A Sirius oversight
On Sirius Satellite Radio, you can listen to progressive talk shows on a dedicated station. It's called "Sirius Left."
Listeners can also tune into a dedicated station for conservative talk radio. It's called "Sirius Patriot."
Rick Perlstein suggests there's something wrong with the labeling here. It's a good point.
--Steve Benen
We won't have Gilmore to kick around
And then there were ... still a whole lot.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore ended his long-shot campaign for the presidency today, saying he has been unable to raise enough money to compete for the Republican nomination.
Gilmore blamed his fundraising problems on his late entry into the race. He said he did not begin organizing his campaign until January, while most of the GOP frontrunners had been preparing to run for years.
The announcement doesn't come as too big a surprise. Gilmore only raised about $380,000 during the first half of 2007, and of late, hasn't even been hitting the campaign trail with any enthusiasm. He'd show up for the debates, but delivered lackluster performances. (Michael Crowley once labeled him the "Memento candidate" because, "As soon as he stops talking I forget everything he said.")
I'm reluctant to kick a guy when he's down, but the truth is, Gilmore's presidential ambitions were always difficult to understand. He was a wildly unsuccessful governor, which preceded an equally unsuccessful tenure running the Republican National Committee (Karl Rove reportedly fired him).
Nevertheless, with Gilmore's departure, the Republican field winnows to nine declared candidates, 10 if you include Fred Thompson. With Gingrich and Hagel still mulling bids, the already-enormous field could still get bigger.
As for today, so long, Jim; we hardly knew you. And in this case, we mean that literally.
--Steve Benen
Tillman questions abound
In recent years, Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan has gone from being tragic to suspicious to scandalous. As you probably know, Tillman, a former NFL star who retired from football to become an Army Ranger, was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 and his death was quickly seized upon for public relations purposes. In fact, the Army said Tillman was killed by enemy gunfire when he led his team to help another group of ambushed soldiers.
That wasn't true -- Tillman died as a result of friendly fire. The Pentagon knew better, but was reluctant to say so. In March, we learned, "Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush.... The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family."
What's more, it took five weeks for Tillman's family to learn about the incident, in part because, "within hours of Pat Tillman's death, the Army went into information-lockdown mode, cutting off phone and Internet connections at a base in Afghanistan, posting guards on a wounded platoon mate, and ordering a sergeant to burn Tillman's uniform."
In April, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the issue, and heard U.S. Army Spc. Bryan O'Neal explain that he was told by a higher-up to conceal information. It led the committee to request materials from the White House and the Pentagon describing how and when the administration learned the circumstances of Tillman's death.
Yesterday, the Bush gang delivered its answer: No.
The White House has refused to give Congress documents about the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman, with White House counsel Fred F. Fielding saying that certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting "implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests."
Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the leading members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, objected to the refusal yesterday in letters to the White House and the Defense Department.
Waxman and Davis are clearly annoyed by the developments. They've scheduled another hearing for Aug. 1, after which, they'll probably consider subpoenas. (In their letter to Fred Fielding, Waxman and Davis said, "We would like to avoid a confrontation over these documents, if possible, but cannot accept the deficient production the White House has provided to the Committee.")
Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
Vacation, all they ever wanted...
There was some talk in the spring that the Iraqi Parliament, barely able to function anyway, would break for the summer. The reaction was overwhelmingly negative in the U.S., even among White House allies, and soon after the talk disappeared.
Yesterday, Tony Snow acknowledged what the administration would prefer not to talk about: Iraqis lawmakers are scheduled to do what Bush likes to do: take August off.
The White House's defense is straightforward enough: it doesn't matter when Iraqi lawmakers are in session; what matters is what they're accomplishing. That might even be a persuasive spin -- if there was any political progress in Iraq at all.
With that in mind, I'm curious how congressional Republicans are going to deal with the news. In early May, war supporters were surprisingly livid about the prospects of a parliamentary vacation.
* Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.): "If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight -- that would be the outrage of outrages."
* Sen. John Warner (R-Va.): "That is not acceptable. An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today."
* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I certainly hope they're not going to take any sort of recess when the question is whether they're going to make any progress."
On May 8, 11 nervous House Republicans had an "unvarnished" conversation with the president about Iraq policy. One congressman said, "How can our sons and daughters spill their blood while the Iraqi government goes on vacation?" The president responded, "The vice president is over there to tell them, 'Do not go on vacation.'"
And now they're apparently poised to go on vacation.
--Steve Benen
Department of Pots and Kettles
From Bob Novak's Q&A with the New York Times Magazine:
NYT: Your betrayal of [Valerie Plame's] identity appalled not only Democrats but also some of your former conservative friends, like Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who called your conduct reprehensible. Did that sting on a personal level?
Novak: I think it did. I really enjoyed Bill's company, but Bill is an ideologue, much more than I am, and I think it was very hard for him to maintain a relationship with me when I took positions on the Iraq war and on the Middle East which were so far different from his.
Isn't Novak calling someone an "ideologue" a bit like Dick Cheney calling someone "secretive"?
--Steve Benen
Obama slams Hillary's Iraq authorization proposal as "convoluted." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
A new defense for Vitter
Not surprisingly, nearly the entire Republican establishment has been silent on Sen. David Vitter's (R-La.) sex scandal. Not that I blame them; it's a tough one to spin away.
But as reader D.K. noted, some Vitter allies are starting to speak up.
"We all think that we're not vulnerable to something like that happening," [Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)] said, "but the fact is this can be a very lonely and isolating place to be away from your family. So I'm certainly not going to judge him because I don't want that kind of pressure on me."
Is that a confession?
Well, no, probably not, but it was a strikingly odd thing to say. Here we have another very conservative senator from a very conservative state, who ran on a "family values" platform. He doesn't want to condemn Vitter's personal failings? Fine, no problem. He's steering clear of the scandal because he thinks he might be "vulnerable to something like that happening" to him? Like I said, odd.
As for DeMint's substantive point, I'm not sure why Vitter would find DC such a "lonely" place, but either way, it wouldn't explain his related appetites back in Louisiana.
--Steve Benen
'Totally anathema to a democratic society'
The estimable Bill Moyers explored the "I" word on PBS last night, discussing George W. Bush's "unique" approach to the presidency with conservative attorney Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, and The Nation's John Nichols.
Here's the money quote from the clip:
"[Bush's crimes are more] worrisome than Clinton's because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law."
--Steve Benen
Maliki: U.S. can leave 'any time'
As war supporters see it, U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq for the indefinite future in order to provide some semblance of security in the country.
Today, Nouri al Maliki effectively said our presence is no longer necessary.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters earlier this week that a U.S. withdrawal would make Iraq's chaos worse, but Maliki dismissed his concerns, saying, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." In other words, "We can take it from here."
