history in which a relatively normal Republican (in this case, someone like Mike, who was actually a Democrat but became a Republican to run for mayor) can run and win by playing off the entrenched interests controlling the Democratic party. In other words, as the Democrat he actually was New Yorkers might have voted for Bloomberg for various offices. But the only way he was going to get on the ballot, for various reasons, was as a Republican.
I'm not sure how those dynamics play nationally, though a billion dollars, admittedly, buys a lot of traction.
This Pew poll shows his nationwide appeal is quite modest.
--Josh Marshall
Mark Kleiman points out that while the feds indicted Giuliani South Carolina campaign chairman Thomas Ravenel with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, it was probably more like he was buyer -- though buying for what was probably going to be a pretty big bash.
Maybe he'll get a pardon after Scooter.
--Josh Marshall
Angels on the head of a pin update: Tommy Thompson says he'd make Colin Powell his Secretary of State.
--Josh Marshall
Remember "Slick Willy"?
Well, the Associated Press would like to share the new nickname it has now bestowed on his wife: "Slick Hillary."
--Greg Sargent
Compare and contrast. Convicted administration official Steven Griles argues that his crime was not nearly as "egregious" as other convicted officials, Scooter Libby and David Safavian.
--Paul Kiel
Andrew Sullivan linked to this video of neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz casually explaining how 'bombing' Iran is the only sensible policy.
Then one of his readers wrote in this noting one of the points Podhoretz makes at about exactly 4:00 minutes in ...
About halfway in he's asked what the correct British response should have been to the kidnapping of their sailors. Podhoretz responds that "they should have threatened to bomb the Iranians to smithereens." This comment in itself is unremarkable. Pretty much par for the course for Podhoretz these days. It's what follows that's illuminating.He follows up his original comment with the caveat, "Whether they would have had to carry out threat, I doubt. Maybe they would have." He accompanies this last sentence with the most minimal of shrugs. And the shrug tells you everything you need to know about the current state of neo-conservativism.
The shrug, an incredibly casual gesture, suggests that in the end, such indelicacies as bombing a country "to smithereens," don't really matter. What is important is that the United States' will is enforced throughout the world. By any means necessary. The shrug suggests that posturing and diplomacy and military strikes are all (morally neutral) aspects of United States' foreign policy. And, finally, the ultimate neoconservative falsehood, the shrug suggests that the democracy of the sword is just as effective and lasting and precious as the democracy of the popular will and the ballot box.
Gets to the heart of the whole thing.
--Josh Marshall
Uh oh. Polls show Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) slipping below 50%. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), no stranger to muck himself, is also in the danger zone.
--Paul Kiel
Is this how it works? The latest front in the voter fraud battle is North Carolina, where the Republican state auditor, following on the heels of the Justice Department, raised alarms about possible fraud just as Democrats were bringing a bill to expand voter registration up for a vote.
--Paul Kiel
Yesterday I discussed Rudy Giuliani's decision to bag on the Iraq Study Group to free up time to give paid speeches that netted him more than $11 million dollars over the last year and a half. But we found something funny when we started doing more research on Rudy and Iraq for today's episode of TPMtv. We figured we'd find a lot of examples of Rudy's huffing and puffing about Iraq and contrast those statements with the fact that he couldn't be bothered to show up for the meetings of the ISG. But it turns out flaking on the ISG is actually pretty consistent with Rudy's positioning on Iraq.
Remarkably enough, and I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this, Rudy has very consistently been ducking the issue for months. He's toed the party line opposing Democratic plans for a pull out. But he ignores the entire issue of Iraq whenever possible. And when he's forced to address he deals with it as quickly as possible as just one part of the war on terror, says he really doesn't know how it's going to turn out, and then moves on to something else.
A week ago, Greg Sargent flagged Rudy's eye-raising line that "We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people."
Pretty blase, if you ask me.
But again, that wasn't just one revealing remark. It fits together with a pattern that's -- I'll say it again -- remarkable when you figure that Iraq is the number one issue in the country right now and that he's running as a national security candidate.
Will have more later in today's episode of TPMtv.