Kevin Drum noted the other day, "Both the American public and the Iraqi public want us to leave Iraq. However, both the American government and the Iraqi government want us to stay. So we're staying. This is called 'democracy promotion.'"
In light of today's comments, however, it's even more tilted. Americans and Iraqis want to see a withdrawal, and the Iraqi government is indifferent to our ongoing presence.
Any chance this might change a few Republican votes on the Hill?
--Steve Benen
Playing fast and loose
During yesterday's entertaining White House press briefing, Tony Snow rolled out an oldie but a goodie.
"[T]he al Qaeda that exists today is not the al Qaeda that existed September 11, 2001. That is an al Qaeda that was a more traditional, top-down organization where you had bin Laden and a series of lieutenants and he issued orders and they carried them out.
"That organization was smashed. Three-quarters of its leadership -- or, I guess, two-thirds of its leadership has either been killed or captured."
The White House hasn't used this line in quite a while, and for good reason -- it's a made-up number.
White House and U.S. intelligence officials declined to provide any back-up data for how they developed the new number -- or even to explain the methodology that was used, which they said was classified. The absence of any explanation, as well as the timing, prompted some counterterrorism experts to deride the figure as "meaningless" and predict the revision could fuel allegations that the administration is massaging terrorism data for political purposes.
"It's like a shell game," said Vince Cannistraro, a former top CIA counterterrorism official. "This kind of thing is susceptible to all kinds of manipulation."
An official with the recently disbanded 9/11 commission also dismissed the new number, noting that it was impossible to get a firm handle on precisely the number of Al Qaeda "leaders" that were in place at the time of the September 11 attacks -- the definition that the CIA says it used as its baseline for the estimate.
"It was meaningless when they said two thirds and it's meaningless when they said three fourths," said the official, who asked not to be identified. "This sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's orifice."
--Steve Benen
Hmmm. Something we should know?
Over the last three months, Alaska Representative Don Young (R) has paid close to a quarter million dollars for "legal services" to Akin Gump Strauss & Hauer. (Exact figure -- $242,306.27)
That's a decent amount of money, even in the DC defense counsel world.
--Josh Marshall
130 degrees in Baghdad in August
Tony Snow explains the Iraqi parliament's decision to take August off ...
--Josh Marshall
Romney blows through $20 million in campaign expenditures in one quarter. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Scooter Justice
Bush appointee judge doesn't think much of the president's jurisprudence ...
A lawyer who admitted leaking grand jury transcripts about athletes' steroid use to The Chronicle was sentenced to 21/2 years in prison Thursday by a federal judge who upbraided President Bush for commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, the former vice presidential aide who faced an identical prison term on nearly identical charges."Under the president's reasoning, any white-collar defendant should receive no jail time, regardless of the reprehensibility of the crime," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, a Bush appointee, said before sentencing attorney Troy Ellerman to prison.
Ellerman's lawyer, in seeking a lesser sentence, had cited Bush's July 2 decision to commute the prison sentence for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents and a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Perhaps there's some appropriateness, in as much as that in the decision that put the president in office -- Bush v. Gore -- the Supreme Court said that decision was a one-off reasoning which shouldn't be held to have applicability in any other cases. Same with Scooter justice.
--Josh Marshall
NYT's Filiphobia
Ahhhh, yet more evidence the New York Times is committed to forcing the filibuster back into the closet.
Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments, July 12, 2007
Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time, June 21, 2005
C'mon. This one isn't even close, folks. Please stop spinning this to obscure what's actually happening.
Just say it: 'Filibuster'. It gets easier every time.
(ed.note: Special thanks to this guy for doing the legwork.)
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I don't like to make a habit of giving space to cornball neologisms that one campaign comes up with as part of its spin against another. But I'll make an exception for Mitt-Amorphosis, which comes to us courtesy of the Brownback campaign.
Why? Because some people are such transparent and craven phoneys that they deserve their own words.
--Josh Marshall
Having It Both Ways
Hadn't thought of it that way, but, yeah, good point from TPM Reader JM ...
I may have missed any commentary on this, but no one seems to be pointing out that Bush spent the whole press conference say we are fighting Al Queda, then concluded by disagreeing that Al Queda is stronger then it was in 2001. In 2001, they highjacked four airliners using box cutters and today, according to administration spin, they have the entire United States Army bogged down! How do people sit there and not start laughing, I don't know.
--Josh Marshall
The Ploy That Dare Not Say Its Name
Here we have a headline from the New York Times ...
Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments
Well, no, I'm sorry. That's not right. The vote was 56 to 41. A solid majority of senators supported increasing time between deployments.
Republicans blocked a vote on the bill. Say it again: They blocked a vote. They filibustered it.
Don't mistake me. I support the right of the minority party in the senate to do this, just as I did in the previous Congress when Democrats were in the minority. And I would completely oppose any effort to changes the rules, as Republicans effectively threatened to do in the previous Congress. But you can entirely support the right to filibuster, as the Republicans are now consistently doing, while also insisting that the party in question be held to account for exercising the power.
It's about accountability. Inaccurate reporting undermines accountability.
All the big press outlets seem to suddenly have forgotten how this works. The headline is Republicans block the vote. That's not spin. That's what happened.
--Josh Marshall
Vitter Pay-For-Sex Update
Times-Picayune interviews the hooker Vitter went to when he was back in the district.
And a little more digging finds that when Vitter was in DC he made some of his calls during roll call votes in the House. (This is when he was a rep.)
On this Vitter subject, I was talking to our in-house Vitterologist, Eric Kleefeld, and reading between the lines on Vitter, he as much as admitted in the past that there were problems. But he 'reformed' in 2002. So I'd say he'll probably try to hold on until someone comes up with something post-2002.
Any thoughts on how long until they pull the plug on this guy?
--Josh Marshall
No Flip Left to Flop?
Tom Edsall has a new article up at Huffington Post gaming out whether there's any strategic options left for McCain to salvage his collapsing campaign. Tom's verdict is that there's one high-stakes hail mary approach: reinventing himself as the anti-Bush Republican -- come out against the Republicans' culture of corruption, K Street and the rest, preach against the sea of red ink and most of all let Bush have it on the colossal fiasco he's made of Iraq and argue "that conditions in Iraq are so terrible that withdrawal is now the only reasonable alternative; that resources and taxpayer dollars should be put into Afghanistan and into supporting anti-terrorist activities in Pakistan, Africa and South Asia - not to mention an infusion of cash into domestic security."
To say this is a hail mary pass is, I think, something of an understatement. It strikes me more as an antic counterfactual on the lines of that classic Saturday Night Live sketch 'What if Spartacus had a piper cub'? What if John McCain hadn't flipflopped on pretty much everything he'd stood for from the very late 1990s through around 2003 instead of casting his lot with George W. Bush in an attempted political merger that makes AOL-TimeWarner look like a shrewd deal.
One of the lesser problems, K Street and the culture of corruption -- that's just so yesterday. Don't get me wrong. The issues are no less important. And you have to figure that shark's going to yank Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) under the waves some day pretty soon. So it still makes for good copy. But that train's definitely left the station. Coming out against Tom DeLay just doesn't have quite the same crackle now that he's selling hams on QVC after midnight or whatever he's doing.
And then of course Iraq. Very hard for me to see how you can base take two of your campaign on the need to leave when take one was based on the need to stay.
And that brings the whole matter into focus. I'm not one for a lot of sentimentality about what might have been with McCain. Put me down with those who think his liberal and moderate acolytes never appreciated the extent of his conservatism on a number of key issues. But the issue for me was less that he was going to become a Democrat -- though I suspect that was actually more possible than some realize -- than that he was simply an example of an honorable center-right American conservatism.
But you can't undo the last three-plus years. Someone who is a master of the politics of opportunism can manage countless transformations. Not someone whose whole schtick is candor, authenticity and integrity. McCain is a good example of the fact that life can take almost everything away from you, and usually does. But your dignity you've got to give away. And he did.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DV yanks something out of the memory hole ...
Remember the War Czar? Anyone heard anything from him lately? Shouldn't he be pretty prominent what with all the news from Iraq and the surge in full swing now? Oh, maybe he's off "coordinating" or something. Here's, arguably, the most powerful military man in the country and I'll bet 9 out of 10 Americans (even the informed ones) don't even know the guy's name (it's Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute). Talk about another brilliant idea.
--Josh Marshall
Fred Kaplan takes a close look at President Bush's ridiculous Iraq 'progress' report.
--Josh Marshall
Is He Finished?
CNN has a story running on its political ticker revealing that John McCain's campaign is down to only $250,000. But actually the number is a bit misleading. McCain's got $2 million in cash but $1.75 million in debt. Now that's really, really bad news for anyone interested in McCain's candidacy. But campaign debts are notorious for being honored in the breach --- or years later for 10 or 20 cents on the dollar. That may be a bit of an exaggeration. But good luck if McCain owes you a hundred grand and you think you're going to get some of that 2 mill before McCain spends it trying to pull out of his tailspin.
In any case, I'm interested to hear what political pros out there make of this and what insider insight they can provide.
The one thing I know -- a campaign ain't a bank. There's no holding asset reserves against liabilities.
--Josh Marshall
Dem Senator Ben Nelson likely to vote No on Reed-Levin amendment forcing withdrawal from Iraq. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Advantage Rudy
Okay, finally the definitive story. Last night we were bringing you the latest on the proxy fight between the Giuliani and McCain campaigns over who could have the most prominent or outrageous campaign official involved in a prostitution scandal. Where we left things was whether Florida state Rep. Bob Allen (R), Florida co-chair of the McCain campaign, had offered to pay a Titusville plain clothes police officer for oral sex or whether he had asked to be paid for oral sex. The price, in either case, you'll remember was to be $20.
Well, mystery solved. Courtesy of TPM Reader VS we were able to track down the arrest report. As officer Kavanaugh explains in the arrest report "Allen engaged me in a conversation in which it was agreed that he would pay me $20.00 in order to perform a 'blow job' on me."
So, advantage Rudy.
Late Update: Allen holds press conference. Claims he's innocent, fighting the charges. "The political process and the legal process has different communication styles and requirements. As a person in the political arena that is a representative of people, I tend to want to talk about each and every detail, to give a response to each and every item, and let it be known the truth will be coming out. But I have to follow the legal process because I've been put into a legal process."
--Josh Marshall
Gross Idolatry
"When you stand up and are arrested, and the Hindu is allowed to go free, this country has gone upside-down." That's what Rev. Flip Benham, the guy behind today's incident in the senate, told TPM's Eric Kleefeld when he interviewed him this afternoon. See the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
Biden: "This progress report is like the guy who’s falling from a 100-story building and says half-way down that ‘everything’s fine.’"
--Josh Marshall
If I Want I'll Do Iran Too ...
As the president told us again today, he'll veto any bill that will tie his hands on doing whatever he wants in Iraq. We know that. But not many people seemed to notice that he also told Congress he'd veto any measure that would limit his ability to take military action of any sort in Iran.
--Josh Marshall
A Subpoena Means You Have To
Some highlights from the House Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, where Democrats took the first step towards citing Harriet Miers with contempt.
--Paul Kiel
Bush on Plame: Who Cares?
A very revealing moment. For the first time the president was asked, now that all the legal stuff is over and there's nothing more pending, whether he was disappointed in the fact that a number of his top advisors were responsible for revealing the name of a covert CIA operative.
He couldn't even manage a perfunctory statement of disappointment or regret. He managed to slip in a dig at Rich Armitage, a general statement that the whole thing had been very rough on the White House staff and that now "we're" moving on.
Needless to say, the president was involved from day one. He was always in favor of doing it. And he basically said so again today. Truly a shameful man. Will have the video momentarily.
Late Update: Here's the clip:
--Josh Marshall
Neil Has Your Back!
If you complacent liberal freaks knew what Fox News' Neil Cavuto was doing to keep you safe from the terrorist threat of universal health care you'd thank him.
Watch this round-up of Neil's work in today's episode of TPMtv and learn something for a change.
--Josh Marshall
From the Bush Presser
Bush: We'll do what the generals want, not what the people want.
Of course, the generals were pretty much to a man against the surge. But Bush fired them and got some generals that agreed. So there ...
--Josh Marshall
F-Word Down the Memory Hole?
TPM Reader TS raises a good point I've been wondering a lot about. I can't figure it out ...
There seems to be no mention in the press of the current use of the threat of filibuster by Senate Republicans. In the previous Congress, as I recall, there was much criticism of Democrats for suggesting that they might filibuster Bush's Court appointments. Am I wrong in thinking that Republicans have stopped ordinary legislation at least twice in the last week by threatening extended debate? But where's the mention of it in the press? In the NYT story this morning about the amendment to give troops more time at home, the f-word only appears in the second to last paragraph. shouldn't they be called on this?
If anything it's worse than this as Senate Republicans have been filibustering just about everything. Everything on Iraq certainly. And this is the sense of 'filibuster' as it has been used more or less continuously for a decade.
The Dems are idiots on this. Reporters should note it, yes. But it's not really their job.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Harriet Miers blows off Congress, appropriately enough, with the help of the Justice Department.
--Paul Kiel
Bush Goes Wobbly on High-Stakes Testing
Just out from the Times ...