Late Update: Here's the episode:
For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
A new poll finds Hillary with a strong lead in New York over both Rudy and Bloomberg. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: was there ever such a coy witness as CIA general counsel-designate John Rizzo? With lawyerly exactitude, Rizzo spent two long hours yesterday evading senators' questions on what interrogation techniques the agency permits, whether the CIA can detain U.S. citizens overseas, and much more.
--Paul Kiel
C'mon, guess. How many of the 1,000 employees working in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad speak Arabic fluently?
Update: This post originally said that the embassy has 200 U.S. employees -- it actually has 1,000, 200 of whom are foreign service officers.
--Paul Kiel
Bloomberg, who's pondering an independent run for President, officially leaves the GOP. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
See Rudy's SC campaign chairman's indictment for conspiracy to distribute crack.
The charges carry a max sentence of 20 years.
Late Update: The original report in the South Carolina newspaper The State referred to crack cocaine. However, the indictment refers only to cocaine. And an updated version of the story at The State website seems to refer only to cocaine. Hopefully the Giuliani campaign can clear up the confusion.
Later Update: Giuliani camp on Ravenel: we didn't know he was a crack dealer.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe Rudy's campaign manager was selling some of that crack to Fred Thompson.
Just off the Reuters wire ...
Tougher sanctions or a blockade on Iran could help foment growing internal dissent to topple the government, former U.S. Republican senator Fred Thompson, a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmmm. I'm used to Republicans getting indicted, but not for dealing coke.
SC State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack.
And here's video of Ravenel endorsing Rudy.
Late Update: Hmmm, bad media day for Rudy. Turns out this guy Ravenel is the chairman of Rudy's campaign in South Carolina.
--Josh Marshall
AP: FBI is questioning Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) former aides about his ties to corrupt oil exec.
--Paul Kiel
So according to Rudy's statement, he appears to be claiming that he bagged on the Baker-Hamilton commission after it became clear he was going to run for president. But as Greg Sargent shows here, Rudy was already an all-but-announced candidate many months before to signed on to the commission. Okay, so the presidential candidate dodge doesn't really work. What next?
--Josh Marshall
The Rudy campaign is disputing the big story today saying that he blew off Iraq Study Group meetings even as he found the time to make big money giving speeches.
But Rudy's pushback is easily proven to be entirely bogus.
--Greg Sargent
We've long been suspicious of the circumstances surrounding the firing of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, the prosecutor who led the still-growing Duke Cunningham investigation.
Well, here's more grist for the mill. An email released last week shows that purgemeister Kyle Sampson was hours away from asking the president to fire Lam not because she wouldn't resign, but because she wanted more time on the job to handle her very important prosecutions.
--Paul Kiel
President Bush isn't willing to make the difficult decision in Iraq. We ask the question, "Is anybody else?" in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Ben Craw
If a newspaper breaks a story that by all rights should be damaging to Rudy's "national security credentials," and the rest of the media fails to pick up on it, did the story ever break at all?
--Greg Sargent
I suggested in the post below that Rudy's flaking on the Iraq Study Group is the kind of thing that ends campaigns. And a number of readers have written in either to say that it's not that big a deal, or that the press won't touch it or that there are a bunch of other things that should do his candidacy greater damage.
Sure. But things that tank campaigns are seldom the things that are really that big a deal. It's the little facts that puncture the premise of a candidate's campaign. It is the the question that can't quite be answered. The story that sticks.
So take Rudy. His whole campaign is about him as Mr. War on Terror. (He's certainly not running on social policy since he disagrees with most of his constituency on those issues. ) But the upshot of this little story is that Rudy's real priority is money. He literally doesn't have time for finding a solution to the problem we face in Iraq. Couldn't make the meetings.
Again, is it that big a deal? Certainly worse things have happened. Rudy was still in his buckraking phase. I guess the Iraq Study Group got on well enough without him. (After all, Rudy doesn't really have any experience or knowledge about foreign policy.)
But how does Rudy respond if one of his opponents raises this in a debate after Rudy goes on one of his tough-guy-9/11 save-the-word-from-the-arabs tears?