The Bush administration will assert in the next few days that progress in carrying out the new American strategy in Iraq has been satisfactory on nearly half of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress, according to several administration officials.But it will qualify some verdicts by saying that even when the political performance of the Iraqi government has been unsatisfactory, it is too early to make final judgments, the officials said.
The administration’s decision to qualify many of the political benchmarks will enable it to present a more optimistic assessment than if it had provided the pass-fail judgment sought by Congress when it approved funding for the war this spring.
--Josh Marshall
AskGeorge
Interesting idea. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) has started what he's calling a 'distributed virtual townhall' on how to end the Iraq war. The idea is basically to have a virtual conversation that lives in the world of viral video. Here's a quick youtube video from Miller explaining the concept and how you can participate. Check it out.
--Josh Marshall
Is Rudy Losing his Touch?
As I mentioned earlier today, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has a special talent for appointing people to key positions just before they are exposed in career-ending personal transgressions or major acts of criminal conduct, or both.
But don't count John McCain out of this race.
Only today, Florida state Representative Bob Allen (R), who is co-chairman of McCain's Florida campaign, was arrested in a Titusville park restroom on charges of solicitation after he approached a plain clothes police officer and offered to perform oral sex on the officer for $20.
It's conceiveable to me that with the recent news of McCain's flagging campaign this is actually an attempt on the part of the Arizona senator to up the ante on Giuliani. As you know it was only Monday night when Giuliani Southern regional campaign chair, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) admitted to soliciting prostitutes.
In this case, McCain's campaign is going beyond having a prominent supporter solicit prostitutes to actually having one who appears to be a prostitute, if perhaps only on a freelance basis.
This is a tit for tat that doesn't seem likely to settle down soon. So let us know if you see any more breaking news.
Late Update: TPM Reader JP notes, perhaps not surprisingly, that the Rainbow Democratic Club, a Dem gay rights group in Central Florida gave Allen its "worst of the worst" rating for his votes on gay issues.
Late in More Ways Than One Update: Okay, it seems like McCain's hat trick may be in some jeopardy. A number of TPM Readers wrote in questioning whether Allen was the payor or the payee. Indeed, when I first saw the articles I thought that it was Allen who was paying $20 for a blowjob. And my first thought was, "'Wow, they're not kidding about cutting budgets in the McCain campaign!" But when I looked closer it seemed that it was the other way around.
For instance, the lede in the Orlando Sentinel reads "State Rep. Bob Allen was arrested Wednesday afternoon at a local park after offering to perform a sex act on an undercover officer in exchange for $20, police said." Now, the logical reading of that sentence to me is that he offered to perform the act in exchange for the money. Otherwise you'd say that he offered $20 to be able to ... etc. The Tallahassee Democrat says that "he solicited an undercover male officer inside the restroom, offering to perform oral sex for $20." Again, to me 'offering' sounds to me like he's offering sex for money. Meanwhile, the AP says that "State Rep. Bob Allen was arrested Wednesday after offering to perform oral sex for $20 on an undercover male police officer."
But TPM Reader HM was convinced the money was to pass in the other direction. And he finally came up with this video report from WFTV in Orlando. And the report seems to say clearly that Allen "offered [the police officer] $20 for a sexual act". So at this point it seems I was led down the garden path by some ambiguously worded wire reports.
In the broader picture, I don't think there's any denying that this puts Rudy back on top in the GOP campaign 'john' battle. As for Rep. Allen (R) he insists that the incident was a "very big misunderstanding" and told reporters ''I'm not in anyway associated with that they are saying, this is disgusting,'' as he was escorted out of the Titusville police station to be transported to Brevard County Jail. And the evidence would seem to bear him out, seeing as only months ago he introduced this bill in the state legislature to crack down on "lewd & lascivious offenses." His state House bio, which lists his 'recreational interest' as 'water sports' might seem to point in the opposite direction. But presumably these phrases can have more than one meaning.
--Josh Marshall
Is There a Difference?
This is fun. Watch these two successive promos for shows on Fox News Channel and tell me whether you can figure out which is the 'real' news show and which is the 'fake' news show ...
--Josh Marshall
Felony
Hmmm. A very knowledgeable emailer says it's a felony ...
Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, [or] concealing ... information.
I can't vouch for the legal interpretation. But it seems like decent prima facie case and the emailer knows his stuff.
--Josh Marshall
Scooter Justice
On the same day President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, Victor Rita showed up at the slammer to start serving his 33 month sentence for the same offense.
His lawyer explains how cool that is.
--Josh Marshall
AG Defends Law and Order?
Michigan AG becomes the highest level GOPer to slam the Libby commutation.
I guess the virtual castration mechanism the White House uses doesn't stretch that far?
--Josh Marshall
What's the White House Hiding?
TPM Reader AB thinks the White House needs to keep Miers from even showing up ...
I just read about the order to Miers not to attend the hearing. Bush may not order her to stay away but he can protect the attorney-client privileged information she may have, if any. She must at least show up and assert the privilege. Were she to divulge any of the client's secrets, she could lose her law license. But she cannot just skip the hearing.I suspect that the White House fears that a lot of what she knows is not protected by the privilege. For example, if a third person is present, communications between a client and her attorney are not privileged. Just as Taylor today testified about some matters not covered by the White House's claim of executive privilege, so would Miers have to testify about non-privileged information she had, presumably a lot more that Taylor had.
At a certain point it just becomes plain old obstruction.
Late Update: TPM Reader JVW dissents on one point, and I seem to remember he's right on this ...
I'm not certain, but I believe that the White House Counsel does not enjoy privilege with regard to communications with the President. It's not a regular attorney/client relationship. In fact, Clinton's WHC had to file a motion with the Supreme Court asking for the privilege to be extended to the President/WHC relationship after lower courts had ruled that no privilege obtains. Look up In re Lindsey. I do not believe that it has been overruled. Also relevant, Hilary Clinton spoke to a personal lawyer in the presence of a WHC and the 8th Circuit ruled that the WHC was a third party for purposes of negating the privilege. See In re Grand Jury Subpeonas Duces Tecum. So maybe that's the problem for the President. Executive privilege wouldn't preclude testimony about when and where and in whose company Miers spoke to the President, only the content of those conversations. She might have been, as WHC, a third party present at an otherwise privileged conversation setting legal strategy. But to be honest, I think the Administration is just asserting privilege for privilege's sake in an attempt to thwart the will of Congress by any means necessary.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: Miers to Blow off House
Harriet Miers won't even show up tomorrow to invoke privilege. Once again, I don't know the law on this. But when you're under actual subpoena I would think it's some higher level of contempt not even to show up to invoke the purported privilege.
Update: More here on that. Sure enough, Conyers says that Miers' not showing up could "trigger contempt proceedings."
--Josh Marshall
You and What Army?