I think this sticks to him like tar. Not because it's the worst thing in the world. Not because it's the most important thing about him or his campaign. But because it's like bubble gum on the shoe of his signature issue. Pick your metaphor, a pin to his balloon. A can trailing after his car. Whatever. It will stick in people's minds and it hits him where he's supposed to be strongest. He cares so much about the Iraq War he couldn't bother to reschedule a few rubber chicken speeches. It's just a matter of which of his opponents throws the first gob.
--Josh Marshall
David Rieff reacts to Anne-Marie Slaughter's case for values in American foreign policy:
Anne-Marie may be right (I am not at all sure) that values play a particularly important role in the American national psyche, but psycho-history is not history, just as self-love is not real love.The rest is here.
--Andrew Golis
How did we not learn about this sooner?
From Newsday ...
Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.
He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why -- the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.
That's the kind of story that ends a campaign, especially one like Rudy's based on standing up to terrorism and hanging tough in Iraq. And that's probably why the campaign put out this statement, which Jonah Goldberg posted at The Corner ...
As someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didn’t want the group’s work to become a political football. That, coupled with time restraints led to his decision.
But wait. If being a presidential candidate was the issue, why'd Rudy accept the appointment in the first place? And did the possibility of running for president make him blow off all the meetings? Was he informally recusing himself? C'mon. In any case, the statement concedes that 'time restraints' (does he mean 'constraints'?) were an issue. So he's not even really denying the claim.
So Rudy's running on terrorism and Iraq. But he got booted off a congressionally-mandated blue ribbon panel because he couldn't be bothered to show up for the meetings. It conflicted with his for-a-price speaking gigs. Like I said, it's the kind of story that ends campaigns.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, turns out there's a back-story to the new Celine Dion song that's been chosen as Hillary's official campaign song.
It was first written for a TV ad campaign for Air Canada airlines.
--Greg Sargent
What does it mean that there's a separate grand jury investigating Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) in D.C.? Probably that prosecutors wanted a fair shake at felling a giant in Alaskan politics -- something that would be much tougher if they chased Stevens on his home turf.
--Paul Kiel
So howbout that Sen. Stevens (R-AK)?
There's a perverse dynamic being publisher of TPMmuckraker. There are only 100 senators. And the site's business model depends on a good number of them being ridiculously corrupt. But it's not every day that one of them is revealed not only in crooked dealings but also in the sort of lavish and easy to chronicle tale that really makes for a good story.
Now, for the moment and 
almost for the next two years, we have the Bush administration in place. So that means we'll continue to get major scandals like the US Attorney Purge, pay-offs to crooked contractors, secret plans to stop African-Americans from voting and a lot of other stuff that will fill the site's virtual pages.
Still, when a guy like Sen. Stevens gets into a scandal on the order of the one he seems to be involved in we really need to jump right on it because there just can't be that many senators as crooked as he seems to be.
As we noted yesterday, not only is the already-reported grand jury in Alaska now looking into Stevens' shenanigans. There's also another grand jury impanelled in DC also looking into Stevens' dealings with Veco Corp. and specifically how the crooked oil services company (two of its execs, including its CEO, recently pleaded guilty to bribing public officials) managed to end up renovating Stevens' home.
The second grand jury in DC, which has no connection to the Veco investigation save for Sen. Stevens, is the pretty sure sign that Stevens is in the colloquial if not the technical sense a target of the investigation.
In any case, common sense tells me that you don't come up with an MO like that that led to the shady house renovation deal thirty-plus years into your senate career. And we're already hearing tales of lots of other at least borderline scams by Alaska's senior senator. Indeed, since we started reporting in earnest on the Stevens' story quite a few Alaska readers have come out of the wood with more helpful details about Sen. Stevens.
So here's the deal. We're interested in the Stevens story in a big way. If you're from Alaska and you know some details about the story we should know, drop us a line. Confidentiality and anonymity of course assured. Maybe you're a reporter from Alaska and you've got some new nugget on the invesigation and you want to make sure your story doesn't get buried. Let us know. If you've got more details, context or insights on the Stevens story, don't be a stranger.