Can a president really order a former employee to ignore a subpoena? On what basis? He can claim privilege, ask the former aide to comply and they can comply. But how does the president order the silence of a former aide?
--Josh Marshall
Le Morte d'RSS Feed?
As a number of you have pointed out, our TPM RSS feed seems to be a temporary casualty of our server switchover. We're on the case. And it will be returning shortly.
--Josh Marshall
Vitter Va-Va-Voom
For those of you following l'affaire Vitter, we thought we'd pull together all of the good senator's best family values moments in one quick video. It's today's episode of TPMtv.
--Josh Marshall
You Never Call
Hmmm. David Corn finds a senate phone number in the DC Madam's phone list. And it's pre-Vitter.
--Josh Marshall
Fishing Rodeo
So what is a 'fishing rodeo'? If you were reading the latest on Sen. Vitter (R) last night here on TPM, you'll know that Vitter met one of his several alleged Madam's at one a few years back down in Louisiana.
Now, I'm actually a pretty experienced angler. But I'd never heard the phrase before. And presumably it doesn't refer to actually lassoing the fish, which would be a serious challenge. One TPM Reader told me it's basically a fishing event where they have a bunch of starved fish who will basically bite at anything. And so everyone's guaranteed a big catch. And given what we know now, you can see how that sort of arrangement would probably be a pretty familiar one for Vitter.
But more readers say it's just the regional name for a fishing tournament -- that is, in Louisiana and other parts of the South. Have you been to a fishing rodeo? What was it? And did you see David Vitter there?
Late Update: Okay, the consensus seems pretty clear on this. A 'Fishing Rodeo' is not the fishing version of a Dick Cheney-style staged hunt. It's the name for a fishing tournemant -- saltwater or fresh water -- in Louisiana and Mississippi.
--Josh Marshall
It's A Privilege to Be Here
Karl Rove's former aide Sara Taylor is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning about the U.S. attorney firings. According to her opening statement, she won't say much, but she might say something. We'll be covering it over at TPMmuckraker.
--Paul Kiel
America's Mayor
We're currently working on putting together a Rudy Docket, a list of all Giuliani appointees who have managed to be indicted for major crimes, caught carousing in one form or another, accepting pay-offs or whatever. But I was thinking it would be interesting to have like a Rudy futures market -- trying to figure out in advance who was likely to be engulfed in a major scandal or caught committing serious felonies so Rudy could hurry up and appoint them to something while the getting was so good.
In any case, that aside, so far we've got Kerik (wenching, bribery, assorted corruption), Ravenel (coke dealing), Ravenel Sr. (history of racist comments), Vitter (patron of prostitutes) and ...? Who else can you think of? Let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Richard Carmona, the very angry former Surgeon General, testified before a House committee yesterday. Marvel at the Bush administration's ability to thoroughly politicize a largely symbolic position.
--Paul Kiel
Spencer
Great Spencer Ackerman line from this afternoon ...
Bush's address to a Cleveland business organization was heavy on his old standards. Failure in Iraq will have "serious consequences for the security of your children." (And no, he didn't mean that as an apology.)
--Josh Marshall
Busy Guy
You say you got paid to have sex with Sen. Vitter (R-LA)? Well, lady, get in line ... (just out from the Times-Picayune)
U.S. Senator David Vitter visited a Canal Street brothel several times beginning in the mid-1990s, paying $300 per hour for services at the bordello after he met the madam at a fishing rodeo that included prostitutes and other politicians, according to Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam" whose operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001.
Late Update: Ahhh yet more fun. David Corn digs up a 1998 column Vitter wrote insisting that Clinton's moral depravity was an impeachable offense.
Pretty Friggin' Late Update: Quite apart from the prostitution, several TPM Readers note, even more disturbing is the question: what's a fish rodeo?
Yep, Even Later Update: "He seemed to be one of the nicest men and most honorable men I've ever met." Character reference from Jeanette Maier, former New Orleans brothel owner, on her alleged former client, Sen. Vitter.
--Josh Marshall
He Wants his Parade
According to Secretary Chertoff, we're entering a new period of lurking terrorist danger this summer. In other words, a period of danger similar to every other summer since 2001 and like most periods of low popularity for the president and before elections as well. But perhaps it is a period of increased danger. It really well might be. We've known for some time a mix of sagging tide of the war in Afghanistan and the mounting impotence of the Musharraf regime in Pakistan has allowed jihadist groups a relative safe-haven in the lawless Pakistani borderlands like they have not had since prior to 9/11. And if they can train they can act.
It all brings into a rather fierce relief the question of what the hell we are doing in Iraq, a conflict that has made the war we are fighting against jihadism vastly more intractable and dangerous. We can't leave Iraq apparently because al Qaeda will be emboldened and will do much better at fundraising -- a revealing perspective on the part of the White House. But al Qaeda is vastly emboldened in as much as they are actively regrouping in the Afghan-Pakistani border, where all the trouble came from the in the first place. And groups all over the Middle East, who have little if any actual connection to al Qaeda, are adopting the name al Qaeda in vicarious support or sympathy or, perhaps mostly and most damningly, because we've managed to make it a strong brand.
And here we are, again, with the president introducing yet another new new direction in Iraq. Yes, the stakes of 'defeat' in Iraq are very high. And that's why so many people are so upset with this president because the whole thing is quite obviously a disaster and we are going to pay a very big price for it on many levels. And it's his fault. But let's not pretend that these are grave hypotheticals off in the future. They're here. It's a disaster. And we have to deal with it. Not pretend.
People ask what we're doing in Iraq. And you can answer in a hundred ways and in a thousand shades of literalism to metaphor. But at some level we're in Iraq because President Bush wanted a parade. It's not hard to imagine how he must have imagined it. A withdrawal of most American troops from a staunchly allied pro-American Iraq. Waving flags. Heartfelt thanks and vindication for the president who had the guts and character to see it through.
And that's why we stay. Because somehow if he just keeps at it someday he might get his parade. Or rather if he just keeps us there forever he doesn't have to really deal wtih what a disaster he's created and fundamentally what a failure he is.
He wants the parade.
--Josh Marshall
Thank Yous
Hundreds of you have written in today with your opinions about the new site design. And I was pleasantly surprised that the response have been overwhelmingly positive. But I want to thank everyone who's written in with comments, critiques, suggestions, etc. The praise is much more fun. But we value the criticisms too; and especially those we can incorporate in a concrete way. So thank you.
Next, let me thank two companies that made this possible. Threespot did the design work for the new TPM. And Apperceptive.com did the back-end implementation. A big thanks to both of them.