--Josh Marshall
Obama, Clinton and Edwards all spoke before ASFCME today -- and one thing they all appeared to agree upon was that we'll be staying in Iraq in some capacity for some time to come.
Video highlights here.
--Greg Sargent
Okay, I think we may have both the necessary and sufficient reason why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be allowed to be president: her campaign song is by Celine Dion. Truly too horrifying to comtemplate.
--Josh Marshall
What will America stand for in the world in the Post-Bush Era?
In The Idea that Is America, Princeton Dean and TPMCafe regular Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that we cannot give up the idea of a values-based foreign policy and must reengage the America traditions of liberty, democracy, equality, tolerance, faith, justice, and humility. By reconnecting with those American and universal values we can reclaim our moral standing on the global stage.
She'll be discussing the argument in TPMCafe's Book Club this week with Rachel Kleinfeld, Bruce Jentleson, David Shorr, Suzanne Nossel, Lee Feinstein, Michael Levy and David Rieff. Check it out.
--Andrew Golis
Today's Must Read: yet another former Justice Department official's testimony is called into question. This time it's voter suppression svengali Hans von Spakovsky.
--Paul Kiel
Obama, Clinton and Edwards giving speeches today to two of their toughest constituencies: Big Labor and the liberal activists of the Take Back America 2007 conference. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
Late Update: In his speech, Obama is planning to emphasize his early opposition to the war.
--Greg Sargent
Fred Thompson likely to announce Presidential bid after July 4. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Mitt Romney tries yet again to explain his shifting positions on abortion. Very, very slowly...
--Greg Sargent
From Landay at McClatchy ...
Wrangling between Bush administration aides and U.S. intelligence agencies is holding up talks with Moscow on future monitoring of the thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia still aim at one another.The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) established the elaborate scheme of inspections, data sharing, advance missile test notifications and satellite surveillance. But the accord will expire in December 2009, and the U.S. spy satellites that locate and count Russian missile sites are stretched thin by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, concerns about North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs and other threats, current and former U.S. officials and experts said.
Administration policymakers argue that the monitoring system is an outdated vestige of the Cold War that restricts the Pentagon's ability to respond to new threats. They want to replace it with an informal system of looser inspections that would allow the United States to do things such as replacing nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
--Josh Marshall
Whenever you hear the administration crowing about the progress the Iraqi parliament has made towards passing its oil law, keep this in mind.
--Paul Kiel
Spencer Ackerman on whether Special Operations Forces have their own Pentagon-approved rules for detainee abuse -- away from the prying eyes of military investigators and Congress.
--Paul Kiel
Obama unleashes sharp attack on his own campaign staff over Hillary "Punjab" oppo document controversy.
Late Update: Obama releases new statement taking full responsibility for the screwup.
--Greg Sargent
Thinking back over the blather last week over Sen. Reid's (D-NV) comments about Gen. Pace, it's quite astonishing that the White House could with a straight face attack Reid for questioning Pace's competence only day's after they'd fired him. Think about that. The White House fires Pace as part of its many-month effort to sack everyone from the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon. And Reid is in hot water for questioning the man's abilities?
But setting aside abilities, politicians can criticize generals. That is after all the very nature of our political system. And it is a symptom of the deeply decayed and desperate state of the Iraq War debate that this is even a question. We are now far past the point of supporting the troops in their mission, ensuring that they are properly armed and protected, or anything else tied to respecting and honoring the overwhelmingly very young men and women who are paying with risk to their lives for the decisions we collectively make here at home.
Now apparently even criticism of the policy/strategy level command in Washington (this is after all what the JCS are) is beyond the pale, a sign of denigration of the military itself.
We can say whatever we want about double standards, that Sen. McCain (R-AZ) said even more to the face of the then-actual commander of American forces in Iraq (Gen. Casey) not long ago. But that's just a partisan distraction.
The real issue here is shaking ourselves loose from the degradation of our own civic and republican collective character that the war has brought us. Some principles are clear and worth repeating: You can't have a war for democracy fought by people whose principles are authoritarian and anti-democratic. It's not a throwaway line or a barb. It's the only pivot around which to understand the Bush years.
A few days ago, Andrew Sullivan linked to this rancid post by Glenn Reynolds previewing the coming claims that the war was sabotaged by the critics of the war who had more or less no power whatsoever during the entire prosecution of it.
But Reynolds' post and all his prefab reader emails should put us on notice that the architects of this and its dead-ender supports plan to lie their way out of this war just as they lied their way into it -- now whipping up a dust storm of rationalizations for their failures, imbecilities and lies much as the original entry into the conflict was floated on phoney claims about weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent ties between the past Iraqi regime and al Qaeda.
The only antidote to the advance of this sort of authoritarian mentality and strategy of organized lying that it is inevitably built on is the truth. Not that we can know the truth ourselves with any confidence or consistency. But we can take stock of the facts of the case as honestly as we can and speak them frankly. And that means breaking out of, ignoring, as many rhetorical bait and switch games as possible.
--Josh Marshall
What happens when Congress tells a federal agency to do one thing and then President Bush, appending one of his many, many signing statements to a bill, says another?
A government report suggests that in some cases, agencies might be following the president.
--Paul Kiel
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) looks into the White House's use of outside email addresses and doesn't like what he sees.
The destruction of Karl Rove's and other White House officials' emails, he says, is "the most serious breach of the Presidential Records Act in the 30-year history of the law."
--Paul Kiel
Edwards blasts General Petraeus for suggesting long-term presence in Iraq. Will other Dems follow?
--Greg Sargent
Missed the Sunday talk shows? Not to worry. We do our best to puzzle out just what exactly to expect from the Iraq progress report coming in September in today’s Sunday Show Roundup edition of TPMtv ...
--Ben Craw
Federal grand jury investigating Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) ties to corrupt Alaskan oil company.
--Paul Kiel
Petraeus says that conditions on the ground in Iraq will not have improved enough by September to justify a troop drawdown. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: sifting through Sy Hersh's latest in The New Yorker -- on Don Rumsfeld, the CIA black sites still in operation, and the special ops the Pentagon doesn't want anyone to know about.
--Paul Kiel
WMD
Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that more than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the "United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction." Everyone fully recognizes that there are no weapons to be found, but bureaucratic hurdles keep inspectors where they aren't needed. "The inspectors acknowledge that their chief task -- disarming Iraq -- was largely fulfilled long ago. But, they say, their masters at the U.N. Security Council have been unable to agree to either shut down their effort or revise their mandate to make their work more relevant," the Post explained.
Two weeks later, good news: the pointless hunt is nearing an end.
The search for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction appears close to an official conclusion, several years after their absence became a foregone one.
The United States and Britain have circulated a new proposal to the members of the United Nations Security Council to “terminate immediately the mandates” of the weapons inspectors. Staff meetings on the latest proposal have already taken place, and officials say that the permanent Council members, each of whom has veto power, seem ready to let the inspection group — the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission — meet its end.
Two weeks ago, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, Iraq’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said, “This is really absurd. We’re approaching five years now of this exercise in futility."
Finally, the exercise appears ready to come to a merciful conclusion -- several years too late.
--Steve Benen
'Pull and Strike' Democrats
Jonathan Alter believes Dems are struggling in the political debate over war policy, in part because they're not nearly as good as Republicans at coming up with bumper-sticker slogans.
Iraq is President Bush's war, but the Democrats are quickly getting tagged with some blame for it. One of the reasons Congress is in such bad odor -- less popular even than Bush in recent polls -- is that Democrats look feckless on how to proceed in Iraq, and not just because they lack the votes to cut off funding. Are they neo-isolationists, determined to exit the region as soon as possible? Democrats like Pennsylvania freshman Rep. Patrick Murphy, who saw ground action as an Army captain, insist not. They want to get out of Iraq and get tough on Al Qaeda at the same time. But the idea isn't getting through.
Last week's attack on what remained of the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- one of the most revered shrines of Iraq's Shiites -- was apparently another sign that the organization known as Al Qaeda in Iraq remains a serious threat. The bombing (along with the violence in Gaza) was also a reminder that Democrats could still be in trouble on national security in 2008.