And finally, a big thanks to the people who work for TPM. It's funny. I look at the site now. And it looks deceptively simple. Probably any half way decent designer could replicate it without too much difficulty. And probably fairly quickly. But the whole process was really a marathon, taking far longer than I imagined. We started late last year and originally I thought we'd be up and going in like February.
Here at the risk of some embarrassment to myself is the sketch I sent to the designers the day before we had our first design meeting.
In any case, I raise all this because I have an amazing group of people who work with me. Put in long hours, deal with a pretty demanding boss and just generally did an amazing amount of work to help bring this off. So a big thanks to Paul Kiel, Spencer Ackerman, Andrew Cleary, Ben Craw, T.W. Farnam, Andrew Golis, Eric Kleefeld, Laura McGann, Greg Sargent, Benjy Sarlin, Evann Smith, Will Thomas, Tanvir Vahora and Rachel Weiner.
--Josh Marshall
Live by the Flynt, Die by the Flynt
Sen. David Vitter probably isn't too happy with Larry Flynt today, after the porn-king reportedly was the one responsible for revealing Vitters' adventures in DC hookerdom.
But Eric Kleefeld notes that Vitter probably can't get too high on his high horse because now-Senator Vitter (but for how long?) was first elected to the House of Representatives after his predecessor Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) was himself run out of office when Flynt exposed him as an adulterer.
--Josh Marshall
Most excellent. Rudy Giuliani has named newly-determined crackpot Norman Podhoretz as one of his key foreign policy advisors.
Here's Norm discussing the need to bomb Iran to "smithereens" and here he is explaining how the Iraq War has been a huge success and how the WMD were actually carted off to Syria before we could find them.
This has to be the best appointment Rudy's made since Thomas Ravenel (indicted for dealing coke) his South Carolina campaign chair and Sen. David Vitter (aka Sen. Wild Thang) his Southern Regional Chairman.
Hard to believe this is the same guy who made Bernie Kerik the top cop in New York City.
Hard to believe.
(ed.note: Should anyone wonder, I'm quite aware of the vaunted if arguably pernicious role Podhoretz played in the intellectual history of modern conservativsm. But anyone who holds those views and expresses them thusly is quite deservedly termed a crackpot.)
--Josh Marshall
Traditional Marriage
Ahhh, those were the days. Just a year ago, Sen. Vitter on the floor of the Senate extolling the virtues of 'traditional' marriage and the need to amend the constitution to defend it from scary homosexuals.
Seems he could have taken a few more practical steps to defend it.
--Josh Marshall
Behold the Print Function!
For years TPM Readers have been asking us to install a print function on the site. That way you don't have to waste a lot of paper printing out what may be as many as a few dozen posts. Well, now we have it. If you look right up there at the upper right of each post there's a little 'print' button. Push that and it brings up a print dialog box that will print just the text of the specific post. No ads, no extraneous formatting. Just the genuine TPM article, so to speak.
--Josh Marshall
Just for the record: Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) admission yesterday was a preemptive measure.
Update: Well, apparently not so much. Hustler Magazine says a reporter had found Vitter's number, and Vitter went to the AP to avoid the ignominy of being outed by Hustler.
--Paul Kiel
Welcome!
Welcome TPM Readers!
As you can see we're making a few changes at TPM. So let me take a moment to explain what we're doing and why. TPM started back in November 2000 as one little white text column on a field of navy blue. Since then it's slowly expanded outward with new content and features. But this is our biggest revamp to date.
The premise is simple. Over the last two years, TPM has evolved from a single blog to a network of sites with an increased focus on news and original reporting. With our new design we're expanding our commitment to original reporting while also complementing our own coverage with breaking news stories from the Associated Press and other wire services.
That brings us to a fundamental change in the design of the site. As we've grown and had more and more original reporting we wanted to bring to you, more and more posts on the TPM blog have been links to reports we've published at TPMmuckraker, Election Central and TPMCafe. That's made the blog not just a blog but also a portal to access the rest of our content. But while that's worked fine, it's not ideal. It makes it hard to see at a glance what's new at TPM and also changed the nature of the blog itself.
In our new design we've created a full news section that will keep you up to date through the day on our latest news stories. And if we don't have it, we'll have links to whoever does. Come to the site anytime during the day and we'll have the very latest news.
And of course right here I'll be blogging as usual -- and even getting back to the blogging I've somewhat gotten away from in the last couple years.
Update: For more details on the new design, check out today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Bit sleazy in the Big Easy.
Sen. Vitter's (R-LA) name shows up on DC Madame's phone list.
Tells public: "This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,”
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh Tony, Tony.
We enlisted Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to help us factcheck Tony Snow's performance today in the White House press briefing.
--Josh Marshall
Cheney's unpopularity heads for Dan Quayle territory as his favorability rating sinks to 13 percent, an all-time low in NYT polling. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
All your subpoena questions answered! Can the president stop his former aides from testifying before Congress? Those and other popular reader queries put to rest.
--Paul Kiel
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell concedes to his constituents that public opinion on Iraq matters -- sort of, anyway.
--Greg Sargent
The cost of our wars -- human and otherwise -- continues to mount.
A new report finds that the price tag for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has now jumped to an astounding $12 billion per month.
Late Update: Pelosi blasts Bush for jump in war cost, reiterates her demand that GOPers distancing themselves from Bush actually vote for legislation that would bring about withdrawal from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) says the real scandal is that investigators could "make something illegal" out of his activities.
And fittingly enough, Stevens hosted his big salmon tournament this weekend, where lobbyists and CEOs pay $4,000 or more a head to hook a salmon or a lawmaker.
--Paul Kiel
We'd like your input.
On Thursday, TPM reporter/blogger Spencer Ackerman is going to be sitting down for an interview with Said Tayeb Jawad, Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States.
We'll be bringing you the interview next week on TPMtv.
With all that's happened over the last six years, we've got no end of questions we want to ask. But we'd like your input too.
Let us know what question you'd like Spencer to ask the ambassador.
Get us your questions by the end of the day on Wednesday, send them to the comments email linked up on the upper right hand of the site and include the subject title "Afghan Ambassador."
--Josh Marshall
House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI) asks Bush to waive executive privilege for aides to tell Congress all about the Scooter Libby commutation. I wonder what the odds are in Vegas on the response.
--Paul Kiel
Mitt Romney has a little fun badly distorting some recent Hillary remarks in order to claim she's a Marxist.
--Greg Sargent
With Act II of the Democratic Congress' efforts to end the Iraq War set to begin in earnest today, all the various legislative measures Dems are planning can seem bewilderingly complex.
So Spencer Ackerman has drawn up a handy guide to all the Dem initiatives being considered. Check it out.
--Greg Sargent
White House makes it official: executive privilege invoked on any White House aides testifying in US Attorney scandal.
Must be pretty juicy stuff.
Update: Some highlights from the White House's letter, which asks the Democrats to be nicer.