Politically, the "war on terror" continues to be a useful GOP bumper sticker, whatever John Edwards's objections. Instead of bemoaning this, Democrats need their own bumper sticker -- some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn't make them look like surrender monkeys. Without it, they have no coherent policy.
To help Dems along, Alter suggests "strategic redeployment" isn't muscular enough when it comes to sloganeering, and recommends "pull and strike" -- the U.S. policy would "pull" American troops from the streets of Baghdad, but "strike" at terrorist targets in the region.
I suppose that's as good a catchphrase as any, but I think Alter's broader argument is off-base. He argues that Democrats have the right policy, but it's not "getting through" to the rest of the country. I disagree -- they have the right policy, it's getting through just fine, but Dems are coming up short executing their own strategy.
Indeed, Alter suggests what's standing between Democrats and broader acceptance of their policy prescription is "some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn't make them look like surrender monkeys." Alter's heart is in the right place, but he's missing a key point here -- the public has already accepted the Democratic war policy. The problem isn't in framing; Dems' poll numbers started to sag only after they gave in and gave the Bush White House the war funding bill the president demanded. The sales pitch was irrelevant.
I don't mean to pick on Alter; he seems to be right when it comes to the need for a dramatic change in policy. But I think he's fallen into the same belief that tends to dominate the DC conventional wisdom -- that the Dems have fallen short in convincing Americans that it's time to withdraw from Iraq. That's just not so; Americans already want out and are waiting for Washington to catch up.
--Steve Benen
Expectations
When it comes to the short-term future of Iraq, it's all about expectations.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) has one idea in mind...
SCHIEFFER: Well, you said the other day -- and I'm going to use your words here -- the handwriting is on the wall, that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it. What did you mean by that, Senator?
MCCONNELL: Well, by that, I mean the surge is going to come to an end, obviously. It's now -- the buildup in troops is now complete. It will obviously go on over the summer. I think everybody anticipates that there's going to be a new strategy in the fall. I don't think we'll have the same level of troops, in all likelihood, that we have now. The Iraqis will have to step up, not only on the political side, but on the military side, to a greater extent. We're not there forever. I think they understand that. And the time to properly evaluate that, it strikes me, is in September.
...and Gen. David Petraeus has another.
Today on Fox News Sunday...Petraeus admitted that he didn't expect the "surge" to be done by September, the date set for Petraeus' supposedly make-it or break-it report to Congress. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether he believed "the job would be done by the surge by September," Petraeus responded, "I do not, no." Watch it:
Asked in a follow up question if that meant "enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008," Petraeus refused to answer. "Again, premature right now," said Petraeus. "A number of options out there. And I'm not about to announce what we might do here today, I'm afraid."
Petraeus then went on to endorse the "Korea model" for Iraq, which envisions keeping troops in the country for decades. "[T]ypically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years," said Petraeus. "I think in general that that's probably a fairly realistic assessment," Petraeus said of the Korea comparison.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has one set of expectations...
Actually, we completely reject the word "pressure." We always tell them that there are two things you should avoid: That word [pressure], because the Iraqi government is a sovereign government, and giving timetables, because timetables are harmful for them and for us. When the U.S. defense secretary said, "We want to stay for 50 years in Iraq," this had unpleasant consequences because this issue is the Iraqi government's business.
...and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) has another.
Smith's loneliness may be assuaged in September, when Petraeus reports on the effects of the troop surge. "There is," Smith says, "a high expectation that we" -- Republican senators -- "will be able to vote for something different in September." And: "I can," he says, "think of a dozen Republican senators who will be with me in September."
What's that Green Day song? Wake me up when September ends.
--Steve Benen
Hamas May Find It Needs Its Enemy
Anyone who's been following the news this week is surely aware of the violence this week between the two Palestinian territories -- Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. The two are increasingly isolated from one another, and the phrase "civil war" is increasingly used to describe the dynamic.
But how, exactly, are the two divided? What is the nature of the division? For those of us who occasionally need a primer on the history, the New York Times' Craig Smith and Greg Myre have a very helpful background piece today, which fleshes out the details.
It's worth checking out.
--Steve Benen
'I was limited to a box'
When it comes to credibility on the Abu Ghraib scandal, we can't do much better than Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the two-star Army general who led the first investigation into detainee abuse. As for what Taguba found during his investigation, the general believes senior Pentagon officials were, their denials notwithstanding, involved in directing the abusive interrogation policies.
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba said that he felt mocked and shunned by top Pentagon officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, after filing an exhaustive report on the now-notorious Abu Ghraib abuse that sparked international outrage and led to an overhaul of the U.S. interrogation and detention policies. Taguba's report examining the 800th Military Police Brigade put in plain terms what had been documented in shocking photographs.
In interviews with New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh, Taguba said that he was ordered to limit his investigation to low-ranking soldiers who were photographed with the detainees and the soldiers' unit, but that it was always his sense that the abuse was ordered at higher levels. Taguba was quoted as saying that he thinks top commanders in Iraq had extensive knowledge of the aggressive interrogation techniques that mirrored those used on high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the military police "were literally being exploited by the military interrogators."
Taguba also said that Rumsfeld misled Congress when he testified in May 2004 about the abuse investigation, minimizing how much he knew about the incidents. Taguba said that he met with Rumsfeld and top aides the day before the testimony.
"I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib," Taguba said, according to the article. "We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
Hersh's article is online. There's quite a bit to digest -- ThinkProgress summarized some of the highlights -- but like Andrew Sullivan, I think this might be the most important quote in the piece:
"From what I knew, troops just don't take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups," Taguba told me. His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. "These M.P. troops were not that creative," he said. "Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box."
--Steve Benen
'I'm pushing the mental limits'
In February, the Washington Post's Dana Priest and Anne Hull stunned the nation with an investigation of the outpatient services at Walter Reed. Americans simply couldn't believe the treatment veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were receiving. The ensuing scandal led to three major resignations among top Army officials.
Today, Priest and Hull add to the story with a devastating report on the treatment veterans with post-traumatic stress receive -- or in too many cases, don't receive. Take, for example, Army Spec. Jeans Cruz, who helped capture Saddam Hussein and who received a hero's welcome upon returning to the Bronx.
In public, the former Army scout stood tall for the cameras and marched in the parades. In private, he slashed his forearms to provoke the pain and adrenaline of combat. He heard voices and smelled stale blood. Soon the offers of help evaporated and he found himself estranged and alone, struggling with financial collapse and a darkening depression.
At a low point, he went to the local Department of Veterans Affairs medical center for help. One VA psychologist diagnosed Cruz with post-traumatic stress disorder. His condition was labeled "severe and chronic." In a letter supporting his request for PTSD-related disability pay, the psychologist wrote that Cruz was "in need of major help" and that he had provided "more than enough evidence" to back up his PTSD claim. His combat experiences, the letter said, "have been well documented."
None of that seemed to matter when his case reached VA disability evaluators. They turned him down flat, ruling that he deserved no compensation because his psychological problems existed before he joined the Army. They also said that Cruz had not proved he was ever in combat. "The available evidence is insufficient to confirm that you actually engaged in combat," his rejection letter stated.
This despite the abundant evidence of his year in combat with the 4th Infantry Division.
Cruz has trouble working, but even more trouble fighting the VA and the Army to correct his medical records and his personal file so that he might qualify for aid. "I'm pushing the mental limits as it is," Cruz said. "My experience so far is, you ask for something and they deny, deny, deny. After a while you just give up."
Of course, Cruz's case is not unique -- as many as one-in-four American troops return from Iraq "psychologically wounded." Unlike the Walter Reed debacle, which was largely a matter of breathtaking neglect, a variety of factors have created the mental-health problems for war veterans, including:
* Bureaucratic delays -- Massive backlogs prevent efficient treatment and make it easier for troops in need to fall through the cracks.
* Lack of trained professionals -- Licensed psychologists are leaving the military at a fast clip, in part because of the stress associated with treating pained soldiers. Troops who qualify for care end up with inexperienced counselors, who use "therapies better suited for alcoholics or marriage counseling."