--Josh Marshall
In today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv, we look at what Patrick Fitzgerald said and then how it got spun by the professional spinners ...
--Ben Craw
Cindy Sheehan to run against Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't move to impeach Bush in next two weeks. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Libby, the U.S. attorney firings, warrantless wiretapping... a Justice Department lawyer tells why "I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time."
--Paul Kiel
White House officials debating whether to announce "intention" to begin withdrawal from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
I'm not usually one for wanting to see people hauled off to the slammer for refusing to do this or that. But please, please haul Sara Taylor off to the slammer.
Taylor, you may know, is the former White House political director. She has been subpoenaed to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. And she claims she's quite willing to do so as she's done nothing wrong. But the White House is urging her to ignore the subpoena. And since, in the words of Taylor's lawyer, the president is "a person whom [Taylor] admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years", she doesn't want to testify and thinks she shouldn't have to.
Pleading the fifth is on the books. Various privileges, though most are bogus, can be asserted and litigated. But being a member of the Bush personality cult just isn't a reason to refuse to testify.
Not yet at least.
--Josh Marshall
We were just putting together our weekly Sunday show round-up which will post first thing tomorrow morning. But there was one comment so transcendently stupid we decided it deserved its own special clip.
Here's Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), one-time boss of David Safavian, explaining that throwing the book at Scooter Libby has helped heal the nation of the damage caused when Bill Clinton wasn't prosecuted for perjury and obstruction ...
--Josh Marshall
Reid will press for an Iraq exit
For all the talk from Republican senators about their willingness to embrace a significant change in war policy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to give them a chance to put their votes where their mouths are.
Reid acknowledged that Senate Dems "haven't done enough" to oppose the president's policy, but appears anxious to correct the caucus' shortcomings.
Sensing momentum from the new Republican defections, Mr. Reid and other leading Democrats intend to force a series of votes over the next two weeks on proposals to withdraw troops and limit spending. Democrats are increasingly confident they can assemble majority opposition to administration policies. [...]
In the first round of debates about the war, there was Democratic anxiety about appearing unsupportive of the troops, and Mr. Reid sought to keep a tighter rein on his colleagues who were pushing for the strongest antiwar legislation. But in the shifting environment, Democrats are newly emboldened.
Mr. Reid said he now saw ending the war as a moral duty, and even if the Senate again falls short, he said, he would turn again and again to Iraq until either the president relents or enough Republicans join Democrats to overrule Mr. Bush.
"I think that each time these people vote to continue what's going on in Iraq it is a bad, bad move for them and a worse move for our country," Mr. Reid said.
The NYT article notes the fragility of the Democratic majority on Iraq. Reid starts with a 51-seat majority, which drops to 50 with Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) health trouble, and drops again to 49 with Joe Lieberman's tendency to be, well, Joe Lieberman.
But Reid seems to believe the wind's at his back, and with Republicans anxious to distance themselves from failure, there's a growing optimism that Defense appropriations will be a turning point.
We'll see. Gamblers are yet to lose money betting on Republican lawmakers sticking with the Bush White House, no matter how ridiculous it appears. But with Reid perceiving this struggle, apparently for the first time, as a moral imperative, the conditions seem encouraging.
In May, the party capitulated when push came to shove. At a minimum, the caucus appears a lot less likely back down now.
--Steve Benen
File under a bit late in the day, but still interesting to know. And I'd like to know what Bush told him in response ...
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
--Josh Marshall
Seeing al Qaeda around every corner
Oddly enough, the president used to be fairly responsible when describing al Qaeda's role in Iraqi violence. Not too terribly long ago, Bush described "the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda" -- not even the network itself -- as the "smallest" component of violence in Iraq.
As the political winds shifted, so too did the administration's rhetoric. In May, Bush declared that al Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." A few days ago, he reiterated the point at the Naval War College, describing al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq.
The point is as subtle as a sledgehammer. If the administration can transform al Qaeda from a minor player in Iraq to the sole purpose for our ongoing presence, simply through rhetorical games, Bush might reframe the debate: us vs. them. Americans against those responsible for 9/11. Forces of freedom vs. forces of terrorism.
I understand the appeal of such a dynamic -- it would make the war in Iraq so much easier -- but it's simply, unquestionably wrong. Worse, it's a shamelessly cynical ploy to rally public support under false pretenses. Americans don't support U.S. staying in the middle of a civil war, but maybe, the White House thinks, Americans will support a war against al Qaeda. It's a transparent con job.
Glenn Greenwald recently had an excellent item explaining that several major media outlets, most notably the New York Times, have been buying into the administration's rhetorical shift. Today, to his enormous credit, the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, tackled the subject head on a terrific column.
[I]n using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn't even exist until after the American invasion. [...]
I went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today's Iraq.... But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes "great pride in the whole of our coverage" but acknowledged that the paper had used "excessive shorthand" when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. "We've been sloppy," she said. [...]
On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
It's a good move. I'd have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration's drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.
Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.
There's certainly no guarantee that the White House will stop playing cynical rhetorical games just because they got caught -- they are a shameless bunch -- but items like Hoyt's help set the record straight. With a little luck, they might even help improve reporting on the war and discourage the Bush gang from playing the electorate for fools.
--Steve Benen
Maliki no-confidence
During an interview this morning on "Meet the Press," David Gregory interviewed Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) about the war, and noted the political dynamic surrounding the Maliki government.
"Seventy-four members of parliament have boycotted, as you say, the 275-member body. There's 12 ministers from the 38-member Cabinet no longer attending Cabinet meetings. There was an oil revenue law where they would share between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that was passed but without Sunni participation, which renders it virtually meaningless, and the agreement on the oil revenue part has still not been struck. So this is that fundamental question for the government of Nouri al-Maliki: Can he actually govern a unity government?"
The answer is increasingly clear.
For four years, Iraqis have been waiting in lines at gas stations in Baghdad, waiting for their lives to get better. But, as CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports, the situation has gotten worse and their government is now in crisis.
That has led senior Iraqi leaders to demand drastic change. CBS News has learned that on July 15, they plan to ask for a no-confidence vote in the Iraqi parliament as the first step to bringing down the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Even those closest to the Iraqi prime minister, from his own party, admit the political situation is desperate.
"I feel there is no strategy, so the people become hopeless," said Faliy al Fayadh, an MP from the Dawa Party. "You can live without petrol, without electricity, but you can't live without hope."
The Bush administration's security goals aren't being met, its political goals aren't being met, and now the president's team is left scrambling for "alternative evidence of progress" -- in lieu of, say, actual evidence of progress -- while the Maliki government falls apart at the seams.
No wonder Colin Powell is now, five years later, arguing that he tried to stop this calamity before it started.