* Stigma of mental-health problems -- Only 40 percent of the troops who screened positive for serious emotional problems sought help. Lt. Gen. John Vines, who led the 18th Airborne Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, said countless officers keep quiet out of fear of being mislabeled, and many believe they will be denied future security clearances if they seek psychological help.
* Disability qualifications -- "To qualify for compensation, troops and veterans are required to prove that they witnessed at least one traumatic event, such as the death of a fellow soldier or an attack from a roadside bomb, or IED. That standard has been used to deny thousands of claims." The VA's chief of mental health explained, "One of the things I puzzle about is, what if someone hasn't been exposed to an IED but lives in dread of exposure to one for a month? According to the formal definition, they don't qualify."
It's a painful and sobering piece about veterans who deserve a lot better than what they're receiving. Take a look.
--Steve Benen
More New York firefighters emerge to slam Rudy and question his alleged 9/11 heroism. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Gonzales to 'tighten the leash' on U.S. Attorneys?
Given what we've seen and learned over the last several months, one might assume that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would go out of his way to avoid anything that even came close to politicizing U.S. Attorneys' offices.
But Gonzales is apparently incapable of restraint. Knowing that there is literally nothing he could do to get fired, our embattled Attorney General is reportedly "tightening the leash" on federal prosecutors. (via TP)
Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.
If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.
In testimony to Congress and comments at the National Press Club, Gonzales framed the meetings as a way of improving communications. But it also looks a lot like a way to remind recalcitrant U.S. attorneys what the home team expects.
And what might this "formal process" include? As of Friday, the Justice Department said it is considering one-on-one meetings between Gonzales and every U.S. attorney
As Gonzales describes it, these meetings will offer him an opportunity to let prosecutors know what they're doing wrong, what lawmakers on the Hill are complaining about, what the DoJ's expectations are of them, etc.
Except, as the Chicago Tribune's Andrew Zajac explained, "[T]here's already an evaluation process run by the Justice Department's executive office for U.S. attorneys. But that only measures how well a prosecutor runs the office, not how loyal he or she is to the administration's agenda."
--Steve Benen
Mandatory minimums
I wish I could say this comes as a surprise, but the Bush administration is pushing hard to once again restrict any judicial flexibility and impose mandatory minimums in sentencing.
The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals. [...]
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts -- and not let judges consider such penalties "merely a suggestion."
Such an overhaul, in part, "will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006.
U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body, is not pleased.
"This would require one-size-fits-all justice," Cassell said. "The vast majority of the public would like the judges to make the individualized decisions needed to make these very difficult sentencing decisions. Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors."
The Globe added that congressional Republicans "are seizing the administration's crackdown ... as a campaign issue for 2008."
--Steve Benen
Georgia Thompson
In April, we learned about a disconcerting controversy out of Wisconsin in which U.S. Attorney for Milwaukee Steve Biskupic brought highly dubious charges against Georgia Thompson, the state purchasing supervisor for Gov. Jim Doyle's (D) administration, accusing Thompson of corruption. By all appearances, it was one of the more shameless politically-motivated prosecutions of the year.
The last time we checked in on the controversy, a federal appeals court swiftly rejected the prosecution and admonished Biskupic for filing the charges in the first place. Thompson was released, but the imprisonment and wrongful prosecution has left quite a scar on her career.
Given the circumstances, it's not surprising that Thompson expects reimbursement. (thanks to reader V.S.)
A state worker who spent four months in a federal prison before having her conviction reversed on appeal filed a claim with the state Friday for nearly $360,000. [...]
"Payment will not undo the emotional trauma of such charges and wrongful incarceration, but it will help her put the pieces back together," Thompson lawyer Stephen Hurley wrote in the claim.
State Sen. Russ Decker (D), a member of the Claims Board, said he was inclined to support the request payment, but wants to see the U.S. Department of Justice foot the bill.
"I certainly will take a good look at it, but the person who ought to pay the bill is (U.S. Attorney Steven M.) Biskupic," Decker said. "He's the guy who screwed it up by going after a political agenda."
--Steve Benen