--Steve Benen
Why Bush Gave Scooter Libby a Pass
One of the curious ambiguities of the Libby commutation controversy is what role Dick Cheney played in the process. As the recent Washington Post series made clear, not much happens in this White House without the VP's direct involvement (i.e., dictation), but what did Cheney do to keep his former chief of staff out of jail?
The Bush gang has been more than a little cagey about the details, which generally hints at the answer. The Post reported this week, "An unanswered question last night was Vice President Cheney's role in advocating leniency for his former chief of staff and alter ego."
Reporters tried to get a few more details out of Tony Snow on Tuesday, but came up short. At one point, Snow told the press corps, "I'm sure that the vice president may have expressed an opinion," but added shortly thereafter, "[Cheney] may have recused himself."
Michael Isikoff sheds some light on the subject, noting the internal deliberations.
The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was "very disappointed" with the jury's verdict. Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."
Well, we certainly can't have that, now can we? (Bush may not have had a "choice"? It's good to know who's in charge in the West Wing.)
Isikoff also added an interesting detail I hadn't heard before: Bush asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to help determine whether Libby's jury made the right call. Far from respecting the verdict, as the White House has been emphasizing all week, the president hoped to find that the jurors came to an unreasonable conclusion, which in turn would make it easier for Bush to intervene.
Fielding came up empty. As Isikoff explained it, he "reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak."
In other words, the president learned just how guilty Libby really was, but commuted the sentence anyway because he "hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time."
Well, that and the fact that Libby still had plenty of damaging information about Bush and Cheney that they needed to keep under wraps.
--Steve Benen
Calling Fitzgerald to testify?
Can the Senate hear testimony from Patrick Fitzgerald? Chuck Schumer broached the subject this morning on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Schumer: One thing, and I've spoken to [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat] Leahy about this, that we're thinking about doing is calling Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, before us.
You know, he's not allowed to talk about what happened before the grand jury, but he did interview the president and the vice president, not before a grand jury, and [Fitzgerald] might have some very interesting things to say.
He issued a rare statement after the commutation that was very harsh in condemning it -- and with good reason. [...]
CBS: When would you like to see Mr. Fitzgerald come to Capitol Hill?
Schumer: Well, you know, this would be Sen. Leahy's call, but I talked to him about it yesterday and he seemed inclined to do it. It would be very interesting and we'd like to hear what he has to say. Obviously he can't talk about anything that occurred in the grand jury, but there's a lot else that he might be able to tell us. Because obviously, with the commutation of Libby, and with no one else meeting a criminal standard, but still something terrible being done in the name of an agent being leaked...we sure want to get more answers.
Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
Blocking Taylor
In light of the letter from Sara Taylor's lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Atrios asks a question I've been mulling over myself.
What possible authority does the White House have to try to prevent a former employee from testifying about something? How can they White House "not let her" testify?
Obviously if she doesn't want to testify they can play legal games to try to prevent her from being compelled to testify, but she's said she's willing. How can they stop her?
I suppose the natural White House response is that Bush is concerned about the ability of presidents to get unvarnished advice from his aides, and if a president's team has to worry about discussing internal Oval Office deliberations, aides might hold back. Or something. It's never been entirely clear to me.
But with Taylor, the argument is not only flawed for the reasons Atrios explained, but also because it defies the White House's own defense: the president, the Bush gang says, was not integrally involved with the U.S. Attorney purge. There were no internal Oval Office deliberations, because Bush was out of the loop, according to the White House line.
This makes the tack on Taylor even more confusing. The White House is effectively claiming that a former aide, who no longer works for the administration and is willing to testify, can't talk about conversations with the president she didn't have.
I'd only add that there also seems to be some confusion about what, exactly, the White House is telling Taylor and her lawyer. The AP reported today that the administration is "urging" Taylor to ignore a subpoena. The letter from Taylor's lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, explains that the White House Counsel's office is "directing her not to comply." The letter goes on to say that Taylor would "testify without hesitation," were it not for the White House's "direction."
The difference is not just semantics. The AP piece suggests the White House simply prefers that Taylor ignore a congressional subpoena. The letter from Taylor's lawyer explains that the White House has effectively given her an order not to cooperate.
--Steve Benen
Election Central Sunday Roundup
John Edwards may be falling behind in the race for campaign cash, but he's encouraging supporters to remember Howard Dean's fate in the 2004 race, despite his fundraising prowess. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Here we go. White House to say "no no no no" to all coming Congressional subpoena deadlines from the U.S. attorney firings investigation.
--Paul Kiel
York on Libby
When the president commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, the conventional wisdom told us that the White House was anxious to score a few points with the far-right GOP base, which has slowly distanced itself from Bush over the last several months.
Byron York suggests today the commutation, if it was a political ploy, didn't work.
Bush came up with a cramped, limited statement, commuting Libby's jail term while keeping (at least for now) his conviction, a $250,000 fine that he has already paid and two years of probation. One didn't have to read too far between the lines to guess that the president believes Libby to be guilty of perjury; just for good measure, Bush threw in some good words for Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The problem, the president said, wasn't that Fitzgerald had gone on a three-year fishing expedition that netted only Libby, or that the Iraq war's foes were using the CIA leak case to rehash their grievances against the original decision to invade; rather, the problem was simply that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's sentence was "excessive."
For many conservatives, it was exactly the wrong way to approach the problem. [...]
In other words, if Bush had pardoned Libby because the CIA leak probe never should have happened, fine. But don't play judge, Mr. President -- that's not your branch.
This is consistent with what we've been hearing most of the week. Bob Novak reported a couple of days ago that other than Libby, "hardly anybody else is all that happy" with Bush's decision.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page was in rare form this week, calling the commutation "a profile in non-courage."
Frankly, I think the talk about Bush's concern for the base is probably overwrought. The president wasn't trying to impress deserting Republican activists; he was abusing his power to "shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was."
Nevertheless, York's piece does speak to a broader truth: even the president's far-right flank is suffering from acute "Bush fatigue."
--Steve Benen
NYT editorial
It took a long while, but the New York Times editorial board has seen enough of the war in Iraq to know that it is now "time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." The paper of record makes the case in a lengthy, 1,700-word mega-editorial in today's edition.
The Times' editors acknowledge that they have, like many Americans, "put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward." But the editorial board isn't waiting anymore.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened -- the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.
This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage -- with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.
Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell argues that the Times' piece "may one day be viewed as a historic editorial." Noting that a handful of major dailies reached the same conclusion sooner, Mitchell adds that the Times' detailed argument comes at "a critical moment," which the paper may influence with "its considerable weight."
We'll see. I'm skeptical that any editorial can have a sweeping an impact on a debate of this magnitude, but the Times' piece is both comprehensive and compelling. Take a look.
--Steve Benen
